Writ Law - Goods and Services Tax - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 74 - Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 - Rule 142 - Refund of tax deposited during search - Petitioner partnership firm subjected to search and seizure proceedings under Section 67(2) at business and residential premises - Petitioner compelled to deposit Rs 2 35 23 506 through Form GST DRC-03 during course of search towards alleged wrongful ITC availment without issuance of show cause notice or demand - Petitioner subsequently protested via letters stating payment was made under pressure and statements were not in sound mind - Respondents contended payment was voluntary self-ascertainment under Section 74(5) to limit penalty - Court observed payment during search cannot be presumed voluntary especially when records and devices were under control of authorities - No prior independent determination or quantification of liability by petitioner established - Failure to issue acknowledgement in Form GST DRC-04 as per Rule 142(2) weakened respondents case - Non-adherence to CBIC Instruction No 01/2022-23 and Bhumi Associate guidelines requiring voluntary payments to be made after conclusion of search proceedings and after officers leave premises - Held - Retention of amount not sustained as payment was not voluntary - Refund ordered within eight weeks - [Paras 1-22].

Writ Law - Interest on Refund - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 50 - Petitioner sought refund of tax with 12 percent interest - Court found payment was coerced and ordered refund - However investigation regarding wrongful availment of ITC not yet final - No final determination of tax liability made by competent authority - Entitlement to interest depends on outcome of final adjudication - Held - Court declined to grant interest at this stage while keeping all rights and contentions of parties regarding liability open - [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Respondents directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,35,23,506/- within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of order – Prayer for interest declined at this stage – Respondents free to proceed with assessment and adjudication in accordance with the law.

Criminal Law - Quashment of Charge Sheet - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 120-B 167 409 and 420 - Petitioner serving as Deputy Block Development Officer challenged criminal proceedings arraying him as A1 for allegedly facilitating wrongful disbursement of housing funds to ineligible persons - Prosecution alleged failure to verify credentials before uploading data to the Awass Soft portal - Petitioner established that his role was purely clerical and confined to uploading data for 742 beneficiaries within a span of three days under extreme work pressure - Evidence showed that the ineligible beneficiaries had identical or strikingly similar names to the eligible ones leading to a bona fide mistake - Court observed that senior officials who admitted to monitoring lapses in their Section 161 statements were made witnesses rather than accused - Held - Mere clerical error or negligence under heavy workload without proof of illegal motive or direct nexus with beneficiaries does not constitute criminal misconduct - Criminal proceedings quashed - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Mens Rea - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 409 and 420 - Criminal Misconduct - Wrongful disbursement of government funds - Liability of data entry officials - Petitioner processed documents for 742 housing scheme beneficiaries as per a time-bound departmental circular - Disbursement was made to persons with names similar to actual eligible candidates - Funds were subsequently repaid by the ineligible beneficiaries to the State exchequer - Held - In the absence of evidence establishing malicious intention or unlawful gain the alleged lapse at most amounts to dereliction of duty and does not satisfy the requirements of criminal offences under the IPC or PC Act - [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Charge sheet in Spl. C. No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge for P.C. Act Cases Tiruvannamalai is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

Civil Law - Land Ownership Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Suit for declaration of ownership and permanent prohibitory injunction - Plaintiff asserted status as a tenant inducted by co-owners (Defendants 4 and 5) on payment of rent who subsequently became owner under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act - Contesting Defendants 1 to 3 claimed ownership through their predecessor Vidya Parkash who allegedly purchased the land via oral sale in 1963 and developed an orchard - Trial Court dismissed the suit finding rent receipts produced by plaintiff were forged and revenue entries in favor of Vidya Parkash carried presumption of correctness - First Appellate Court reversed the trial court decree relying on an unproved affidavit of Defendant 5 admitting plaintiff's tenancy and a Local Commissioner's report from a separate contempt proceeding - High Court found that the First Appellate Court misappreciated evidence and ignored the perversity in relying on unexamined hearsay statements and procedurally flawed revenue entry changes - Held - The First Appellate Court's findings were perverse and unsustainable as it ignored material evidence regarding the defendants' possession and title - Judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside and Trial Court's dismissal of the suit restored - [Paras 1-54].

Civil Law - Scope of Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Interference with findings of fact - High Court's power to interfere with concurrent or reversed findings of fact is restricted to cases involving substantial questions of law - Interference is warranted only when findings are based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or ignore material evidence or are so outrageously defying logic as to be perverse - Held - Finding of fact however erroneous cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless it suffers from perversity - If the First Appellate Court's conclusion is based on inadmissible evidence or misconstruction of documents it constitutes a substantial question of law - [Paras 15-22].

Evidence Law - Admissions - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 17, 18, 21 and 58 - Admission by co-defendant - Effect on contesting parties - Defendant No. 5 filed an affidavit admitting plaintiff's tenancy but was never examined in court - First Appellate Court treated this as a conclusive admission against contesting defendants 1 to 3 - Held - Admission by one defendant does not bind other defendants especially when they have an independent interest and the maker of the admission was not subjected to cross-examination - An admission is only the best evidence if it is clear and unambiguous and not successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous - [Paras 23-31].

Civil Law - Revenue Entries - Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual - Procedure for change of entries - Presumption of correctness - Revenue entries recording defendants' predecessor as owner were changed to reflect plaintiff's name without notice or following mandatory procedure under the Land Records Manual - Held - Presumption of truth attaches to revenue entries but it is rebuttable - Changes made in violation of mandatory instructions requiring notice to affected parties and attestation by local officials are null and void - Subsequent entries made without authority do not have legal force - [Paras 32-40].

Evidence Law - Local Commissioner Report - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 26 Rule 10 - Admissibility of report from different proceedings - First Appellate Court relied on a Local Commissioner's report filed in a contempt petition to establish plaintiff's possession - Held - While a commissioner's report is admissible in evidence under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC it cannot be made the sole basis for a judgment in total disregard of other evidence on record - Probative value of a report where the commissioner was not examined or appointed in the specific suit is weak - [Paras 43-46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court judgment dismissing the suit restored.

Criminal Law - Bail for Juvenile - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Sections 12 and 103(1) BNS - Appellant a child in conflict with law (CCL) accused of murder - Bail rejected by Children Court on grounds of criminal antecedents and lack of guardianship - Appellant's name transpired in confessional statement of co-accused - Identified in CCTV footage - Social Investigation Report (SIR) indicated association with criminal gangs and addiction to intoxicants - Parents residing in Jharkhand leaving CCL without local guardianship in Bihar - High Court analyzed Section 12 JJ Act observing that bail is a rule and refusal an exception based only on three specific statutory grounds - Held - Considering the lack of conducive family environment and the CCL's need for reformation and protection from criminal associations - his continued detention in Safety Home is in his best interest for reformatory measures - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Statutory Interpretation of Bail Provisions - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Section 12 - Mandatory Release - High Court clarified that gravity of offence or age of juvenile are not relevant considerations for denial of bail under the J.J. Act - Section 12 overrides general criminal procedure and remains applicable even if a juvenile is being tried as an adult - Bail can only be denied if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the person into association with known criminals or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice - Held - The phrase "ends of justice" must be interpreted in the context of child welfare and rehabilitation rather than the punitive standards of general criminal jurisprudence - [Paras 7-16].

Criminal Law - Social Investigation Report and Reformative Principles - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Sections 3 and 15(2) - Role of SIR - SIR is a mandatory document used to assess the socio-economic conditions and reformative needs of the CCL - Principle of institutionalization as a last resort dictates that children should ideally be reunited with families - However the primary responsibility of care belongs to the biological family - Held - Where the family environment is absent or non-conducive as in the present case where parents live in another state and CCL is an addict in bad company - the Safety Home serves the protective and rehabilitatory purpose of the Act - [Paras 17-25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial expedited with direction to the Children Court to conclude the proceedings preferably within nine months.

Writ Law - Scheduled Castes Inclusion - Constitution of India - Article 341 - Mandatory Procedure - Petitioner filed writ seeking inclusion of Mallah and Majhwar communities in the Scheduled Caste list - Argued that Nishad-Kashyap-Kewat-Mallah and Bind are synonyms or generic names of the caste Majhwar which is notified at Entry 52 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 - Relied on Census Manual 1961 and a State notification dated 10.10.2005 - Respondents raised preliminary objection that inclusion in the list amounts to legislative enactment permissible only by Parliament under Article 341 - Court noted that the 2005 notification relied upon was rescinded in 2007 and the communities in question are recognized as Other Backward Classes (OBC) in Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Act of 1994 - Detailed analysis of Constitution Bench precedents in Milind and Basavalingappa cases - Held - Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution empower only the Parliament to include or exclude any caste or tribe from the Presidential Orders - It is not permissible for State Governments or Courts to hold inquiries or lead evidence to declare any caste as a synonym or sub-caste of a notified entry if not specifically mentioned in the Order - Presidential Orders must be read as they stand and cannot be modified except by law made by Parliament - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-36].

Constitutional Law - Presidential Orders - Constitution of India - Articles 341 and 342 - Scope of Judicial Review - Petitioner sought to mould relief to treat certain communities as synonyms of an existing Scheduled Caste entry - Contended that sub-classification is permissible per Davinder Singh case - Court found the argument misconceived - Distinction drawn between sub-classification for benefit distribution among notified castes and the initial recognition of a caste as a Scheduled Caste - Held - Recognition of a caste as Scheduled Caste is governed strictly by Article 341 - No inquiry is permissible to include a group in a general name if not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Presidential Order - [Paras 13-34].

Writ Law - Conduct of Petitioner - Suppression of Material Facts - Petitioner relied on State notification dated 10.10.2005 to claim Scheduled Caste status - Notification was rescinded by State Government on 04.07.2007 - Writ petition was filed in 2012 without disclosing the rescission - Held - Conduct of the petitioner in filing the petition on the strength of a rescinded notification without disclosure cannot be appreciated - [Para 27].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 29 - Allied and Cognate Goods - Plaintiff sought interim injunction against Defendants for using the mark GODFATHER as part of a composite mark for whisky - Plaintiff established prior use and registration of arbitrary mark GODFATHER for beer in Class 32 since 1984 and for alcoholic beverages in Class 33 since 2005 - Defendants argued that beer and whisky are distinct products with different price points - alcohol content - and consumption patterns - Court observed that both products are alcoholic beverages sold through common trade channels and retail outlets under the same regulatory excise regime in India - Held - Beer and whisky are allied and cognate products - The price variation and target consumer profile are not the metrics to decide similarity of goods when trade channels and nature are common - Prime facie case for infringement made out - [Paras 16-18 and 23-26].

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 28 - Rights of Registered Proprietor - Defendants alleged non-use of the mark by Plaintiff for whisky since 2013 - Court clarified that registration under Section 18 confers exclusive statutory rights under Section 28 irrespective of whether the mark is used in the ordinary course - Held - Non-use of a registered trademark does not ipso facto deprive a proprietor of the right to sue for infringement - Registration remains valid and enforceable until rectified or cancelled in accordance with law - [Paras 10-15].

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 29 - Anti-dissection Rule and Dominant Feature Test - Defendants contended that their mark is composite and must be viewed as a whole including the personality name Sanjay Dutt and the brand The Glenwalk - Court found that GODFATHER remained the prominent and essential element of the Defendants mark which catches the eye of the general consumer - Held - Principle of anti-dissection does not apply when the essential element of a registered word mark is available in the composite mark - Deceptive similarity is established when the dominant part of the mark is identical to the registered mark - [Paras 19-22 and 27-30].

Civil Law - Passing Off - Goodwill and Reputation - Plaintiff demonstrated sales turnover of Rs 746 crores and decades of use - Court found that the mark GODFATHER is exclusively associated with the Plaintiff - Held - Defendants use of the same mark for whisky would cause an average consumer to believe the product emanates from the Plaintiff - Defendants attempted to ride on the coattails of Plaintiffs goodwill - Balance of convenience in favor of Plaintiff - [Paras 6.12 and 30-32].

Decision: Application allowed – Defendants and their associates restrained from manufacturing - bottling - selling - or advertising whisky under the mark GODFATHER or GODFATHER S or any deceptively similar mark during the pendency of the suit – Defendants directed to take down all online listings and advertisements bearing the infringing mark.

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 29 - Plaintiff registered proprietor of mark GODFATHER for beer since 1980s and Class 33 beverages since 2005 - Defendant sought to launch whisky under mark THE GLENWALK GODFATHER'S BY SANJAY DUTT - Defendant argued marks are composite and visually dissimilar and products differ significantly in price and target audience - Court found GODFATHER to be an arbitrary and well-known mark with immense goodwill exceeding Rs 746 crores - Held - prominent and dominant feature of Defendant mark is identical to Plaintiff registered word mark - mere price variation from Rs 100 to Rs 1750 does not negate likelihood of confusion among general consumers regarding source association - ingredients of Section 29(4) met as use by Defendant would unfairly ride on Plaintiff reputation - interim injunction granted - [Paras 1-33].

Civil Law - Statutory Rights of Registered Proprietor - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Sections 18 and 28 - Defendant alleged non-use by Plaintiff for Class 33 goods - Court observed that registration under Section 18 confers exclusive rights under Section 28 to use the mark and seek relief for infringement - Held - non-use of a registered trademark does not ipso facto disentitle a proprietor from enforcing rights against third-party infringement - registration remains valid and enforceable until rectified or cancelled through legal process - [Paras 10-15].

Civil Law - Allied and Cognate Goods - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 29 - Determining whether beer (Class 32) and whisky (Class 33) are allied products - Court applied the commercial reality test - Both products are intoxicants sold through common trade channels such as retail shops and bars under a common regulatory excise framework - Held - perception of consumer is not the sole metric - kind and intended use of products establish them as allied and cognate goods - [Paras 16-18].

Civil Law - Anti-dissection Rule vs Dominant Feature Test - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 29 - Defendant claimed mark was composite and should be viewed as a whole - Court noted Plaintiff mark is a word mark - Defendant used GODFATHER as a prominent element despite adding THE GLENWALK and BY SANJAY DUTT - Held - if an essential element of a registered word mark is adopted in a composite mark the anti-dissection rule does not apply - the dominant part retains the essential characteristics and leads to deceptive similarity - [Paras 19-24].

Decision: Application allowed – Defendants restrained from manufacturing or selling whisky under the mark GODFATHER or GODFATHER’S or any deceptively similar mark during pendency of suit – Defendants directed to take down all related online content and listings forthwith.

Civil Law - Matrimonial Property - Special Marriage Act 1954 - Section 27 - Recovery of money and car repair expenses - Appellant husband challenged the decree of the Family Court allowing the wife recovery of three distinct sums - claims involved car repair costs of Rs 12566 proceeds from premature closure of a recurring deposit of Rs 50000 and bank transfers totaling Rs 344367 - High Court observed that the husband admitted using the car and failed to dispute the repair claims during cross examination - regarding the recurring deposit closure the wife provided a specific narration of coercion supported by bank statements while the husband made only an evasive denial - Held - trial court findings on car repairs and recurring deposit proceeds were based on evidence and probability and required no interference - [Paras 1-9].

Civil Law - Gratuitous Transactions - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 70 - Bank transfers between spouses - Recovery of funds transferred via bank account - Wife sought recovery of Rs 344367 transferred to the husband alleging coercion and ill treatment - High Court examined the bank statement Ext A5 containing transaction descriptions such as MB FOR MY HERO gift and monthly expenses - court analyzed the frequency and nature of these transactions - Held - transaction descriptions render allegations of coercion highly improbable - payments indicate a gratuitous exchange between spouses in the ordinary course of their matrimonial relationship rather than an entrustment for a specific purpose - principle of recovery under Section 70 cannot be invoked for gratuitous marital transfers - decree for recovery of bank transfers set aside - [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Impugned decree modified by setting aside the direction for recovery of Rs 3,44,367 from the appellant – Directions regarding recovery of car repair costs and recurring deposit proceeds affirmed.

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 307 and 325 - Conviction for attempt to murder - Land dispute between cousin brothers led to a verbal altercation regarding collection of firewood - Appellant allegedly assaulted victim with a chopper causing a nasal bone fracture - Trial Court convicted Appellant under Section 307 while acquitting co-accused of common intention - High Court found no evidence of premeditated intent to commit murder - Weapon used was an agricultural tool common in rural settings - Prosecution failed to establish that Appellant had knowledge or intention that the act would cause death - Injury sustained was a nasal bone fracture categorized as grievous hurt under Section 320 - Held - Offence altered from Section 307 to Section 325 IPC - Sentence modified to period of imprisonment already undergone with enhanced fine amount - [Paras 1-33].

Criminal Law - Intention to Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 307 - Determination of mens rea - Intention to cause death must be established independently of the actus reus - Factors such as type of weapon - words spoken - motive - and part of body targeted are relevant - Present incident was a sudden quarrel among relatives without prior preparation - Held - Intention to commit murder cannot be attributed to the Appellant alone especially when co-accused were acquitted of common intention - [Paras 14-20].

Criminal Law - Sentencing Policy - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 428 - Set-off of pre-trial detention - Appellant had undergone 106 days of custody - Litigation spanned several years and parties were relatives - Court emphasized that while jail sentence is mandatory under Section 325 the period already served can be considered sufficient - Held - Sentence reduced to period already undergone - Fine increased to Rs 75,000 to provide compensation of Rs 70,000 to the victim - [Paras 25-33].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction modified from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC – Sentence reduced to the period of 106 days already undergone – Fine of Rs. 75,000 imposed with a direction to pay Rs. 70,000 as compensation to the injured victim.