Contempt of Courts – Appeal against discharge of contempt rule – Though no appeal lies under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, Letters Patent Appeal maintainable where Single Judge travels beyond contempt jurisdiction, adversely affects substantive rights and reopens parent order – Impugned order set aside – Contempt rule revived [Paras 20–22, 96–101].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Appealability – Section 19, Contempt of Courts Act – Appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order punishing for contempt – No statutory appeal against discharge of contempt rule – However, where Single Judge, while discharging rule, travels beyond contempt jurisdiction and passes directions or observations affecting substantive rights, such order qualifies as a “judgment” appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent – Preliminary objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 1–8, 20–23].

Letters Patent Appeal – Scope – Order Affecting Rights – Impugned order not confined to discharge of contempt rule but imposed penal costs, recorded findings of contumacious conduct against petitioner, and effectively modified earlier writ orders relating to remuneration – Such adjudication beyond contempt jurisdiction directly affected valuable civil rights of appellant – Held: LPA maintainable [Paras 18–22].

Limits of Contempt Jurisdiction – Reopening Parent Order – In contempt proceedings, court cannot sit in appeal over or reopen merits of parent order – Learned Single Judge, while hearing contempt, reconsidered remuneration payable, relied on documents produced on the day of hearing, and held that petitioner could not claim more than Rs.11,890/- contrary to final writ orders granting Rs.19,000/- – Such exercise held wholly without jurisdiction [Paras 79–83, 96–99].

Natural Justice – Penal Costs and Contumacious Conduct – Finding of contumacious conduct against petitioner recorded without issuing rule or affording opportunity of hearing – Penal costs imposed on premise of such finding – Held: Procedure de hors law and contrary to settled principles governing contempt proceedings – Stigmatic and penal consequences cannot follow without due process [Paras 84–89, 96–98].

Contradictory Findings – Suppression of Facts – Single Judge recorded that writ petition itself disclosed petitioner’s engagement as volunteer since 2015, yet concluded that petitioner misled court by suppressing such fact – Held: Findings mutually contradictory and unsustainable on record [Paras 69–75, 94–95].

Finality of Parent Orders – Contempt Court Bound – Earlier writ orders dated 07/03/2024 and modification dated 03/05/2024 were not challenged and had attained finality – Contempt court could not indirectly nullify or modify them while discharging contempt rule [Paras 34–35, 77–83].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 26/07/2024 passed in WPCRC 112 of 2024 set aside – Contempt Rule revived – Learned Single Judge directed to hear contempt proceedings afresh from the stage prior to impugned order – Observations in appellate judgment not to prejudice merits – Operation of judgment stayed for three months – No order as to costs [Paras 100–107].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance pendente lite – Section 24 HMA – Non-earning wife residing at parental home – Absence of ITRs and expense bills – Effect of Rajnesh guidelines – Prior MoU cannot override statutory right – Interim maintenance upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–25].

Maintenance – Pendente Lite – Section 24 HMA – Nature and object – Proceedings are summary in nature – Intended to provide immediate financial support to dependent spouse during pendency of matrimonial litigation – Court to take a prima facie view on available material and husband’s admitted income – Hyper-technical insistence on documents cannot defeat substantive right of maintenance [Paras 16–17, 24].

Maintenance – Guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Scope and applicability – Requirement of income affidavits and ITRs aimed at transparency and preventing concealment of income – Non-earning spouse or spouse with income below taxable limit not mandatorily required to file ITRs – Absence of ITRs, in such cases, corroborates claim of nil income rather than disproving it – Family Court not bound to insist on impossible compliance [Paras 16(i), 23].

Maintenance – Assessment of wife’s independent income – Bank transactions and savings – Isolated transaction and existence of mutual fund investments insufficient to infer steady or sufficient income – Financial assistance or transactions with family members natural when wife resides at parental home after separation – No proof of gainful employment or regular income placed on record – Maintenance cannot be denied on conjectures [Paras 18–20].

Maintenance – Prior settlement / MoU – Effect – Agreement entered years prior to litigation cannot override statutory right under Section 24 HMA – Maintenance pendente lite depends on present needs of wife and child and husband’s capacity to pay – Alleged MoU does not bar court from awarding interim maintenance, particularly when wife alleges coercion and circumstances have changed [Para 21].

Maintenance for child – Supervision over utilisation – Request for joint bank account – Held, issues relating to guardianship, custody or supervision fall outside scope of appeal against order granting maintenance pendente lite – Appellate court not required to introduce custodial oversight while determining quantum of interim maintenance [Para 22].

Appellate interference – Interim maintenance orders – Scope – Unless order is shown to be illegal, perverse or arbitrary, appellate court will not interfere – Family Court’s assessment based on husband’s admitted income and needs of wife and child found reasonable – No perversity or illegality established [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim maintenance order upheld – All interim orders vacated – Appellant directed to clear arrears within one month – Pending applications closed [Paras 25–26].

Arbitration Law – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Limited Judicial Review – Petition seeking setting aside of arbitral award directing borrower and guarantor to jointly and severally pay amounts exceeding Rs.43 crores with interest – Court reiterated that Section 34 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or appellate review – Award to be interfered with only if grounds under Section 34 are strictly made out [Paras 20, 39–40].

Arbitration Law – Proof of Debt – Alleged Dispensation with Burden of Proof – Challenge based on arbitral finding that borrower had “almost admitted” the claim – Court held that award must be read holistically – Statement of Defence of borrower admitted sanction of facilities, execution of guarantee and liability to repay – Use of expression “almost admitted” not perverse – Debt duly established on record – No patent illegality found [Paras 21–23].

Arbitration Law – Delay in Pronouncement of Award – Effect on Validity – Award challenged on ground of inordinate delay between conclusion of arguments and pronouncement – Court relying on Lancor Holdings Ltd. v. Prem Kumar Menon held that mere delay is not a standalone ground under Section 34 – Delay must be unexplained and must adversely reflect on findings – Petitioner himself contributed to delay by filing multiple applications – No prejudice demonstrated – Award not vitiated [Paras 24–33].

Arbitration Law – Guarantee – Novation / Variation of Contract – Plea that enhancement of credit limits discharged guarantor rejected – Arbitral Tribunal found that petitioner, as Director, himself signed applications for enhancement – Deed of Guarantee expressly covered enhanced limits and was unconditional, continuing and irrevocable – No novation or material alteration without consent established – Findings neither perverse nor contrary to law [Paras 34–38].

Arbitration Law – Reasoned Award – Adequacy of Reasons – Contention that arbitral tribunal adopted a casual and cavalier approach rejected – Court held that adequacy or elaborateness of reasons cannot be examined under Section 34 – As long as reasons are discernible and conclusions are intelligible, award cannot be set aside – Arbitral Tribunal is not required to write a judgment like a court [Paras 39–43].

Arbitration Law – Interim Applications – Non-decision – Natural Justice – Allegation that several interim applications were not decided rejected – Court found that applications related to belated and inconsistent plea of forgery after admission of guarantee – Applications either expressly dealt with in the award or implicitly rejected – Petitioner responsible for procedural delays – No violation of natural justice made out [Paras 44–53].

Arbitration Law – Conduct of Party – Abuse of Process – Court noted repeated attempts by petitioner to delay proceedings and evade liability after actively invoking arbitration – Filing of Section 34 petition held to be another attempt to avoid repayment of admitted dues [Paras 30, 52–54].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award dated 4 April 2024 upheld – No further costs imposed considering award of arbitral costs and interest already granted – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 54–56].

Arbitration – Appeal under Section 37 – Maintainability – Ad-interim injunction – Appellants challenged an ad-interim order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 directing parties to maintain status quo ante – Office raised objection on maintainability under Section 37(1)(b) as petition was still pending – Held: Order amounts to granting an interim measure under Section 9 – Covered under Section 37(1)(b) – Appeal maintainable [Paras 5, 6, 11, 17–18, 25, 31–32].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1) – Scope of Appeal – Commercial Court's interim order under Section 9 of Arbitration Act can be appealed if it falls under Section 37(1)(b) or Order 43 CPC – Held: Section 13 does not create independent right of appeal but facilitates appeal where it lies under Section 37 or Order 43 – Ad-interim injunction appealable if extraordinary circumstance shown [Paras 15, 28–30].

Interim Injunction – Appeal against Ad-Interim Order – Principles – Court referred to Innovative Pharma Surgicals and A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu cases – Held: Appeal against ad-interim injunction maintainable in extraordinary circumstances such as delay or inaction in hearing vacation application – Interim order having serious consequences cannot be treated as non-appealable merely due to its interim nature [Paras 21–24].

Divergence from Other High Courts – Meghalaya High Court view in NTPC v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Ltd. that ad-interim orders are non-appealable under Section 37(1)(b) was not accepted – Andhra Pradesh High Court held ad-interim injunctions falling within the scope of Section 9 are appealable under Section 37 [Paras 26–28].

Civil Procedure – Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Ad-interim injunction granted under Order 39 is appealable – Same principle applies to ad-interim orders under Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Harmonious construction with Section 104 CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act warranted [Paras 20, 24].

Decision: Office objection overruled – Appeal held maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Matter directed to be numbered – Appeal to be posted for further hearing on 30/12/2025.

Intellectual Property – Trade Mark Infringement – Interim Injunction – Plaintiff sought interim injunction against Defendants for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'RACIRAFT' by use of 'EsiRaft' for identical medicinal product – Both products used for treatment of heartburn and indigestion and contain same active ingredients – Plaintiff relied on phonetic and visual similarity, prior adoption, and goodwill – Defendant opposed claim stating ‘RAFT’ is common to trade and 'ESI' has distinct meaning and origin – Held: On holistic comparison, marks not deceptively similar either visually or phonetically – Interim injunction refused [Paras 16–21, 30–36].

Trade Marks Act – Section 2(h) – Deceptive Similarity – Rival marks ‘RACIRAFT’ and ‘EsiRaft’ analyzed under the anti-dissection rule – Court held that ‘RAFT’ is generic and denotes foaming agent sodium alginate – Prefixes 'RACI' and 'ESI' structurally and phonetically distinct – First syllables are dominant and distinct – No likelihood of confusion or deception found – Held: Marks not deceptively similar within the meaning of Section 2(h) [Paras 20–21, 30].

Passing Off – Common Field of Activity – Claim of passing off based on visual and phonetic similarity and shared therapeutic use – Defendant’s product packaging, label, and trade dress found dissimilar – No attempt to misrepresent association with Plaintiff's product shown – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of passing off [Paras 34–35].

Trade Mark Law – Prior Use and Commonality in Trade – Plaintiff’s claim of exclusive rights in mark rejected as ‘RAFT’ held common in pharmaceutical trade for antacid products – Defendant produced physical evidence of third-party use of suffix ‘RAFT’ and two-color trade name formatting – Explanation for adoption of ‘ESI’ as Enhanced System Improvement or Esophageal Symptom Index accepted – Mere use of common manufacturer not indicative of dishonest adoption – Held: No prima facie mala fide adoption made out [Paras 19, 32–33].

Procedural Law – Order 39 Rule 4 CPC – Defendant’s oral prayer for vacation of ex parte ad-interim relief not independently considered as interim application was decided finally on merits – Ad-interim relief vacated on dismissal of interim application [Paras 15, 36].

Decision: Interim Application dismissed – Ad-interim relief vacated – However, continued for one week from date of order to enable Plaintiff to take appropriate steps [Paras 36, 39].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appeal Against Acquittal – Deceased wife allegedly harassed for dowry and committed suicide by fire – Trial Court acquitted husband and in-laws under Section 304B IPC citing contradictions between witness statements and dying declaration – High Court held that dying declaration lacked any mention of dowry harassment – Close relatives and neighbours did not support prosecution – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s reasoning – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3, 17, 24, 27-30, 34]

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Deceased suffered 95% burns but gave dying declaration recorded by Magistrate – Declaration lacked material allegation of dowry demand – Witnesses gave inconsistent versions – Court held that declaration cannot be sole basis for conviction when not corroborated – Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal law – Trial Court justified in treating it as inconclusive [Paras 17-20, 25-27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements – Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation are not substantive evidence – Cannot be used as sole basis for conviction – Only usable for corroboration or contradiction – Court rightly held that reliance on such statements without oath-bound testimony in court was impermissible [Paras 21, 24]

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Principles reaffirmed that appellate court must not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – No compelling evidence warranting reversal – Trial Court’s view found to be reasonable and based on full appreciation of record – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-14, 29-34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2006 confirmed.

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Ownership Requirement under Section 14(1)(e) – Proof of Better Title Sufficient – Landlady sought eviction on ground of bona fide requirement – ARC dismissed petition on ground that ownership and landlord-tenant relationship were not proved – Held: Landlady produced registered sale deed and rent receipts proving better title than tenant – ARC exceeded jurisdiction by venturing into detailed title examination contrary to settled law – Eviction petition cannot be defeated merely because landlady is not absolute owner – Revision allowed and eviction ordered [Paras 1–6, 10–11].

Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Discretion of Landlady – ARC failed to consider landlady’s residential need – Landlady sought more space for herself and her growing family – Held: It is landlady who is best judge of her requirement – Tenant failed to rebut claim with any credible evidence – Bald denials not sufficient – No evidence of alternative suitable accommodation – ARC erred in not considering material on record [Paras 12–13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – When Justified – Though revisional court cannot substitute its view as appellate court, it can interfere where trial court acts beyond jurisdiction or misapplies settled law – Held: ARC’s finding based on ownership was contrary to binding precedents – Interference warranted to correct miscarriage of justice [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition allowed – Judgment of ARC dated 31.01.2019 set aside – Eviction order passed – Tenant granted six months to vacate premises in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act [Para 16].

Professional Misconduct – Chartered Accountant – Disciplinary Proceedings – Reference to High Court – Reference made by Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India seeking action under Section 21(6) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 – Allegations based on SEBI investigation relating to manipulation of public issue of Bharthari Financial Services Ltd. – Disciplinary Committee after detailed enquiry held respondent guilty of “other misconduct” – Council accepted findings and recommended removal of name – Held: Due process duly followed and findings well supported by evidence [Paras 1, 4, 11, 14–17].

Professional Misconduct – Other Misconduct – Ante-dated Stock-Invests – Irregular Allotment of Shares – Respondent, Chairman and Whole Time Director of BFSL, conspired with another Chartered Accountant in arranging finance and obtaining ante-dated stock-invests after closure of public issue – Despite withdrawal of applications, shares allotted and certificates issued without receipt of funds – Acts held detrimental to general investing public – Constitutes “other misconduct” under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Act [Paras 5, 11, 18].

Professional Ethics – Role of Chartered Accountants – Integrity and Fiduciary Responsibility – Chartered Accountants expected to maintain highest standards of integrity as custodians of financial markets – Manipulation of public issues and connivance with promoters strikes at root of market probity – Conduct of respondent held unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant [Paras 18–19].

Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Effect of SEBI and SAT Findings – Findings of SEBI under Section 11B and affirmation by Securities Appellate Tribunal relied upon by Disciplinary Committee – Non-challenge to SAT order by respondent reinforces culpability – Parallel disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act sustainable [Paras 8, 11].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Non-Contest by Delinquent Member – Despite service of notice and opportunity, respondent failed to contest reference before High Court – Allegations remained unrebutted – Court entitled to proceed on basis of record and disciplinary findings [Paras 10, 14].

Penalty – Suspension from Membership – Costs – In exercise of powers under Section 21(6) of the Act, respondent directed to be suspended from membership of ICAI for one year – Restrained from rendering services as a Chartered Accountant during suspension – Costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on respondent payable to petitioner [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Reference accepted – Respondent suspended from membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for a period of one year – Restrained from rendering services as a Chartered Accountant – Costs imposed – Reference disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Predicate/Scheduled Offence – Closure Report Accepted – Effect – Continuation of PMLA Proceedings – ECIR registered by ED, Kolkata was admittedly founded on two Kolkata FIRs treated as scheduled offences – Both FIRs culminated in final/closure reports on the ground of mistake of fact and such closure reports were accepted by the jurisdictional Magistrate – Held: Once the scheduled offence stands negated by acceptance of closure report, the very foundation of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA disappears and PMLA proceedings cannot survive so long as such acceptance is not set aside [Paras 19–21, 30–32, 36–41].

Money Laundering – Proceeds of Crime – Meaning and Scope – Section 2(1)(u) PMLA – Proceeds of crime must be property derived or obtained “as a result of” criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence – Explanation added in 2019 is clarificatory and does not enlarge the scope of the main provision – In absence of a subsisting scheduled offence, attached/freezed properties cannot continue to be treated as proceeds of crime [Paras 21–22, 43–45].

PMLA Proceedings – Dependency on Predicate Offence – Reiterating Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, held that PMLA is not a stand-alone regime divorced from the scheduled offence – Acceptance of closure report stands on the same footing as quashing, discharge or acquittal for the purpose of survival of PMLA proceedings – Liberty to revive proceedings can be granted only if the predicate offence is revived in accordance with law [Paras 30–31, 55].

ECIR – Nature – Internal Document – Limits of ED’s Power – Though ECIR is an internal administrative document and multiple FIRs may be investigated under one ECIR, ED cannot continue or resurrect an ECIR when its sole predicate offences have ceased to exist – Inclusion of a different predicate offence at a later stage, when original scheduled offences stand closed, is impermissible [Paras 32–33, 54].

Multiple PMLA Proceedings – Same Predicate Offence – Bar – Kochi CBI charge-sheet (DV-1/2014) was already the subject-matter of an independent ECIR and prosecution complaint pending before the Special PMLA Court at Kochi – Attempt to rely upon the same CBI charge-sheet to sustain a separate PMLA prosecution in Kolkata amounts to impermissible second cognizance on the same predicate offence – Such dual proceedings are barred in law [Paras 41–47].

Section 66(2) PMLA – Scope – Section 66(2) contemplates sharing of information for registration of a new scheduled offence or further investigation – Mere sharing of information does not crystallize a scheduled offence nor revive a non-existent predicate offence – Unless property qualifies as “proceeds of crime”, Section 66(2) cannot sustain PMLA action [Paras 49–53].

Reason to Believe – Provisional Attachment – Formation of “reason to believe” under Section 5 PMLA must be founded on tangible material and a live nexus with a subsisting scheduled offence – After acceptance of closure report, belief regarding existence of proceeds of crime becomes untenable and cannot be sustained on suspicion or conjecture [Paras 37–39].

Decision – Quashment – ECIR No. KLZO-I/22/2021 and ML Case No. 15 of 2023 quashed – Liberty reserved to ED to seek revival if closure reports in predicate FIRs are set aside or fresh legitimate grounds arise in accordance with law [Para 55].