Matrimonial Discord & Divorce – Marriage solemnized on 25.01.2011, parties separated since 06.09.2011 – Appellant's plea for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, previously dismissed by Family Court along with respondent's plea for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the same Act – High Court revisits facts, evidence, and accusations of cruelty from both parties, including alleged neglect, harassment for dowry, extramarital affairs, and threats. [Paras 1-17].

Evidence & Counter Allegations – Inability of Appellant to provide concrete evidence for various allegations including threats with a knife, and vulgar messages – Family Court's skepticism regarding appellant's claims, and absence of concrete evidence or witnesses to support them – Respondent refuting cruelty claims, making counter-allegations against appellant including harassment for dowry and extramarital affairs. [Paras 18-33].

Mental Cruelty & Impact of Litigation – High Court recognizes respondent's derogatory language towards appellant’s father, complaints to appellant’s employer, and involvement in multiple litigations as mental cruelty – Acknowledgment of appellant's mental suffering due to prolonged legal disputes and defamatory allegations – Extended legal battles over 10 years between the parties viewed as adding to the cruelty [Paras 34-43, 46].

Decision – Granting of Divorce – High Court allows appellant's appeal – Divorce granted to appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 based on mental cruelty by respondent [Paras 50-51].

Patent Refusal - Managing Instant Messaging Sessions - Refusal by Controller on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k) - Key features: Concurrent Sign-on and Session Transfer, User Preference for Non-Mirroring, Selective Transfer and Visibility of Sessions, Ceasing Message Visibility Based on Preference [Paras 25-27, 44-45, 51-52].

Prior Art D1 (US2003101343) - Detailed analysis comparing the patent application and prior art - Found significant overlap in functionalities, especially regarding session data transfer and user preferences - Court held that additional features in the subject patent were obvious extensions and lacked inventive step [Paras 28-34, 36-38, 40-41, 47-49].

Inventive Step Analysis - Application of established tests and considerations - Concluded that the subject patent application's features were obvious to a person skilled in the art [Paras 42-43, 51-52].

Misrepresentation by Appellant - Incorrect submission regarding status of corresponding European patent application - Rejection of both parent and divisional applications by EPO for lack of inventive step - Imposition of costs for presenting incorrect facts [Paras 53-55, 56-57].

Decision - Patent application by Google LLC for managing instant messaging sessions found lacking in inventive step and novelty - Claims considered obvious extensions of prior art D1: US2003101343 - High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Controller of Patents to refuse the patent application.

Promotion and Seniority Issue - Challenge against HQ DG BSF order dated February 12, 2015, for non-restoration of seniority - Petitioner's ACRs for 2005-06 & 2007-08 initially marked below benchmark, leading to his non-inclusion in promotion list - ACRs later upgraded on representation - Petitioner contends supersession due to non-communication of below benchmark ACRs and seeks promotion with retrospective seniority [Paras 1-5, 14, 31].

Legal Framework - Application of DoP&T's OM dated April 13, 2010 - OM applied for future DPCs only - Petitioner's case relates to DPC held prior to the OM, leading to rejection of retrospective promotion claim by respondents [Paras 12, 13, 19, 28-30].

Supreme Court Precedents - Reliance on Dev Dutt v. UOI (2008) 8 SCC 725 - Principles of upgraded ACRs and retrospective consideration for promotion - Comparative analysis with similarly situated officer, Lala Krishan Kumar Lal, who received retrospective seniority - Claim of discriminatory treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 6-7, 34].

Decision - Court held that upgraded ACRs merit review by DPC - Petitioner entitled to consideration for promotion from date junior was promoted, subject to fitment - Impugned order quashed - Respondents directed to undertake promotional exercise within eight weeks [Paras 31-37].

Trade Mark Infringement – Permanent Injunction – Well-known Mark Declaration – Suit against Unauthorized Use of Trademark 'HALDIRAM' and 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA' – Plaintiffs, Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd., seek permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing upon their registered trademarks and for passing off their products as those of Plaintiffs – Plaintiffs also seek declaration of their marks as well-known – Evidence shows extensive unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ marks by Defendants – Held, Defendants' conduct constitutes infringement and passing off – Permanent injunction granted against Defendants from using the marks ‘HALDIRAM’, ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, or any deceptively similar mark – Marks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ declared as well-known trademarks. Damages of Rs. 50 lakhs awarded to Plaintiffs along with Rs. 2 lakhs as costs. [Paras 35-68]

Infringement of Trademarks – Analysis – Plaintiffs' trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ found to be used by Defendants without authorization – Unauthorized use on a variety of food products and related materials – Infringement established due to Defendants' unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ marks for identical services, satisfying the triple identity test – Defendants’ conduct found to be in violation of the Plaintiffs’ trademark rights. [Paras 40-41]

Well-known Trademark – Criteria and Declaration – 'HALDIRAM' and 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA' declared as well-known trademarks – Court considered factors such as duration, extent, geographical area of use, promotion, advertising, distinctiveness, and recognition in the public – Plaintiffs’ marks found to enjoy substantial recognition and goodwill, meriting the status of well-known trademarks – Declaration to aid in broader protection of Plaintiffs’ marks against misuse and infringement. [Paras 55-66]

Damages – Assessment and Award – Plaintiffs awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs for infringement by Defendants – Exemplary damages granted considering the extent of unauthorized use and impact on Plaintiffs’ reputation – Defendants' failure to appear or present evidence weighed in the decision – Damages aimed at compensating Plaintiffs and deterring future infringements. [Paras 43-52]

Costs – Award – Plaintiffs awarded Rs. 2 lakhs as costs – Consideration given to Plaintiffs' legal expenses and efforts to protect their trademarks – Award in line with principles of fair compensation and discouraging frivolous litigation. [Para 53]

Criminal Revision Petition – Discharge of Respondents by Trial Court Challenged – FIR for offenses under Sections 420/406/468/471/384/120B IPC – Allegations of illegal transfer of shares and fraudulent removal as director – High Court sets aside Trial Court order discharging respondents and remands matter for fresh consideration – Held that Trial Court failed to properly consider chargesheet and other materials provided by the Investigating Officer. [Paras 1, 18-21]

Role of Petitioner as Director and Shareholder – Contention – Alleged illegal transfer of shares and fraudulent removal as director by respondents – Petitioner claims shares were transferred and directorship removed without his consent using forged documents – Issues were also raised before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with contrasting findings – High Court finds that Trial Court did not adequately consider the chargesheet and investigation materials. [Paras 2-7, 18-21]

Decision – Discharge of Respondents Set Aside – Delhi High Court sets aside Trial Court’s order discharging respondents – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on the point of charge – High Court emphasizes need for careful examination of chargesheet and other investigation materials – Directs Trial Court to provide opportunity to parties for representation. [Paras 21-22]

Findings of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – Role in Criminal Proceedings – High Court notes that NCLT’s findings were considered by Trial Court – Observes that material before NCLT was not same as before the criminal court – Emphasizes distinction between civil and criminal proceedings and different standards of proof required. [Paras 3, 19-20]

Recovery of Arrears of Maintenance – Enforcement against Deceased's Estate – Criminal Revision Petition challenging the first appellate court's decision to allow recovery of maintenance arrears from deceased's assets – Trial court dismissed maintenance enforcement against deceased – Appellate court allowed recovery from deceased’s assets, including service benefits – High Court upholds recovery right, but sets aside interest awarded on arrears. [Paras 1-19]

Enforcement of Interim Maintenance Order Against Deceased's Estate – Legal Position – Held – Interim maintenance order can be enforced against deceased’s estate – Entitlement of the widow to recover arrears of maintenance from husband's assets reaffirmed – Maintenance arrears deemed recoverable from husband’s service benefits or assets inherited from him. [Paras 13-14, 17]

Interest on Maintenance Arrears – Legal Consideration – High Court sets aside 12% interest on arrears of maintenance awarded by the appellate court – Considered the financial position and circumstances of the mother-in-law (respondent No.3), who has not received any service benefits and is at an advanced age – Interest deemed not legally sustainable. [Paras 18-19]

Final Decision – Partial Allowance of Revision Petition – High Court partially allows revision petition – Confirms entitlement of petitioner for maintenance arrears but sets aside grant of interest – Judgment and order of first appellate court modified accordingly.

Arbitration Agreement - Referral to Arbitration - Interpretation of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petitioner sought reference to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the agreement governing their relationship - Trial Court rejected the application, citing failure to produce original or duly certified copy of the agreement - Petitioner contended that a duly certified copy of the agreement, attested by a Notary Public, was provided, fulfilling the statutory requirement - Held, Trial Court's refusal to refer the dispute to arbitration was erroneous - Section 8 mandates referral to arbitration upon satisfaction of specified conditions, including existence of an arbitration agreement and timely application by a party - Once prerequisites are met, Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration - Court must not delve into detailed analysis of agreement's terms, but ensure prima facie validity of arbitration clause - Compliance with Section 8(2) satisfied, rendering Court empowered to refer the matter to arbitration - Trial Court directed to refer the matter to arbitrator within specified timeframe - Revisional application allowed.

Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petition for grant of regular bail – Offences under Sections 21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Petitioner found in possession of 950 intoxicating capsules – Allegation of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 608 grams – Petitioner contends discrepancies in signature language on notice under Section 50 NDPS Act and FIR – Respondent asserts typographical error – Court refrains from delving into veracity of notice but acknowledges signature mismatch – Petitioner's first-time offender status and concluded investigation considered – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act – Mismatch in language of petitioner's signature – Respondent explains typographical error by investigating officer – Court refrains from adjudicating on notice's authenticity but notes discrepancy – Signature language inconsistency observed. [Paras 4-7]

Grant of Bail – Considerations – Petitioner's incarceration period, first-time offender status, and concluded investigation weighed – Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent misuse and ensure trial attendance – No expression of opinion on case merits. [Paras 8-11]

Live-in Relationship - Protection of Life and Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Entitlement to Protection: The petitioners, involved in a live-in relationship, seek protection of their life and liberty. The court acknowledges the right to life and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution, including the freedom to choose a partner, whether through marriage or a live-in relationship. Live-in relationships, though not universally accepted, are recognized by law and individuals involved are entitled to equal protection under the law. The court emphasizes that no citizen can take the law into their own hands. [Paras 10-11]

Protection Granted Regardless of Legal Status of Relationship: Despite the legal status of the relationship being questioned and criminal cases registered against the parties, the court emphasizes the paramount consideration of protecting life and liberty. Protection is granted by the court without delving into the legality of the relationship, ensuring that individuals fearing harm receive necessary safeguards. [Paras 12-14]

Directions to Authorities: The court directs respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioners' representation regarding threat perception and to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. However, the order does not preclude the initiation of legal proceedings against the petitioners if warranted. [Paras 15-17]