Service Law – Promotion During Punishment Period – Eligibility Criteria – The respondent was awarded a penalty of stoppage of two increments for 30 months ending on 16.12.2017—The appellant bank reverted his promotion on the ground that he was ineligible on the date of initial promotion (14.08.2017)—Held: While an employee cannot be promoted during the currency of a penalty, once the penalty period ends, he is entitled to fresh consideration—The Promotion Committee must reassess his case based on his record as of 17.12.2017—Bank’s action of denying him promotion thereafter was unjustified—Single Judge’s order modified [Paras 25-27].

Promotion Policy – Prospective Application of New Rules – Applicability to Past Cases – The appellant relied on its 2018-19 Promotion Policy, which set 1st April as the cut-off date for eligibility—Held: The said policy was introduced prospectively and was inapplicable to promotions for 2017-18—The eligibility for promotions prior to 2018-19 must be assessed under the policy applicable at that time—Single Judge correctly held that the respondent should have been considered post 17.12.2017 [Paras 22-23].

Sexual Harassment Inquiry – Impact on Promotion – Validity of Reversion – The respondent was penalized based on a sexual harassment inquiry before the merger of his bank with SBI—After promotion, he was reverted on the ground that his punishment period was still active—Held: Though punishment bars promotion during its subsistence, a fresh consideration after its expiry was necessary—The bank’s decision to disregard the respondent’s promotion eligibility for subsequent years was arbitrary and violative of service rules [Paras 4-6, 27].

Judicial Interference in Promotion Matters – Scope of Court’s Power – Courts should not directly grant promotions but can direct reconsideration—Held: The High Court erred in granting promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017—Instead, the bank must now assess the respondent’s case for promotion from that date, ignoring the expired penalty—Promotion, if granted, will carry only notional benefits without arrears [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Impugned order modified – The respondent's promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017 is set aside – The appellant bank directed to reconsider his case for promotion from that date, ignoring the penalty – If found fit, promotion shall be granted with notional pay fixation but no arrears – Compliance to be ensured within three months – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 29-31].

Trademark Infringement – No Deceptive Similarity – "BundlePe" & "LatePe" Not Confusingly Similar to "PhonePe" – Plaintiff alleged that defendants' marks "BundlePe" & "LatePe" were deceptively similar to "PhonePe" and likely to confuse consumers – Held: The word "Pe" is not inherently distinctive and is commonly used in digital payments – Defendants' marks contain distinct prefixes, making them visually and phonetically different – No likelihood of consumer confusion – No infringement established [Paras 13-14].

Passing Off – Lack of Consumer Confusion – No Misrepresentation – Plaintiff claimed that defendants were misrepresenting their services as being associated with PhonePe – Held: Defendants' services differ from plaintiff’s – No substantial evidence of actual consumer confusion – Mere phonetic similarity of "Pe" does not constitute passing off – Claim rejected [Paras 15].

Trademark Dilution – No Evidence of Harm – Common Use of "Pe" in Industry – Plaintiff contended that the use of "Pe" in "BundlePe" & "LatePe" diluted the distinctiveness of "PhonePe" – Held: "Pe" is commonly used in the fintech industry (e.g., Google Pay, Paytm) – No exclusive rights over the word "Pe" – No proof that defendants' use of "Pe" weakened the plaintiff’s brand identity – No dilution established [Paras 21].

Domain Name Dispute – No Consumer Confusion – No Injunction Granted – Plaintiff sought injunction against defendants from using "bundlepe.com" & "latepe.in" – Held: The domain names contain distinct prefixes differentiating them from "PhonePe" – No substantial evidence of consumer confusion or damage – No injunction granted [Paras 18].

Well-Known Trademark – "PhonePe" Not Recognized as a Well-Known Mark – Plaintiff sought declaration of "PhonePe" as a well-known trademark under Section 2(zg) & Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act – Held: Common use of "Pe" in the digital payment industry diminishes its exclusivity – "PhonePe" does not meet the threshold for well-known status – Claim rejected [Para 20].

Jurisdiction – Suit Maintainable in Madras High Court – Defendants challenged jurisdiction, arguing lack of cause of action in Chennai – Held: Plaintiff has a branch office in Chennai – Defendants’ services accessible in Chennai via digital platforms – Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act permits jurisdiction where plaintiff carries on business – Suit maintainable [Para 12].

Use of "Pe" – No Exclusive Right Over a Generic Term – No Infringement – Plaintiff argued that "Pe" was an essential part of its brand identity – Held: "Pe" is a transliteration of "Pay" in Hindi and is commonly used – Rule 28 of the Trade Marks Rules allows transliteration between Hindi & English – No exclusive monopoly over "Pe" – Defendants’ use does not infringe plaintiff’s rights [Para 22].

Damages & Account of Profits – No Proven Financial Loss – Claims Rejected – Plaintiff sought ₹10,00,000 as damages and an account of profits – Held: No evidence of financial loss or unjust enrichment by defendants – No trademark infringement or passing off established – No damages or accounting ordered [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Plaintiff failed to establish trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, or consumer confusion – No injunction granted – No damages awarded – Plaintiff not entitled to reliefs sought.
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Single Fatal Blow – Applicability of Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC – Held: Intentional infliction of a fatal blow aimed at a vital part of the body establishes intention to cause death – Use of dangerous weapon (iron rod) and absence of provocation confirmed premeditated intention – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law – Evidence – Sole Testimony of Related Witness – Reliability – Held: Testimony of PW9, the deceased’s daughter-in-law, was consistent, natural, and credible – Relationship with the deceased does not render her testimony unreliable when supported by circumstances – Conviction can be based solely on such reliable testimony [Paras 15-22].

Criminal Law – Hostile Witnesses – Partial Reliability – Held: Testimony of hostile witnesses PW2 and PW3 partially relied upon to establish motive – Courts are not bound to discard entire testimony of hostile witnesses but may accept parts that inspire confidence [Paras 21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment for Murder – Proportionality – Held: The sentence of life imprisonment for murder and rigorous imprisonment for trespass is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the offences – No leniency warranted [Paras 28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 447 IPC upheld.
 

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech and Assembly – Article 19 – Right to Hold Public Meetings – Held: The right to hold public meetings and rallies is integral to a democracy and is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions – Petitioners granted permission to hold the assembly with conditions to ensure public order and minimize inconvenience.

Administrative Law – Discretionary Powers of Police – Refusal of Permission for Public Meeting – Held: Police discretion must be exercised reasonably and proportionately – Past incidents of violence cannot indefinitely deprive a political party of its constitutional rights – Permission granted with safeguards against potential public disturbances.

Public Order and Fundamental Rights – Balancing Conflicting Interests – Held: Public ways and spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely, but peaceful assemblies at designated locations must be facilitated to maintain the democratic ethos – Petitioners directed to follow strict conditions, including limiting attendance and parking arrangements, to balance rights and public order.

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Permission granted for a meeting at Shahid Minar Maidan with conditions – Petitioners and police authorities instructed to ensure compliance and maintain public order – No order as to costs.
 

Criminal Law - Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Consent and Misconception of Fact – The appellant was accused of sexual intercourse with the complainant on the false promise of marriage. The relationship lasted six years, and the complaint was lodged 25 months after the alleged incident. The court found that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant, being a mature adult, was aware of the consequences of her actions. There was no evidence of a false promise at the inception of the relationship. – Held: Conviction under Sections 376 r/w 90 IPC and 417 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted. [Paras 9-14]

Delay in Filing Complaint – Impact on Credibility – The court noted that the complaint was lodged 25 months after the alleged incidents, with no explanation for the delay. While delay alone cannot discredit a complaint, in this case, it assumed significance, especially given the consensual nature of the relationship. – Held: Delay undermined the prosecution’s case. [Paras 9-12]

Prolonged Consensual Relationship – No False Promise of Marriage – The appellant and the complainant were in a relationship for over six years, during which they shared financial transactions and mutual trust. The evidence did not support the claim that the relationship was based on a false promise of marriage. – Held: Prosecution failed to prove deception; relationship characterized as consensual. [Paras 10-14]

Recent Supreme Court Guidance – Application – The court relied on the principles laid down in Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra & Another (2025), emphasizing that prolonged consensual relationships, even if they later turn sour, cannot automatically attract criminal liability under Sections 376 or 417 IPC. – Held: Criminal liability diluted in cases of consensual relationships without clear evidence of initial deception. [Paras 13-14]

Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed. The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 376 r/w 90 IPC and 417 IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the fine, if any, was directed to be refunded.
 

Bail in NDPS Cases – Possession of Commercial Quantity – Section 37 NDPS Act – Rigorous Conditions for Bail – Applicant was accused of possessing 220 grams of Mephedrone (MD), a quantity far exceeding the commercial threshold – Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the court’s satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend – Held: Despite the statutory bar, extended incarceration (1 year and 11 months) and delay in trial proceedings warranted grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 7–8, 14, 17].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Long Incarceration as Ground for Bail – Applicant was in custody for nearly two years, with no charges framed and no likelihood of trial concluding in the foreseeable future – The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that prolonged detention without trial infringes the fundamental right to life and liberty – Held: Continued detention of the applicant, given the delay in trial, violated his rights under Article 21, warranting bail [Paras 9, 10.3, 14].

Procedural Irregularities – Delay in Forensic Analysis – Non-Compliance with NDPS Act Procedures – Applicant argued that there were procedural lapses, including a 15-day delay in sending the seized contraband for forensic analysis and discrepancies in the appearance of the sample packets – Such lapses were held to weaken the prosecution's case, further supporting the grant of bail [Paras 4, 17].

Principle of Bail as the Rule and Jail as the Exception – Judicial Discretion in NDPS Cases – Despite the severity of NDPS offences, courts must exercise discretion judiciously to strike a balance between public interest and individual liberty – Held: Denial of bail in cases of prolonged detention would lead to indefinite incarceration, which is contrary to constitutional principles – Bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure fairness and accountability [Paras 9.1, 12, 16].

Decision – Bail granted to the applicant under stringent conditions, including a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000, regular attendance at trial proceedings, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and restriction on leaving the state without permission. The observations were limited to the purpose of bail and did not affect the merits of the case [Paras 17, 18].
 

Civil Law - Pathway Rights – Common Lane – Easementary Rights – Plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction over a 2-foot-wide North-South Lane used as a common pathway between adjoining properties. The Trial Court granted reliefs but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the suit for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation. The High Court held that the North-South Lane is a common lane for the use of both parties and not subject to exclusive ownership. – Held: Both parties have easementary rights only, and encroachments, if any, are to be removed as per law. Suits relating to pathways have recurring causes of action and are not barred by limitation. [Paras 13-16]

Encroachment – Recurring Cause of Action – Limitation Act – The defendants claimed that encroachments on the lane, if any, occurred more than three decades ago and the suit was time-barred. The court held that disputes over encroachment on a common lane give rise to recurring causes of action, and hence the suit was not barred by limitation. – Held: Dismissal of the suit by the First Appellate Court on limitation grounds was erroneous. [Para 16]

General Power of Attorney – Invalidity – Common Lane – A General Power of Attorney executed by defendants over the disputed lane was found void ab initio since the lane was a common property with no individual ownership rights. – Held: The Power of Attorney did not confer any rights over the lane, and the agent had no authority to alienate or encumber it. [Para 15]

Fixation of Boundaries – Demarcation of Common Lane – The High Court directed the demarcation of boundaries for the common lane based on the documentary evidence. Any encroachments identified after demarcation are to be removed in accordance with the law. – Held: Boundaries of the lane to be fixed as per the registered documents. [Para 17.3]

Decision: The second appeal in S.A. No. 154 of 2018 was partly allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside. The Trial Court's decree was modified to declare the lane as a common property, with easementary rights for both parties, and injunctions were granted accordingly.

The second appeal in S.A. No. 155 of 2018 was allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside. The Trial Court's decree was modified, granting injunction against the defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession or alienating the disputed lane based on the void General Power of Attorney.
 

Property Law – Revocation of Power of Attorney – Validity of Sale Deed Executed by Power Agent – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Suit Property originally owned by the plaintiffs through inheritance and subsequent acquisition – Plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) in favor of the first defendant as security for a loan – G.P.A. revoked by a registered Cancellation Deed, which was communicated to the Sub-Registrar – First defendant executed a Sale Deed in favor of the second defendant, which was presented for registration after the revocation of the G.P.A. – Sub-Registrar refused to register the Sale Deed – Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and other reliefs – Trial Court decreed the Suit, holding the G.P.A. as a security document and its cancellation valid – First Appellate Court confirmed the decision – Held: Sale Deed was executed after the cancellation of the G.P.A. came to the notice of the defendants; sale was incomplete in the absence of registration – Second Appeal dismissed, with liberty to the second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed [Paras 6–19].

Agency Law – Power Coupled with Interest – Revocation and Termination – Plaintiffs contended that G.P.A. was executed as security for a loan and revoked through a Cancellation Deed – Defendants argued that the G.P.A. was irrevocable as it was coupled with interest, and revocation was not validly communicated – Held: G.P.A. was not coupled with interest as possession of the Suit Property was not handed over to the power agent – Revocation was validly communicated to the Sub-Registrar and came to the notice of the power agent before the registration of the Sale Deed – Sale Deed executed without a valid G.P.A. is invalid [Paras 14–18].

Sale Deed – Incomplete Sale Without Registration – Sale Deed executed by the power agent was presented for registration after the G.P.A. was revoked – Sub-Registrar rightly refused registration, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a sale is incomplete without registration – Held: The Sale Deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and does not convey any title to the second defendant – Remedy available to the second defendant is to seek specific performance [Paras 17–18].

Procedural Compliance – Registration of Cancellation Deed – Cancellation Deed was registered at a Sub-Registrar Office (S.R.O.) different from where the G.P.A. was registered – Plaintiffs sent a letter of objection to the Jurisdictional S.R.O. – Held: Registration of Cancellation Deed at a different S.R.O. is valid as per the Registration Act, 1908, and it was the duty of the Sub-Registrar to communicate the cancellation to the concerned Jurisdictional S.R.O. – No evidence suggests procedural non-compliance by the Sub-Registrar [Paras 15–16].

Liberty to File Suit for Specific Performance – Plaintiffs retain possession and title to the Suit Property – Second defendant granted liberty to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed – Parties directed to raise all available contentions in the said Suit, including seeking exclusion of time spent in the present proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Para 18].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Plaintiffs' title and possession upheld – Sale Deed declared invalid – Liberty granted to second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance – No order as to costs [Paras 19].

Termination of Government Counsel – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Inquiry Based on Unverified Video – Termination Set Aside – The petitioner, who was serving as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) in District Hathras, was removed from his post by an order of the Joint Secretary, Law Department, based on an inquiry report alleging objectionable remarks against Mahatma Gandhi – The inquiry committee’s report failed to establish the authenticity of the video relied upon, nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to present his defense – The court found the action against the petitioner to be malicious and unsupported by substantive material – Held: The termination order is unsustainable in law and is set aside – The petitioner is directed to be reinstated within three weeks [Paras 6-11].