Patent Law – Revocation of Patent – Lack of Novelty and Inventive Step – Section 64 of the Patents Act – Petitioner sought revocation of Patent No. 249376 for the process of preparing chiral beta-amino alcohols, claiming it lacked novelty and inventive step – Petitioner relied on prior arts, including European and US patents, alleging that the process steps, reactants, and catalysts were already known – Court held: Respondent's patent showed technical advancement with a higher yield (60-70%) and optical purity (close to 100%) over the prior arts – Novelty and inventive step established – Petition dismissed [Paras 32-38].

Patent Law – Interested Person – Section 2(t) of the Patents Act – Petitioner claimed to be an interested person as a competitor in the same pharmaceutical field – Court held: Petitioner qualifies as an interested person under Section 2(t) – However, the burden to establish grounds for revocation, including lack of novelty and inventive step, was not discharged by the Petitioner – Petition dismissed [Paras 28-31, 43].

Patent Law – Burden of Proof in Post-Grant Challenge – The burden of proving the invalidity of a patent in post-grant challenges lies with the Petitioner – The Respondent overcame all objections raised by the Patent Controller, and the patent was granted after due examination and amendments – Court held: Mere citation of prior arts without establishing lack of novelty or inventive step is insufficient to revoke a granted patent [Paras 42-44].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Offence – The petitioners, former directors of a company, were accused of non-payment of outstanding salary and performance bonus to an ex-employee. The Court held that the allegations, even if true, constituted a civil dispute over payment of dues and did not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC – No dishonest or fraudulent intention was shown at the time of engagement – Non-payment of salary alone does not amount to criminal offence [Paras 16-25]​.

Jurisdiction – Mandatory Enquiry under Section 202 CrPC – The Court noted that the petitioners resided outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. As per Section 202 of CrPC, a mandatory enquiry must be conducted before issuing summons to accused persons residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction – Since the enquiry was not conducted, the proceedings were quashed [Paras 30-40]​.

Decision – Criminal revision allowed – Proceedings quashed – Issuance of summons to the petitioners set aside​.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 188 IPC – Absence of Written Complaint by Public Servant – Proceedings Quashed - The petitioners were charged under Section 188 IPC for allegedly obstructing a police officer’s duty. The Court held that cognizance under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint from the public servant as per Section 195(1)(a) CrPC. Since no such written complaint was filed, the Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the charge sheet and FIR were without jurisdiction [Paras 8-10].

Section 195 CrPC – Bar on Cognizance Without Written Complaint – Application of Law - The Court reiterated the bar under Section 195 CrPC, which requires a written complaint by the public servant for offences under Section 188 IPC. The absence of such a complaint vitiates the entire proceedings, even if other charges, like Section 323 and Section 353 IPC, are involved, as these charges arise from the same transaction [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed - The Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 188, 323, and 353 read with Section 149 IPC, in light of the lack of a valid written complaint from the public servant, as required by law [Paras 12-13].

Trafficking and Exploitation – Section 370(A)(2) IPC – Applicability to Customers – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner, accused as a customer in a case of prostitution, sought to quash the proceedings against him, arguing that Section 370(A)(2) IPC should not apply to customers. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Section 370(A)(2) IPC clearly covers individuals who knowingly engage in sexual exploitation of trafficked persons, including customers. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner’s involvement as a customer fell within the ambit of the offence under Section 370(A)(2) IPC [Paras 6-12].

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Distinction Between Punishment for Traffickers and Customers - The Court reiterated that while the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act primarily target traffickers, Section 370(A)(2) IPC specifically penalizes customers who exploit trafficked persons. The petitioner, being caught in the act of sexual exploitation, was correctly charged under Section 370(A)(2) IPC, and the charges were upheld [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed - The Court dismissed the criminal petition, ruling that the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 370(A)(2) IPC would continue, as the petitioner’s role as a customer fell squarely under the purview of the offence [Paras 12-13].

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Against Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) – Availability of Statutory Remedies – The petitioner filed a writ petition against the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the expiration of the 30-day statutory period for raising objections before the Adjudicating Authority – Held: The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, which provide adequate safeguards and opportunities to challenge the attachment – Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to approach the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 1.1, 3.1, 3.6].

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA – Judicial Review – The petitioner’s challenge to the PAO, asserting a lack of connection with the proceeds of crime, was found unsustainable – The PAO is subject to review and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days as per Section 5(5) of the PMLA – The court found that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasize procedural safeguards provided under the Act [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedies – When Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked – The petitioner failed to establish that the PAO was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or amounted to an abuse of process, which are the grounds for bypassing statutory remedies – Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the limited exceptions to the rule of exhausting remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 3.2, 3.6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedy by approaching the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA – No observation on the merits of the case made – The Adjudicating Authority is directed to expedite the matter [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Permissive Possession – Adverse Possession Claim Rejected – Appeal Allowed – The plaintiff-appellant sought possession of land transferred under an agreement to sell, which was subsequently cancelled. The respondent-defendant claimed adverse possession, citing long-standing occupancy post-termination. Held: Possession acquired through an agreement to sell is inherently permissive; adverse possession cannot arise until the vendee repudiates this permission and establishes hostile ownership. Asserting adverse possession while retaining rights under the agreement is contradictory and invalidates the adverse possession claim [Paras 22-25, 28].

Doctrine of Part Performance and Adverse Possession – Incompatibility – The Court emphasized that a vendee in possession under an agreement to sell cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession and part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Following Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, the Court ruled that permissive possession through an agreement precludes hostile possession until explicit repudiation of the agreement occurs [Paras 24-26].

Limitations and Permissive Possession – Applicability of Article 65 – The Court applied Article 65 of the Limitation Act, noting that limitation starts from dispossession or overt hostility. Here, no proof of adverse conduct was shown, as the defendant's possession stemmed from the agreement's permissive basis, which remains until formal revocation [Paras 21, 23].

Restitution Under Void Contract – Section 65, Indian Contract Act – The Court held that a contract rendered void necessitates restitution. Since the agreement failed, the defendant must restore possession to the plaintiffs per Section 65. The principle of restitution applies where the defendant seeks to benefit from a void contract without fulfilling its terms [Para 30].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts. The suit for possession is decreed, with instructions that the defendant vacate the property, as adverse possession is unsubstantiated. The principle of restitution under void contracts mandates possession reversion to the plaintiffs.

Bail in NDPS Cases – Medical Grounds – Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Granted with Conditions - The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, citing critical health conditions requiring care outside the prison setting, while the prosecution opposed the application due to the commercial quantity involved and alleged serious misconduct involving misuse of position by police personnel. Given the petitioner’s critical medical needs, the court held that stringent conditions on release could meet the justice requirements and balance the health needs – Bail was granted, overriding Section 37’s rigor in this context, with specific restrictive and rehabilitative conditions on the petitioner [Paras 9-12].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Ensuring Fair Trial and Prevention of Offense Repetition - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to submit detailed identification records and barred possession of firearms, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitation and reform as part of bail considerations – These conditions reflect the judiciary's intent to mitigate risks of witness tampering and recurrence of offenses, balancing bail with public safety concerns [Paras 14-19].

Discretion in Bail for Medical Reasons – Role of Proportionality and Necessity - Emphasizing the necessity for proportionality in bail conditions, the court aligned with Supreme Court observations that bail restrictions should not infringe rights disproportionately – The petitioner was held eligible for bail on medical grounds, subject to compliance with conditions supporting public and individual safety [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Granted – Given the petitioner’s critical medical condition and satisfaction of initial Section 37 conditions, the court granted bail with stringent restrictions to safeguard public safety and ensure the petitioner’s compliance.

Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Minimum Wages Act vs. Industrial Disputes Act - The petitioner challenged the Labour Court’s direction to pay differential minimum wages to a workman engaged through a contractor, arguing the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to determine disputed wage claims. Held: The Minimum Wages Act provides an exclusive remedy under Section 20 for wage disputes, making the Labour Court’s order under Section 33-C(2) ultra vires [Paras 8-9].

Principal Employer Liability - Contract Labour - The Court held that the Labour Court erred in directing the principal employer to pay differential wages without recourse to the prescribed process under the Minimum Wages Act. The workman must approach authorities under the Minimum Wages Act for such claims [Paras 3-4].

Relief and Directions - The Court set aside the Labour Court’s order, granting liberty to the workman to seek remedies under the Minimum Wages Act, with guidance that time spent in proceedings before the Labour Court and High Court would be considered regarding limitation [Para 9].

Decision: The petitions are allowed, and the Labour Court's order is set aside. The respondent-workmen are directed to pursue remedies under the Minimum Wages Act.
 

Criminal Law - Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Jurisdiction of Magistrate at Post-Cognizance Stage – Complaint Upheld, Further Investigation Denied - The petitioner sought an order directing fresh investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. based on alleged mishandling of the original investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Magistrate treated the protest petition as a complaint after taking cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C., rendering Section 156(3) application non-maintainable – Held: A Magistrate is precluded from ordering further police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. once cognizance has been taken, affirming the approach in Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [Paras 11-12].

Civil vs. Criminal Nature of Dispute – SIT and Final Report Analysis – Civil Dispute Indicated - SIT’s closure report indicated that alleged financial irregularities, including unauthorized loan agreements and undervalued leases, were insufficient to establish criminal intent under IPC sections cited – Concluded that discrepancies primarily pointed to internal company affairs, characterizing the issue as a civil dispute rather than a cognizable offense – Court dismissed petition for fresh investigation [Paras 5-8].

Challenge to SIT’s Final Report – Assessment of Evidence – Deficient Justification for Reinvestigation - Petitioner argued that the SIT failed to investigate misappropriation of lease amounts and unsecured loans in detail – Court held that given the findings of the SIT, the allegations at most involved administrative discrepancies within company transactions without substantiation of criminal conduct – Judicial precedent requires substantial grounds for reopening investigation; no such grounds established [Paras 6-9].

Scope of Magistrate’s Discretion under Section 156(3) – Binding Nature of Precedent - Citing Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, Court reaffirmed the necessity for Magistrate’s judicious discretion in invoking Section 156(3), limited to pre-cognizance phase only – Confirmed that the Magistrate correctly declined to order fresh investigation once he had initiated proceedings on the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10-11].

Final Decision - The petition seeking quashing of SIT’s closure report and orders for further investigation was dismissed as non-maintainable due to the cognizance already taken and lack of substantive criminal findings by SIT.