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.
 

Suo Motu Contempt – Contempt of Courts Act – Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated based on a resolution passed by the Madurai Bar Association criticizing a judicial order on helmet mandates – Processions and distribution of defamatory leaflets against judges led to the initiation of proceedings – Both contemnors tendered unconditional apologies – The court accepted the apologies and closed the petition [Paras 1-31].

Resolution Against Judicial Order – The genesis of the contempt proceedings stemmed from a resolution passed by the Madurai Bar Association against a judicial order mandating helmet use, alleging undue influence and corruption – Court emphasized the importance of respect for judicial orders and proper channels for addressing grievances [Paras 1-10].

Role and Conduct of Lawyers – Court reiterated the critical role of lawyers in the justice system and their responsibility to uphold the dignity and integrity of the judiciary – Condemned the practice of resorting to strikes and coercive actions without exhausting legal remedies [Paras 16-24].

Acceptance of Apology – Given the unconditional apologies and explanations rendered by the contemnors, along with their age and long-standing practice, the court decided to accept the apologies and not proceed further with the contempt charges – Aimed to underscore the importance of maintaining professional decorum while acknowledging the contemnors' remorse [Paras 27-30].

Decision: The Suo Motu Contempt Petition is closed, accepting the unconditional apologies tendered by the contemnors.
 

Right to Lead Evidence in Rebuttal – Article 227 Challenge Against Order – Permission to Lead Evidence in Rebuttal Denied by Trial Court – High Court Sets Aside Order – Right to Rebuttal Implicitly Reserved by Petitioner – Held, Right to Rebuttal Permissible Under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC When Onus is on Respondents, High Court Allows Petitioner to Lead Rebuttal Evidence with Specific Conditions. [Paras 27-37]

Legal Heirs Dispute – Property and Will Contestation – Dispute Involving Ancestral Properties and Will Alleged to be Forged – Parties Include Legal Heirs and Wife of Deceased – High Court Analyzes Burden of Proof Regarding Will’s Validity – Respondents Claim Will is Valid, Petitioner Claims Forgery – High Court Finds Merit in Petitioner’s Right to Lead Evidence in Rebuttal Based on Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC. [Paras 1-6, 15-19]

Interpretation of Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC – Evidence in Rebuttal – High Court Discusses Legal Provisions for Leading Evidence in Rebuttal – Accepts Petitioner’s Claim that Rebuttal Evidence Was Implicitly Reserved – Directions Issued to Trial Court to Allow Rebuttal Evidence Under Specific Conditions. [Paras 27-37]

Decision - High Court sets aside trial court’s order, allowing petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal strictly relating to the evidence produced by respondents, without introducing new evidence or filling gaps in her original evidence [Para 37].

Factual and Procedural Background – Victim hit by vehicle; compensation awarded by Tribunal; Insurance company appeals the quantum, disputing calculations related to dependency and other allowances – Respondent No.6 held guilty of negligent driving; compensation awarded for various losses including consortium and affection - [Paras 1-3]

Insurance Appeal – Challenged Tribunal’s calculation; error in accounting remarriage of the deceased's spouse and adoption of a child post father's death - Dispute over income assessment of deceased based on tax returns and business income; argued reduced dependency calculation due to remarriage and existing income sources - [Paras 4-5]

Tribunal's Assessment Reviewed – Detailed review of the Tribunal's methodology in assessing compensation; key issues involve recalculating based on correct income figures, reducing awards for non-compensable claims, and adjusting for remarriage and personal expenses - Relied on judgments for setting standards of compensation for loss of consortium and funeral expenses - [Paras 7-10]

Decision – Modified compensation calculations based on adjusted income figures and legal precedents - Ruling includes revised awards for funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and overall dependency calculations - Application of a standard deduction and adjustment for future prospects in dependency calculation - Interest rate on compensation reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum; directive for timely payment by insurance with penalties for delays - [Paras 11-16]

Detention and Judicial Review – Detention Order Quashed - Detention of Shahid Khan under PITNDPS Act challenged due to lack of compelling evidence of imminent release and re-engagement in criminal activities - Despite substantial quantity of heroin recovery, absence of imminent release evidence undermines detention validity - Detention confirmed without sufficient grounds, quashed by the court [Paras 1-27].

Judicial Custody and Preventive Detention - Challenge based on the argument that preventive detention while under judicial custody was unjustified without clear, imminent risk of release and re-offence - High Court emphasizes necessity of specific imminent risk for preventive detention validity [Paras 8-18, 27].

Application of Judicial Mind - Critique of detaining authority's failure to demonstrate likelihood of petitioner’s release from custody and potential future criminal conduct - High Court finds no substantial reason provided for detention, indicating procedural oversight [Paras 13-17, 19-27].

Legal Precedents and Detention Validity - Analysis of various precedents on preventive detention, particularly concerning individuals already in custody - Emphasis on the need for proximity in activities leading to detention and actual conduct threatening public order or state security [Paras 15-18, 21].

Decision: Petition allowed – Detention order dated 27.05.2022 and subsequent confirmation order dated 12.08.2022 under the PITNDPS Act quashed.

Allegations of Sexual Assault under POCSO and IPC – Appellant challenges conviction by Trial Court – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside based on inconsistencies in the victim’s testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence. [Para 1-20]

Testimony of Child Victim – Evaluation – Court highlights importance of consistent and credible testimony – Finds child victim’s testimonies inconsistent and unreliable; no corroborative evidence supporting allegations of sexual assault; variations in victim’s statements undermine prosecution’s case. [Para 9, 14, 18]

Matrimonial Dispute Context – Considered – Incident alleged to have occurred amid familial and matrimonial disputes – Court notes potential for false implication due to animosity between family members; discrepancies in timing and details of alleged incident further weaken prosecution’s case. [Para 17, 19]

Presumption under POCSO Act – Analysis – Discusses application of Section 29 of POCSO Act – Court finds that foundational facts necessary to trigger presumption of guilt were not established beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution. [Para 20]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant – High Court sets aside conviction and sentence; finds major gaps in prosecution’s presentation and credibility issues with the victim’s account leading to doubts about the truthfulness of the allegations. [Para 20]

Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Manipulation of Evidence – Criminal Misc. Case No. 9138 of 2023 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam – Petitioner's appeal for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the 7th respondent, who was accused of multiple crimes including rape and forgery – High Court cancels bail citing manipulation of evidence and non-compliance with bail conditions – Reliance on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the difference between the grounds for granting and cancelling bail – Held that the anticipatory bail was improperly obtained through the use of a forged document, warranting cancellation. Directed the immediate arrest of the 7th respondent and cancellation of all related bail bonds. [Para 1-12]

Judicial Discretion in Bail Matters – Referenced Supreme Court and High Court precedents delineating conditions under which bail can be cancelled – Emphasized on the severance of liberty only under stringent conditions where the accused misuses bail – Noted previous misuse of judicial process by the accused, including multiple instances of forgery and false documentation presented in court. [Para 10-11]

Decision – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – High Court sets aside lower court's order refusing to cancel bail, cancels the anticipatory bail of the 7th respondent based on evidence of fraud and subsequent criminal activity while on bail – Instructs lower court to take the accused into custody and reaffirms the right of the accused to seek regular bail, which should be considered on its own merits without influence from current findings. [Para 12]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Specific performance of contract – Discretion of court – Court held that a contract entered into by a guardian on behalf of a minor is only enforceable if it is within the guardian's competence and for the benefit of the minor. The First Appellate Court correctly refused specific performance as the contract did not benefit the minor, who later repudiated it upon reaching majority [Paras 1-16].

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Sections 6, 8, 12 – Minor's property – Guardian's competence to sell – Court found that the mother of the minor, as a natural guardian, was not competent to sell the minor's undivided interest in joint family property without meeting the conditions set out in the Act. The permission granted by the Guardian Court lacked necessary details regarding the market value of the property and was not sufficient to validate the sale [Paras 17-22].

Consideration of Market Value – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – The Appellate Court noted the significant discrepancy between the agreed sale price and the actual market value, concluding that the sale was not in the minor's best interest. It was emphasized that when a minor's interest is involved, the court must ensure the sale benefits the minor [Paras 23-24].

Earnest Money Adjustment – Contract Specific Performance – The agreement of sale became unenforceable as the entire earnest money was adjusted towards the sale consideration of another part of the property, leaving no subsisting contract for the minor’s share [Paras 27-31].

Repudiation of Contract by Minor – Majority Act, 1875 – Section 3 – The minor was deemed to have reached the age of majority at 18 under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, allowing him to repudiate the contract. The Court rejected the contention that the age of majority should be 21 years as per the Indian Majority Act, 1875, due to inconsistency with the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court upheld – No decree for specific performance granted as the contract was not in the interest of the minor and had been repudiated upon attaining majority.

Medical Negligence and Criminal Intimidation – Charges against Dr. Punam Sinha for allegedly leaving surgical materials inside the complainant post-operation, leading to further health complications and additional surgeries – Initial complaint led to no action, escalating to a criminal intimidation charge when the complainant was threatened by the accused [Paras 2, 2.1, 13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Multiple witnesses corroborated the complainant’s suffering and subsequent operations which allegedly were necessitated by the initial surgical oversight – No expert medical evidence presented to support the negligence claim [Paras 3-4, 13.1].

Legal Framework for Discharge – Discussion on the legal standards and procedures for discharging an accused at the pre-trial stage – Reference to apex court rulings emphasizing that discharge is based on strong suspicion and not a detailed examination of evidence [Paras 10, 10.1-10.4].

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Application dismissed based on insufficient evidence of intent or negligence directly linking Dr. Punam Sinha to the alleged medical complications – The court emphasized that the charge under Section 308 IPC requires evidence of intent to cause such harm, which was not substantiated [Paras 14-15].

Decision: The criminal revision petition is allowed – The impugned order dated 25th February 2023 by the lower court is set aside, discharging Dr. Punam Sinha from the charges under Sections 308 and 338 IPC