Interim Compensation under Section 143A NI Act – Questions on Discretionary Nature – Various petitions filed challenging orders of Metropolitan Magistrates directing the petitioners to pay interim compensation ranging from 10% to 12% of dishonoured cheque amounts - The petitions dispute the interpretation and application of Section 143A of the NI Act concerning its mandatory or discretionary nature - Impugned orders issued by lower courts viewed Section 143A as mandatory, requiring revision in light of Supreme Court precedent emphasizing its discretionary nature [Paras 1-30]

Corporate Responsibility and Personal Liability – Issues regarding the personal liability of directors and authorized signatories under Section 141 of the NI Act - Examination of whether such individuals can be deemed 'drawers of the cheque' for the purposes of Section 143A - High Court clarifies the distinction, noting that liability for interim compensation specifically rests with the drawer of the cheque, and corporate directors or signatories cannot be automatically held liable under Section 143A without direct involvement [Paras 22-26]

Judicial Assessment and Application of Law – High Court critical of lower courts' failure to consider relevant factors such as existing securities (flats) and the financial state of the accused while ordering interim compensation - The necessity for courts to consider the entirety of circumstances and financial distress of the accused highlighted [Paras 19-21, 28-29]

Decision – High Court sets aside the impugned orders from lower courts, providing relief to the petitioners from the directed interim compensations due to misapplication of the legal provisions - Emphasis on judicial discretion and proper application of legal principles in interim compensation orders [Para 29]

Service Law - Seniority Dispute in Railway Protection Force –Consolidated Writ Petitions – Involves reevaluation of seniority lists affecting several petitioners with similar legal issues and facts. Seniority perturbed by the issuance of provisional combined seniority list and an earlier order, both of which are challenged. Held that redrawing seniority based on these actions is inappropriate without valid reasons, thus, both actions are quashed. [Paras 1, 16, 22, 32-35]

Rule Application and Seniority – Discussion of Rule 99.2 and Rule 99.2A of RPF Rules – Held that neither rule directly impacts the resolution of the present seniority issue. The court emphasizes the importance of stability in seniority and promotions already granted, pointing out the lack of justification for the recent adjustments made by the authorities. [Paras 14, 17, 34]

Legitimate Expectation and Retrospective Changes – Court acknowledges the legitimate expectation of petitioners based on past promotions and consistent seniority. Criticizes attempts to retrospectively alter seniority, causing potential prejudice and disruptions among personnel. Relies on precedents about legitimate expectations and settled seniority. [Paras 23, 24, 27, 30]

Decision – sets aside the contested seniority list and related orders, allows for the issuance of a new list if necessary, in accordance with law, ensuring no retrospective adjustments that unsettle established seniority. The judgments clarifies the non-applicability of cited rules to the specific circumstances of the case. [Paras 32, 33, 35]

Interim Compensation Under Section 143A NI Act – Discretion of Trial Court - Petitions filed challenging orders mandating interim compensation under Section 143A NI Act - Contested nature of "mandatory" versus "discretionary" powers of the court examined in detail - Supreme Court's interpretation underscores discretionary exercise by trial courts - Factors such as financial distress of the accused to be considered - Petitioners argued existing security (flats) sufficient and trial against them in the absence of the company (drawer of the cheques) inappropriate [Paras 5-9, 17-29].

Legal Proceedings and Obligations - Background of commercial agreements leading to financial disputes detailed - Multiple legal actions including contempt and execution petitions noted - Complaints under Section 138 NI Act for cheque dishonor initiated subsequent to failure in adhering to consent terms [Paras 4, 14-16].

Company and Directors' Liability - Applicability of Section 143A of NI Act to Directors – Legal Clarification – Held – Section 143A mandates the payment of interim compensation only by the drawer of the cheque. The directors or signatories of a company are not considered the 'drawer' under Section 138 of the NI Act, which attributes liability for cheque dishonor. High Court confirmed that directors and other officers deemed guilty under Section 141 are not required to pay interim compensation as they are not the actual drawer of the cheque. [Paras 22-27]

Decision: High Court sets aside the impugned orders mandating interim compensation - Held that orders were premised on an incorrect understanding of the law and failure to consider relevant factors for passing orders under Section 143A NI Act [Paras 28-29].

Factual Background – Instigation and Abetment of Suicide – FIR No. 294/2023 registered against Aarushi Gupta and Rishab Nayyar alleging instigation and abetment of suicide - Alleged victims were involved in a scuffle with the deceased, who later committed suicide - Accusations include serious verbal insults and threats - Evidence includes suicide note naming both applicants and other communications [Paras 1-9].

Legal Arguments – Defense and Prosecution – Defense argued the lack of direct evidence linking applicants to the act of suicide and highlighted flaws in the suicide note's timeline - Prosecution emphasized the severity of the verbal abuse and the direct naming in the suicide note [Paras 10-24].

Legal Analysis – Requirements for Section 306 IPC – Justice Amit Mahajan outlined the necessary legal standards for abetment to suicide, including the requirement for active instigation - Reviewed relevant case law illustrating the need for direct and active participation in encouraging suicide [Paras 25-34].

Decision – Bail Granted – Court granted bail, finding insufficient evidence of direct instigation by applicants - Highlighted the importance of not extending custodial interrogation when cooperation with investigation is evident - Set bail conditions including restricted travel and mandatory cooperation with ongoing investigations [Paras 35-42].

Procedural Appropriateness of Issuing Certified Copies Post-Disposition – Writ Appeal against order in Interim Application – 7th respondent/appellant challenges the High Court’s decision allowing the issuance of certified copies from a disposed writ petition (W.P.(Crl) No. 445/2022) under IA No.3/2024 – High Court holds that such issuance does not constitute a revival of disposed proceedings, deeming the relief ancillary – Appeal dismissed on grounds that interim application is legally permissible and aligns with ensuring a comprehensive prosecution by providing necessary documents to the de facto complainant – Apex Court precedents discussed to substantiate the decision. [Paras 3-14]

Issuance of Certified Copies – Judicial Directions – Held, the issuance of certified copies to 1st respondent for effective prosecution does not amount to reopening of disposed writ petition – Directed as ancillary relief, essential for substantiating the 1st respondent's case by ensuring access to inquiry statements – Upholds the need for transparency and procedural justice in ongoing criminal proceedings against the backdrop of unauthorized access and potential tampering of crucial digital evidence. [Paras 10-14]

Dismissal of Writ Appeal – Judgment Analysis – High Court finds no merit in the writ appeal, affirming the lower court’s order in IA No.3/2024 – Concludes that issuance of certified copies to the 1st respondent is a rightful exercise of judicial discretion aimed at supporting the factual foundation of the de facto complainant’s case without reviving the original disposed proceedings – Emphasizes protection of constitutional rights and procedural fairness. [Para 14]

Adverse Possession - Proof and Pleading - Requirement for Clear and Specific Pleading - Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s decree favoring the plaintiff - First Appellate Court held defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession - High Court held that the defendants' pleadings and evidence were insufficient to establish adverse possession - Judgment and decree of the trial court restored - Defendants’ claim of adverse possession must be explicit and unambiguous - Defendants failed to provide specific details of possession and the date from which it became adverse to the plaintiff.

Adverse Possession - Elements and Burden of Proof - Held: Defendants must demonstrate continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period - Defendants’ generic and conflicting claims about the property in their possession were inadequate - Possession must be hostile to the true owner and known to them - High Court found defendants’ evidence insufficient to prove adverse possession. [Paras 18-25]

Suit for Declaration and Possession - Cause of Action and Limitation - Held: Plaintiff proved his title and possession over the property - Defendants' claim of adverse possession did not displace plaintiff's title - Cause of action arose when plaintiff noticed illegal structures on the suit property - Suit not barred by limitation - Defendants' failure to specify the date from which possession became adverse invalidated their claim. [Paras 21, 24-26]

Decision:

Appeal allowed - Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside - Judgment and decree of the trial court restored - Plaintiff entitled to the reliefs sought.

Service Law – Withholding of Pension – Petitioner challenged orders dated August 19, 2019, and January 17, 2020, which imposed a penalty of withholding 10% monthly pension for a year and dismissed the appeal against the penalty respectively – High Court held that the penalty was justified due to petitioner's supervisory lapses and failure to report illegal sale of surplus cement – The decision was based on disciplinary proceedings that were revived post petitioner's reinstatement after initial removal from service [Paras 1-24, 32-42].

Promotion – Sealed Cover Procedure – Petitioner sought promotion in compliance with earlier court orders – High Court upheld that the review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings were rightly kept in a sealed cover due to pending disciplinary proceedings – DPC findings were not to be acted upon following the penalty imposition, and promotion claims were not automatic but subject to DPC review post penalty period [Paras 25-27, 44-47].

Jurisdiction – Review of Penalty – High Court emphasized its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with departmental inquiry outcomes – It cannot reappreciate evidence but can only ensure procedural compliance and absence of arbitrariness – Petitioner's acceptance of penalty precluded further claims on promotion or benefits as per statutory and judicial principles [Paras 43, 48-49].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – High Court upheld the penalty of withholding 10% monthly pension for one year – Petitioner's claims for promotion and additional benefits rejected due to procedural adherence and statutory limitations on appeals against Presidential Orders [Paras 49-50].

Deceptive Similarity – Pharmaceutical Trademarks – Appellant challenged the interim injunction granted against use of "INDAMET" – Claimed that "ISTAMET" and "INDAMET" are not deceptively similar – Court held stringent scrutiny applies to pharmaceutical products due to potential health risks – Injunction upheld based on structural and phonetic similarity, likelihood of consumer confusion [Paras 50-63]. 

Dominant Feature – Anti-Dissection Rule – Sun Pharma's registration for "ISTAMET XR CP" was scrutinized – Court identified "ISTAMET" as the dominant feature, disregarding generic terms "XR" and "CP" – Argument to exclude suffix "MET" was rejected as it would lead to artificial dissection of the mark [Paras 64-66]. 

Mode of Administration – Court rejected the appellant's argument regarding different modes of administration (oral vs. inhalation) – Noted that the possibility of consumer confusion remains, irrespective of administration method – Highlighted the necessity to avoid confusion, especially in pharmaceuticals [Paras 68-69]. 

Public Health and Safety – Emphasized that confusing pharmaceutical trademarks pose serious health risks – Court cited precedents underscoring the need for heightened scrutiny in medicinal product cases – Public interest supports a lesser degree of proof for establishing confusing similarity [Paras 51-58]. 

Third Party Trademarks – Appellant's reference to other trademarks with similar suffixes was dismissed – Court maintained that "MET" cannot be removed from the assessment of similarity – Recognized the dominant features as "ISTAMET" and "INDAMET" [Paras 74-75]. 

Decision: 

Appeal dismissed – Injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals upheld – Interim order vacated – Findings are prima facie and do not affect the merits of the case [Paras 76-77]. 

Public Nuisance and Misrepresentation – Statutory Obligations –
Plaintiffs, representing medical professionals, filed suit against the defendants for making false claims about their product 'Coronil' as a cure for COVID-19. The court emphasized the necessity for statutory approvals for such claims and noted that the approvals held by the defendants only allowed the product to be marketed as an immunity booster, not as a cure for COVID-19. The court found the defendants' actions to be misleading and potentially harmful to the public [Paras 34-52].

Interim Relief – Prima Facie Case –
The court granted interim relief to the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to cease all advertisements and public statements claiming that 'Coronil' cures COVID-19. The court highlighted that withholding interim relief would render the main relief infructuous and could result in significant public harm. The decision emphasized the balance of convenience and irreparable injury, finding these factors in favor of the plaintiffs [Paras 58-64].

Decision: The application for interim relief was allowed. Defendants were ordered to take down all misleading advertisements and public statements about 'Coronil' from all media platforms within 3 days. Defendants were also restrained from making any future claims about the product's efficacy in curing COVID-19 until the final disposal of the suit.