Civil Law – Execution Proceedings – Maintainability – Writ petition filed challenging impugned order in I.A. under Order XXI Rules 97–105 CPC in execution proceedings before Commercial Court – Held: Writ not maintainable when statutory remedy of Commercial Appeal available – Petitioner permitted to convert writ petition into Commercial Appeal under Section 37 of Commercial Courts Act – Registry directed to hand over case file for filing of appeal [Paras 6, 7, 9]

Interim Relief – Jurisdiction of Single Judge – Prayer for extension of interim order refused – Held: In absence of maintainable writ petition, Single Judge cannot continue interim relief – Petitioner granted liberty to seek interim relief before Division Bench upon filing of Commercial Appeal [Paras 7, 8]

Practice and Procedure – Statutory Remedy – When specific remedy of appeal exists under Commercial Courts Act, writ petition under Articles 226/227 not sustainable – Reliance placed on precedents from Division Bench and Single Bench decisions of Karnataka High Court [Para 5]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of as not maintainable – Petitioner permitted to convert it into a Commercial Appeal – Liberty granted to seek interim relief before Division Bench – Registry directed to immediately transfer the case file to facilitate filing of appeal [Paras 6–9]

Limitation Law - Review – Delay in Filing – Condonation of Delay – Review Petition filed with delay of 5743 days from judgment date and 489 days from dismissal of SLP – Explanation based on routine administrative process, file movement, legal opinion, and internal approvals – Held: Reasons offered by the State reflect gross negligence, red-tapism, and callous approach – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Law of limitation binds all parties, including the State – Petition dismissed [Paras 6–23].

Limitation – Delay by State – No Special Treatment – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that delay by government departments cannot be condoned merely due to inefficiency or file processing – State must act diligently – Law of limitation applies equally to government and private parties – Casual explanation based on administrative routine is insufficient to constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 8–13, 21].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Litigation – Supreme Court had already dismissed SLP against the same judgment citing both delay and merits – Review Petition effectively attempts to reopen what has attained finality – Held: Review jurisdiction cannot override or dilute findings of Supreme Court – Attempt to revisit settled matter rejected [Paras 5, 24].

Decision: Delay condonation application rejected – Consequently, Civil Misc. Review Petition also dismissed – State failed to offer sufficient cause for inordinate delay – Judgment dated 13.11.2009 attains finality [Paras 25–26].

Motor Accident Compensation – Maintainability of Appeal – Modified Award – Tribunal passed modified award deleting recovery rights of insurer against vehicle owner during pendency of appeal – Insurance company participated in modification proceedings and raised no objections – Held: Appeal maintainable – No bar against appeal on ground of subsequent modification – Tribunal rightly considered only recovery issue; no legal infirmity [Paras 5-10].

Motor Accident – Income Assessment – Claimant, a 36-year-old working abroad, failed to prove employment details or income – Tribunal fixed notional income at ₹4,000 – High Court, applying Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram, re-fixed monthly income at ₹5,500 considering accident year (2006) – Enhanced compensation granted accordingly [Paras 11-12].

Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Disability – Tribunal assessed 16% disability due to lack of whole-body assessment in medical certificate – PW2 (doctor) admitted whole-body disability was not assessed – High Court held tribunal erred in underestimating – Functional disability re-fixed at 25% – Compensation recalculated as ₹2,47,500 – Additional ₹1,32,300 awarded [Paras 12].

Compensation – Other Heads – Enhanced amounts granted under:

Loss of Earnings (increased period from 5 to 6 months): Additional ₹13,000

Bystander Expenses: Additional ₹3,000

Extra Nourishment: ₹6,000 granted for first time

Pain and Suffering: Increased from ₹25,000 to ₹35,000 – Additional ₹10,000

Loss of Amenities: Increased from ₹15,000 to ₹30,000 – Additional ₹15,000

Held: Tribunal failed to grant or undervalued these heads despite clear injuries and treatment – Enhancements justified [Paras 11-13].

Motor Accident Claims – Interest – Appeal delayed by 105 days – High Court held enhanced compensation will not carry interest for delay period – Otherwise, interest @7% p.a. awarded from date of petition till realisation – Directions given for disbursal upon furnishing of claimants' documents [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced by ₹1,79,300 with interest @7% p.a. (excluding 105 days of delay) – Insurance company directed to deposit amount within two months – Legal heirs entitled to full disbursal in accordance with law.

Civil Law – Decree on Admissions – Partition Suit – Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by appellant seeking summary decree of partition and rental income – Defendants had abandoned defence of oral family settlement and filed relinquishment deeds – High Court held that such documents did not amount to unequivocal admissions – No clear pleading regarding title in plaint – Significant factual disputes existed as to title, area of property, shares, heirs, and income – Held: Summary decree rightly denied – Full trial warranted [Paras 2, 15–22].

Partition – Requirement of Proof of Title – Plaintiff failed to plead title documents of parents from whom rights claimed – Prior judicial finding that plaintiff had not established that suit properties were part of intestate estate had attained finality – Relinquishment deeds of some defendants did not establish complete or uncontested ownership by parents – Held: In absence of foundational title pleadings, decree on admission cannot be granted [Paras 10, 15–18].

Admissions – Legal Standard – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Admissions must be unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional – Partition suits require detailed evidence on title, possession, and shares – Where disputes exist as to size of property, status of heirs, and rental income, matter not suitable for summary adjudication – Held: Appellant failed to demonstrate requisite admissions for decree [Paras 18–21].

Procedural Relief – Liberty to File Fresh Application – While dismissing appeal, Court granted liberty to file fresh and specific application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC if clear and unqualified admissions are identified – Any such application to be considered by learned Single Judge independently [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC declined – Appellant granted liberty to file a more detailed application identifying specific and unequivocal admissions – All pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24–26].

Service Law – Pay Protection – Ex-Servicemen – Discrimination among Constables appointed from same recruitment list – Violation of Article 14 – All respondents were ex-servicemen selected under the same 2018 recruitment list – Due to COVID-19 related constraints, training was conducted in four separate batches and appointments staggered – Only the first batch received pay protection while others were denied – Held: All candidates formed a homogeneous group as per the same advertisement and selection process – No intelligible differentia existed to justify differential treatment – Administrative exigencies like pandemic or infrastructure constraints cannot be grounds for hostile discrimination – Judgment of learned single-judge granting parity upheld [Paras 3, 5, 15-25].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Permissible Classification – Select list cannot be fragmented for pay or service benefits based on training schedule imposed by the State – Training is not part of the selection process but follows appointment under Rule 18 – Discrimination based on batch-wise training lacks rational nexus with the object of selection and violates equality before law [Paras 13, 16-20].

Recruitment – Service Benefits – Uniform Entitlements – No statutory rule authorizes different treatment in pay protection within the same select list – Court reiterates principles from Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar – Entire class entitled to uniform benefits including pay protection [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Special Appeals dismissed – Judgment of single-judge affirmed – State directed to grant pay protection and consequential benefits to all affected candidates within twelve weeks [Para 26].

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction - Infringement – Deceptive Similarity – Bata’s registered trademark ‘POWER’ found to be distinctive and associated with its footwear – Leayan’s mark ‘POWER FLEX’ held deceptively similar due to complete subsumption of Bata’s mark – Similarity of goods (both being footwear) supports likelihood of confusion or association – Injunction against Leayan upheld [Paras 33.1–33.8].

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Principles – Delay and acquiescence not a bar to injunction where infringement is found – Midas Hygiene Industries followed – Plea of delay rejected as Bata had opposed Leayan’s trademark registration and evidence of Leayan’s use was found insufficient and unauthenticated [Paras 35.1–35.6].

Trademark Law – Descriptive vs Suggestive Marks – POWER held suggestive and not descriptive when used for footwear – Suggestive marks are registrable and protectable – Leayan’s argument that POWER is a laudatory or common word rejected – POWER FLEX not descriptive of footwear characteristics – Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act not attracted [Paras 34.4–34.7].

Trademark Law – Honest Concurrent Use – Not a defense to infringement – Leayan’s reliance on prior usage and advertisements not supported by adequate evidence – Invoices and ads did not link use to POWER FLEX as a brand – No evidence of honest concurrent use [Paras 35.3–35.4].

Pleading and Procedural Fairness – Party Impleadment – Impleadment of retailer CBH as Defendant No. 1 not irregular or improper – No procedural law prescribes defendant sequencing – Direction of Single Judge to Registry requiring contesting party to be arrayed as Defendant No. 1 set aside [Paras 31.1–31.15].

Relief – Existing Stock – No error in allowing Leayan to exhaust existing stock under Court supervision – Adequate safeguards imposed – Objections to over-sale reserved for appropriate remedy before Single Judge [Paras 38–40].

Tagline Use – No Confusion – Use of tagline ‘THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER’ permitted – No undue emphasis on POWER found – Tagline unlikely to create confusion with Bata’s registered mark – Injunction rightly denied for tagline [Para 38(i)].

Decision: Appeals dismissed except to the extent that deletion of Chawla Boot House from the suit is set aside – Single Judge’s interim order upheld – Liberty reserved to Bata to move Single Judge on excess sale of stock [Paras 41–42].

Criminal Law – Sections 279, 338, 304A IPC - Motor Vehicle Accident – Acquittal – State appealed against the acquittal of respondent who was accused of causing death of two persons and injury to another due to rash and negligent driving – Prosecution alleged that respondent was driving an uninsured motorcycle that first collided with the injured’s motorcycle and then with the victims' – Trial court found no direct evidence proving rashness or negligence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: PW-1 (injured eyewitness) admitted he fell unconscious after the impact and had no memory of events thereafter – FIR was based on a statement prepared by the IO and not dictated by the injured himself – No independent evidence proving manner of driving – Legal presumption under res ipsa loquitur held inapplicable due to lack of corroborative facts – No error in granting benefit of doubt [Paras 23-36].

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – PW-1 claimed to have seen the accused and described the vehicle as coming at high speed – In cross-examination, admitted unconsciousness and confirmed he had no recollection of how the accident occurred – Also stated that he signed a pre-prepared complaint by IO – MLC stated he remembered nothing – Identity of accused as rider not disputed, but rashness/negligence remained unproven – Site plan failed to clarify collision sequence – Thus, eyewitness testimony held insufficient to establish guilt [Paras 25, 28-30, 33-34].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Legal Threshold – High Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible only when findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Trial Court had rightly assessed lack of credible and consistent testimony – Held: Mere occurrence of accident or tragic outcome cannot substitute for proof of offence – Acquittal justified in absence of cogent evidence [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – No interference warranted with trial court’s findings.

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – Chain of Circumstances Incomplete – Acquittal – Appellants convicted for abduction and murder of diamond delivery boy for stealing diamonds – Case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution relied on “last seen together”, CCTV footage, mobile call data, and recovery of diamonds – High Court held that identification of accused by witnesses was vitiated due to prior exposure to their photographs – TIP unreliable – Last seen theory failed due to lack of close time proximity to recovery of body – Medical evidence did not confirm time of death – Chain of circumstances held broken – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 32-52, 68-69].

Evidence Act – Section 65-B – CCTV Footage – Admissibility – Non-functional Playback and Witness Denial – Though original DVR and hard-disk produced, CCTV pen-drive was corrupted and could not be played in Court – Witness (PW34) failed to identify accused from unclear footage – Held: Circumstance of CCTV presence not proved beyond doubt – Could not be relied upon [Paras 53-57].

Identification Parade – Test Identification – Vitiated by Prior Exposure – TIP rendered unreliable where photographs of accused were shown to key witnesses (PWs 15–19) before TIP – Last seen evidence collapsed due to tainted identification – Reliance on Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180 [Paras 44-47].

Recovery – Failure to Produce Stolen Articles in Court – Diamonds Not Produced – Recovery of stolen diamonds from accused’s home not proved as diamonds were never produced before court – Violated rule laid in Niranjan Panja v. State of West Bengal – Motive of robbery also held unproven [Paras 58-60].

Recovery of Weapons – From Open/Public Places – Not Reliable – Knife and belt allegedly used in crime recovered from accessible public places – Held: Recoveries from such locations cannot be treated as strong incriminating evidence – Relied on Jaikam Khan v. State of UP, (2021) 13 SCC 716 [Paras 61-62].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard in Circumstantial Cases – Held: Prosecution failed to exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt – Where multiple interpretations are possible, benefit must go to the accused – Conviction reversed [Paras 67-69].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – To be released forthwith unless wanted in another case – Directed to furnish PR bonds under Section 481 BNSS [Para 69].

Judicial Review – Tender Matters – Disputed Questions of Fact – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petitioner sought cancellation of tender and award in his favour alleging higher revised bid and violation of tender conditions – Rival parties produced mutually contradictory documents regarding the amount of revised bid submitted – Held: Where adjudication requires examination of disputed and contested facts and authenticity of documents, High Court would not exercise writ jurisdiction – Parties relegated to civil remedies [Paras 11–14].

Tender Process – Financial Bid – Alleged Non-Consideration of Revised Bid – Petitioner claimed submission of revised bid of Rs. 62,22,222/- whereas tendering authority asserted last valid revised bid was Rs. 11,00,000/- – Both sides relied upon separate acknowledgments and bid documents – Court held that determination of which document was genuine required leading of evidence – Such controversy not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 [Paras 12–13].

Tender Conditions – Clause 6.3 of RFP – Mandatory Notice of 7 Days for Opening of Financial Bids – Admitted infraction by tendering authority – Effect of Violation – Held: Mere violation of tender condition does not ipso facto vitiate tender process unless serious prejudice is demonstrated – Petitioner failed to establish prejudice caused due to non-issuance of notice, especially in light of disputed facts regarding presence of petitioner’s representative and bid amount – No ground for annulment of tender or grant of contract [Paras 15–18].

Natural Justice – Prejudice – Requirement of Proof – Even where procedural lapse is admitted, Court must be satisfied that such lapse resulted in real and demonstrable prejudice to the complaining party – In absence of clear proof of prejudice, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to be exercised [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference with tender process or award in favour of successful bidder – Liberty implicit to petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.