Patent Law – Inventive Step – Assessment – Appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs’ refusal of a patent application for a portable vehicle management system – Refusal based on the application not meeting the inventive step requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 – Claims rejected as obvious in light of prior art D4 (US2002019703A1) and D5 (US2015019266A1) – Court upheld the refusal, stating the claimed features of portability and comprehensive monitoring were well-known and lacked inventive ingenuity. [Paras 7-26]

Patent Law – Doctrine of Non-Obviousness – Analysis – Court found the invention lacked inventive step as the features of portability and anomaly detection were already disclosed in prior arts – The combination of known technologies from prior arts D4 and D5 was deemed obvious and within the capabilities of a person skilled in the art – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 15-26]

Decision – Rejection of Patent Application – Court affirmed the Assistant Controller’s decision to reject the patent application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 – Held that the subject invention did not exhibit an inventive step over prior arts – Patent refusal justified. [Para 25-26]

Labour Law – Implementation of Wage Board Award – Applicability of Exemption Clause – The appellant challenged the enforcement of the Majithia Wage Board Award, which mandated revised wages for newspaper employees. The primary contention was that the appellant was exempt from making such payments due to “heavy cash losses” incurred in the preceding three financial years. The court evaluated the factual matrix and balance sheets provided by the appellant and concluded that the appellant failed to establish continuous crippling losses necessary for the claimed exemption. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the Wage Board Award upheld by the Supreme Court. Held: The appellant is not entitled to exemption from paying revised wages as per the Majithia Wage Board Award. [Paras 1-56]

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitation – Reiteration of Legal Principles – The appellant sought review of the initial order dismissing their plea for exemption under the Wage Board Award. The court reiterated that the scope of review is limited and cannot be used to reargue the same points already decided or to introduce new grounds not raised initially. The appellant’s acquiescence to jurisdiction and participation in proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections at earlier stages precludes raising such objections in review. Held: Review petitions dismissed; no new grounds for reconsideration found. [Paras 36-56]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Both the impugned judgment and the review order passed by the learned Single Judge were upheld. The appellant is directed to comply with the Majithia Wage Board Award and pay the arrears to the respondent employees within four weeks. No order as to costs. [Paras 57-59]

Administrative Law – Writ of Mandamus – Commercial Circular No. 61 of 2017 – Petitioners, operating multipurpose stalls at railway stations, challenged Clauses 5 and 11 of the 2017 Policy as arbitrary and unconstitutional – Sought renewal of licenses in light of the Supreme Court judgment in South Central Railways – Court held the 2017 Policy was non-arbitrary and the provisions were within the legal framework – Petitioners’ contention of coercion in converting to the new policy was dismissed due to lack of evidence – Held that the policy was in line with public interest, ensuring fair competition and opportunity for all eligible participants – Writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 1-36]

Contract Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Petitioners argued legitimate expectation for renewal of licenses – Court found no merit as the policy explicitly stated licenses were non-renewable – Doctrine of legitimate expectation does not grant an indefeasible right – Reliance on public interest and policy changes can negate such expectations – Held that the refusal to renew was not arbitrary. [Paras 25-29]

Force Majeure – Extension of License Period due to Covid-19 – Petitioners sought longer extension of licenses due to Covid-19 disruptions – Respondents had already extended the period by 68 days – Court found the extension was determined based on ground realities and was not arbitrary – Petitioners’ claim for further extension or policy framing was not maintainable under writ jurisdiction – Remedy lies in arbitration as per license agreement. Petition Dismissed. [Paras 30-35]

Prevention of Corruption – Acquittal Appeal – State challenged acquittal of accused for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act – High Court upheld acquittal, noting discrepancies in prosecution's case and lack of credible evidence against respondent No.2 – Highlighted importance of consistency and corroboration in evidence for conviction [Paras 1-13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Material Contradictions – Court noted significant contradictions in witness testimonies and evidence – Prosecution's case weakened by hostile witnesses and inconsistent statements regarding demand and acceptance of bribe – Emphasized need for clear and consistent evidence in corruption cases [Paras 9-10].

Legal Principles and Standards – Presumption of Innocence – Court reinforced the principle that acquittal should not be overturned unless findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – Referenced Supreme Court rulings underscoring cautious approach in reversing acquittals [Paras 8, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld due to lack of compelling evidence and contradictions in prosecution’s case [Paras 13].

Adverse Possession – Ownership Claim – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of suit land by adverse possession for over 12 years – Trial court held possession but dismissed suit as time-barred – First appellate court reversed, declaring plaintiffs owners by adverse possession – Regular second appeal dismissed by High Court, affirming adverse possession due to uninterrupted, hostile possession since 1969 [Paras 1-18].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Fresh suit filed after previous suit withdrawn with liberty – Fresh cause of action arose after 12 years from 1971, not time-barred [Paras 10-11].

Revenue Records – Analysis of entries – Plaintiffs' possession recorded without rent payment, indicating adverse possession – Revenue terms interpreted to support plaintiffs' claim [Paras 8-9].

Relief – Regular second appeal dismissed – First appellate court's judgment upheld – Plaintiffs declared owners by adverse possession [Para 18].

NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Recovery of poppy husk – Appellants not apprehended at the scene – Identification issues – Procedural lapses – Independent witness not examined – Case property not produced – Appeals allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1-16].

Adverse Inference – Case property destruction due to flood – Allegation deemed unsupported – Trial court's reliance on uncorroborated testimony criticized [Paras 10-11].

Identification – No test identification parade conducted – Prosecution's reliance on witness claiming prior knowledge of appellants deemed insufficient – Absence of local witnesses to corroborate presence at crime scene noted [Paras 12-13].

Investigative Bias – Investigating Officer also the complainant – Potential for bias highlighted – Supreme Court precedents referenced [Para 15].

Relief – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs – Compliance with Procedural Requirements – Appellants Rajinder Singh @ Bittu and Baljit Singh convicted for possessing 25 kg of heroin – Prosecution argued non-compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act regarding information recording and senior officer notification – Held, Section 43 applicable as the seizure was from a vehicle in a public place, thus no requirement for Section 42 compliance [Paras 7-13].

Witness Testimony – Official Witnesses – Prosecution relied on official witnesses due to independent witness collusion with accused – Court upheld the credibility of official witnesses’ testimonies, rejecting the need for independent corroboration given the circumstances and the substantial recovery involved [Paras 14-16].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Argued non-compliance with Section 50 due to absence of personal search recovery – Held, Section 50 not applicable to vehicle searches; compliance observed through Gazetted Officer’s presence during search [Paras 17-20].

Vehicle Ownership – Prosecution established appellants’ use of a stolen vehicle with a fake number plate for heroin smuggling – Conviction under IPC for forgery and possession of stolen property upheld [Paras 21-23].

Evidence Handling – Delay in sample dispatch to FSL – Court found delay insignificant as seals remained intact, ensuring evidence integrity [Para 23].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Convictions and sentences upheld – No procedural violations affecting the trial’s integrity found [Para 24].

Civil Procedure – Remand Order – Appellate court quashed trial court's judgment and remanded case for fresh consideration – Appellant contended appellate court failed to specify new issues or necessity for additional evidence – High Court finds remand order lacks justification, sets it aside, and directs appellate court to decide appeal on merits [Paras 1-13].

Order 41 CPC – Powers of Appellate Court – Remand under Rules 23, 23A, 24 – Appellate court must specify issues or necessity for remand – Evidence on record sufficient for adjudication mandates final decision without remand – High Court emphasizes appellate court’s obligation to decide appeal on merits unless retrial is essential [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedents – High Court refers to Kerala and Allahabad High Courts' rulings, emphasizing minimal use of remand powers and appellate court’s duty to decide on merits when evidence suffices – References: Gopalkrishnan v. V. Ponnappan, Prem Raj v. Nagar Palika, RSRTC v. Haridwarilal Sharma [Para 10].

Decision – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Allowed – Remand order quashed – Appellate court directed to hear and decide appeal on merits – Parties to appear before appellate court on specified date [Paras 11-13].

Criminal Law – Conviction Under Common Intention – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC – Court finds material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies – Appellants not proven to have individually caused fatal injuries – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside, convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained [Paras 1-18].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Injured eyewitness could not identify attackers due to darkness – Court notes inconsistencies and contradictions in statements regarding involvement of accused in causing fatal injuries [Paras 12-14].

Evidence and Delay – Incident reported with two-hour delay – Bloodstained lathis recovered but blood group undetermined – Court finds prosecution failed to conclusively link appellants to fatal injuries [Paras 8, 16].

Joint Liability – Applicability of Section 149 IPC – Material contradictions in evidence regarding common intention – No direct evidence linking surviving appellants to causing fatal injuries – Court emphasizes requirement for clear evidence of common object for joint liability [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Convictions under Section 302/149 IPC quashed – Convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained – Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended – Appellants' bail bonds discharged [Paras 18-19].