Factual Background – Instigation and Abetment of Suicide – FIR No. 294/2023 registered against Aarushi Gupta and Rishab Nayyar alleging instigation and abetment of suicide - Alleged victims were involved in a scuffle with the deceased, who later committed suicide - Accusations include serious verbal insults and threats - Evidence includes suicide note naming both applicants and other communications [Paras 1-9].

Legal Arguments – Defense and Prosecution – Defense argued the lack of direct evidence linking applicants to the act of suicide and highlighted flaws in the suicide note's timeline - Prosecution emphasized the severity of the verbal abuse and the direct naming in the suicide note [Paras 10-24].

Legal Analysis – Requirements for Section 306 IPC – Justice Amit Mahajan outlined the necessary legal standards for abetment to suicide, including the requirement for active instigation - Reviewed relevant case law illustrating the need for direct and active participation in encouraging suicide [Paras 25-34].

Decision – Bail Granted – Court granted bail, finding insufficient evidence of direct instigation by applicants - Highlighted the importance of not extending custodial interrogation when cooperation with investigation is evident - Set bail conditions including restricted travel and mandatory cooperation with ongoing investigations [Paras 35-42].

Procedural Appropriateness of Issuing Certified Copies Post-Disposition – Writ Appeal against order in Interim Application – 7th respondent/appellant challenges the High Court’s decision allowing the issuance of certified copies from a disposed writ petition (W.P.(Crl) No. 445/2022) under IA No.3/2024 – High Court holds that such issuance does not constitute a revival of disposed proceedings, deeming the relief ancillary – Appeal dismissed on grounds that interim application is legally permissible and aligns with ensuring a comprehensive prosecution by providing necessary documents to the de facto complainant – Apex Court precedents discussed to substantiate the decision. [Paras 3-14]

Issuance of Certified Copies – Judicial Directions – Held, the issuance of certified copies to 1st respondent for effective prosecution does not amount to reopening of disposed writ petition – Directed as ancillary relief, essential for substantiating the 1st respondent's case by ensuring access to inquiry statements – Upholds the need for transparency and procedural justice in ongoing criminal proceedings against the backdrop of unauthorized access and potential tampering of crucial digital evidence. [Paras 10-14]

Dismissal of Writ Appeal – Judgment Analysis – High Court finds no merit in the writ appeal, affirming the lower court’s order in IA No.3/2024 – Concludes that issuance of certified copies to the 1st respondent is a rightful exercise of judicial discretion aimed at supporting the factual foundation of the de facto complainant’s case without reviving the original disposed proceedings – Emphasizes protection of constitutional rights and procedural fairness. [Para 14]

Adverse Possession - Proof and Pleading - Requirement for Clear and Specific Pleading - Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s decree favoring the plaintiff - First Appellate Court held defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession - High Court held that the defendants' pleadings and evidence were insufficient to establish adverse possession - Judgment and decree of the trial court restored - Defendants’ claim of adverse possession must be explicit and unambiguous - Defendants failed to provide specific details of possession and the date from which it became adverse to the plaintiff.

Adverse Possession - Elements and Burden of Proof - Held: Defendants must demonstrate continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period - Defendants’ generic and conflicting claims about the property in their possession were inadequate - Possession must be hostile to the true owner and known to them - High Court found defendants’ evidence insufficient to prove adverse possession. [Paras 18-25]

Suit for Declaration and Possession - Cause of Action and Limitation - Held: Plaintiff proved his title and possession over the property - Defendants' claim of adverse possession did not displace plaintiff's title - Cause of action arose when plaintiff noticed illegal structures on the suit property - Suit not barred by limitation - Defendants' failure to specify the date from which possession became adverse invalidated their claim. [Paras 21, 24-26]

Decision:

Appeal allowed - Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside - Judgment and decree of the trial court restored - Plaintiff entitled to the reliefs sought.

Service Law – Withholding of Pension – Petitioner challenged orders dated August 19, 2019, and January 17, 2020, which imposed a penalty of withholding 10% monthly pension for a year and dismissed the appeal against the penalty respectively – High Court held that the penalty was justified due to petitioner's supervisory lapses and failure to report illegal sale of surplus cement – The decision was based on disciplinary proceedings that were revived post petitioner's reinstatement after initial removal from service [Paras 1-24, 32-42].

Promotion – Sealed Cover Procedure – Petitioner sought promotion in compliance with earlier court orders – High Court upheld that the review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings were rightly kept in a sealed cover due to pending disciplinary proceedings – DPC findings were not to be acted upon following the penalty imposition, and promotion claims were not automatic but subject to DPC review post penalty period [Paras 25-27, 44-47].

Jurisdiction – Review of Penalty – High Court emphasized its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with departmental inquiry outcomes – It cannot reappreciate evidence but can only ensure procedural compliance and absence of arbitrariness – Petitioner's acceptance of penalty precluded further claims on promotion or benefits as per statutory and judicial principles [Paras 43, 48-49].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – High Court upheld the penalty of withholding 10% monthly pension for one year – Petitioner's claims for promotion and additional benefits rejected due to procedural adherence and statutory limitations on appeals against Presidential Orders [Paras 49-50].

Deceptive Similarity – Pharmaceutical Trademarks – Appellant challenged the interim injunction granted against use of "INDAMET" – Claimed that "ISTAMET" and "INDAMET" are not deceptively similar – Court held stringent scrutiny applies to pharmaceutical products due to potential health risks – Injunction upheld based on structural and phonetic similarity, likelihood of consumer confusion [Paras 50-63]. 

Dominant Feature – Anti-Dissection Rule – Sun Pharma's registration for "ISTAMET XR CP" was scrutinized – Court identified "ISTAMET" as the dominant feature, disregarding generic terms "XR" and "CP" – Argument to exclude suffix "MET" was rejected as it would lead to artificial dissection of the mark [Paras 64-66]. 

Mode of Administration – Court rejected the appellant's argument regarding different modes of administration (oral vs. inhalation) – Noted that the possibility of consumer confusion remains, irrespective of administration method – Highlighted the necessity to avoid confusion, especially in pharmaceuticals [Paras 68-69]. 

Public Health and Safety – Emphasized that confusing pharmaceutical trademarks pose serious health risks – Court cited precedents underscoring the need for heightened scrutiny in medicinal product cases – Public interest supports a lesser degree of proof for establishing confusing similarity [Paras 51-58]. 

Third Party Trademarks – Appellant's reference to other trademarks with similar suffixes was dismissed – Court maintained that "MET" cannot be removed from the assessment of similarity – Recognized the dominant features as "ISTAMET" and "INDAMET" [Paras 74-75]. 

Decision: 

Appeal dismissed – Injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals upheld – Interim order vacated – Findings are prima facie and do not affect the merits of the case [Paras 76-77]. 

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.
 

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]