Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Suppression of Material Facts – Plaintiff failed to disclose joint business activities with defendant and proceedings before Trade Marks Registry – Misleading plea of prior use despite declaring mark as “proposed to be used” – Held: Suppression disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief and injunction can be refused on this ground alone [Paras 16, 17(1), 19]

Trademark Law – Composite Mark – Anti-Dissection Rule – Section 17 – Plaintiff held registration of device mark – Attempt to claim exclusivity over word “Kshetrapal” rejected – Held: Rights exist only in mark as a whole and not in individual non-distinctive components unless separately registered or shown to have acquired distinctiveness [Paras 15, 17(3)]

Trademark Law – Distinctiveness – Religious/Generic Expression – Word “Kshetrapal” held to be name of deity and publici juris – Lacks inherent distinctiveness – No secondary meaning established – No monopoly permissible over such expression [Paras 16(iv), 17(2), 17(3)]

Trademark Law – Prior User vs Registered Proprietor – Sections 28 and 34 – Plaintiff’s mark registered as “proposed to be used” – Defendant prima facie established prior use since 2014 – Held: Prior user rights prevail over subsequent registration – Plaintiff failed to prove prior use in relevant trade [Paras 16(i), 17(2)]

Trademark Law – Presumption of Validity – Section 31 – Registration is only prima facie evidence – Cannot be used to claim exclusivity over part of composite mark – Presumption applies to mark as a whole, not its components [Para 17(4)]

Trademark Law – Likelihood of Confusion – Real Estate Transactions – Application of average consumer test – Purchase of immovable property involves due diligence – Held: Possibility of confusion remote and not sufficient to grant injunction [Para 17(5)]

Equitable Relief – Clean Hands Doctrine – Plaintiff approached Court with suppression and inconsistent stands before Registrar and Court – Held: Litigant suppressing material facts not entitled to interim or final relief [Paras 17(1), 19]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretion – Appeal against refusal of injunction – Held: Trial Court exercised discretion judiciously – No interference warranted under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC [Paras 18, 19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000 – Order refusing interim injunction upheld – Civil Application dismissed.

Criminal Trial – Murder Conviction based on Dying Declaration – Reliability and Suspicion – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside where prosecution case collapsed due to hostile witnesses and suspicious dying declaration – Held, dying declaration must be free from suspicion and inspire confidence; in absence of corroboration and presence of serious procedural irregularities, conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 42–49, 59]

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Failure to Record Statements under Section 164 CrPC – Material lapse in investigation – All key witnesses including family and neighbours turned hostile and denied prosecution case – IO failed to secure statements before Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC – Held, such omission creates serious doubt about prosecution version and suggests possible coercion in recording Section 161 statements [Paras 33–38]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Procedural Defects – Declaration recorded by doctor without informing police, not in question-answer form, not read over to victim – Victim survived for 10 days after declaration – No attempt made to record declaration before Magistrate – Held, circumstances render dying declaration highly suspicious and unsafe for sole reliance [Paras 45–48, 52–53, 57]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Requirement of Corroboration – Where declaration suffers from inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances – Held, as per settled law, suspicious dying declaration requires corroboration; absence thereof fatal to prosecution [Para 43]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Contradictory Prosecution Case – Simultaneous suggestions of homicide and suicide – Prosecution witnesses deposed accidental burn during cooking while earlier statements alleged homicidal act – Held, such contradictions weaken prosecution case fundamentally [Para 41]

Investigation – Lapses – Failure to explain material circumstances – No explanation how locked room opened; seizure witnesses unreliable; medical evidence inconclusive as to homicidal or suicidal burns – Held, cumulative lapses render prosecution case doubtful [Paras 39–40, 32]

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Burn injuries – Doctor unable to opine whether injuries homicidal or suicidal – Held, absence of conclusive medical opinion adds to reasonable doubt [Para 32]

Criminal Appeal – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 59–61]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released subject to conditions under Section 437 CrPC – Connected applications disposed of.

Testamentary Succession – Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Will dated 08.10.1947 purportedly executed by Kala Singh in favour of Bhagwan Singh – Will surfaced for the first time in 1994, 47 years after alleged execution, immediately after escheat proceedings were affirmed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division – Neither produced before revenue authorities during escheat inquiry (1975-1994) nor set up during claim proceedings under the Displaced Persons Act – Incorrect genealogical recitals, reference to post-partition statutory terminology, unnatural exclusion of daughters, interested attesting witnesses, and production through a third party in a subsequently withdrawn suit – Held: Propounder failed to dispel suspicious circumstances; Will forged and fabricated; claim of testamentary succession collapses; First Appellate Court's reversal affirmed [Paras 41-52].

Allotment – Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Identity of Allottee – Revenue extracts conclusively proved that suit land was allotted to Kala Singh son of Ishar Singh and not to Kala Singh son of Wasawa Singh – No claim form ever filed by Kala Singh son of Wasawa Singh before Custodian authorities – Held: Foundational premise of all private claims destroyed; neither testamentary claimant nor collaterals nor mortgagees can derive any right in a property that was never allotted to their asserted ancestor; allotment under the rehabilitation scheme is non-transferable and devolves strictly per the recorded allottee's lineage [Paras 53-55, 71-72].

Escheat – Section 29 Hindu Succession Act – Article 296 Constitution of India – Finality of Revenue Orders – Escheat declared by Tehsildar (27.02.1975), SDM (24.02.1976) and District Collector (30.03.1994) after statutory inquiry under Sections 32, 34 and 35 Punjab Land Revenue Act – Orders never challenged in appropriate proceedings by Bhagwan Singh – No prayer to set aside escheat orders in Civil Suits Nos. 34 or 7 – Held: Unchallenged escheat orders attained finality and cannot be collaterally impeached; declaration under Section 34 Specific Relief Act requires existing legal right which ceased on escheat; where succession fails for want of heirs, property vests absolutely in the State by operation of law [Paras 56-60, 73].

Mortgage – Claim of Ownership by Efflux of Time – Mortgagee's possession permissive in nature – Mortgaged land previously held to have been redeemed by the Court in a prior suit (Ex. PX/2) – No decree of foreclosure ever obtained – Held: A mortgage does not ripen into ownership by mere long possession; mortgagor's title subsists unless equity of redemption is lawfully extinguished; permissive possession cannot constitute adverse possession; claim rejected; further rendered nugatory by finding that suit land was not allotted to Kala Singh son of Wasawa Singh [Paras 61-63].

Adverse Possession – Mutually Inconsistent Pleas – Plaintiff claimed title simultaneously as heir, legatee under the Will and adverse possessor – Held: A person asserting title through succession cannot simultaneously deny the true owner's title and claim hostile possession; such inconsistent pleas destroy the animus possidendi; no overt act of hostility against the State or Custodian proved; mere payment of land revenue and mutation entries insufficient; plea of adverse possession self-destructive and rejected [Paras 64-66].

Collateral Inheritance – Failure to Prove Cognatic Relationship – Defendants claiming as collaterals of Kala Singh through alleged daughters Atto and Bisso – Pedigree tables wholly unsubstantiated; witnesses not contemporaries of alleged ancestors; testimony based on hearsay – Revenue record consistently showed Kala Singh as having died issueless – No mutation entries, inheritance proceedings or independent suits by alleged collaterals during their lifetimes – Held: Burden of proving succession under Section 101 Evidence Act not discharged; claim devoid of foundational legitimacy [Paras 67-70].

Scope of Second Appeal – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Held: Second appeals in Punjab and Haryana are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not Section 100 CPC; no substantial question of law required to be framed [Para 35].

Decision: All ten Regular Second Appeals dismissed – Entire estate of Kala Singh situated in Village Alipur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala held to have lawfully vested in the State of Punjab by operation of the doctrine of escheat – Common judgment dated 23.05.2002 of the First Appellate Court affirmed in toto – State authorities at liberty to proceed to take possession of the estate in accordance with law.

Property Law – Sale Deed – Want of Consideration – Void ab initio – Sale Deeds Null and Dead Letters – Two registered sale deeds executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendant for total consideration of Rs. 1,02,30,000/-, stated to have been paid through eight cheques all dated the respective dates of execution – Cheques were returned to the defendant at his insistence on the ground that mutation was denied by the authorities – Defendant failed to prove subsequent payment of consideration through alternate mode to the plaintiffs/creditors/relatives – Held: Where a sale deed recites that the entire sale consideration has been paid through cheques on the date of execution and the cheques are admittedly returned without encashment, the consideration does not pass in terms of the sale deed; the sale deed is null and void, a nullity and dead letter in the eyes of law – No declaration or cancellation of such void deeds is required to be sought as the same is non-est – Appeal allowed [Paras 69, 70, 80, 86, 89].

Sale – Passing of Title – Condition Precedent – Intention of Parties – Ta Khubzul Badlain – The true test for passing of title is the intention of the parties, to be gathered primarily from the recitals of the sale deed; mere registration is prima facie but not conclusive proof of intention to transfer if payment of consideration is a condition precedent – Where sale deed recites entire consideration paid on the date of execution through cheques but the cheques are returned and defendant fails to prove subsequent payment, neither title nor possession passes to the purchaser, notwithstanding recitals to the contrary – The practice of "Ta Khubzul Badlain" (title passing only on exchange of equivalents) applicable in undivided State of Bihar continues to apply to the State of Jharkhand created out of Bihar by the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 [Paras 72–77, 81, 84].

Maintainability – Suit for Return of Void Sale Deeds – Section 34 Specific Relief Act – A suit for return of original sale deeds, asserting the deeds to be void for want of consideration, does not amount to a suit for declaration of title and is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act merely because no prayer for recovery of possession is made – When a document is void ab initio, no decree setting aside the same is required as it is a nullity; accordingly, the plaintiff need not seek cancellation or declaration and the suit for return of the void documents is maintainable [Paras 57, 60, 63, 64, 65].

Court Fees – Suit for Return of Void Documents – Where neither a declaration that the sale deeds are void nor recovery of possession is prayed for and the only relief is return of original sale deeds, ad valorem court fees is not payable and a fixed court fee of Rs. 250/- is sufficient [Para 63].

Decision: First Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2023 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) III, Jamshedpur in O.S. No. 212 of 2016 set aside – Sale deeds bearing No. 705/508 dated 07.02.2014 and No. 2736/2125 dated 17.05.2014 held to be void, null and dead letters for want of consideration – Defendant directed to hand over the original sale deeds to the plaintiffs within three months, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to recover the same through court process [Paras 88–91].

Arbitration – Non-Signatory – Veritable Party Doctrine – Application under Section 11 – Dispute arising from Participation Agreement (PA) containing arbitration clause between Applicant and Respondent No.1 – Respondent No.2 (MCA) not signatory to PA but actively involved in conduct, performance and termination of contract – MCA exercised final decision-making authority and executed Supplementary Agreement assuming obligations – Held: MCA is a “veritable party” and can be bound by arbitration agreement despite being non-signatory [Paras 34–40].

Arbitration – Group of Companies Doctrine – Test of Intention and Participation – Court applied principles laid down in Cox and Kings – Non-signatory can be referred to arbitration based on mutual intent, composite transaction, commonality of subject matter and active participation in performance – MCA’s role was direct, substantial and indispensable in execution and termination of contract – Inference of intention to be bound by arbitration agreement justified [Paras 35–37, 39–40].

Arbitration – Composite Transaction – Multiple Agreements – Participation Agreement and Supplementary Agreement executed to achieve single commercial objective (conduct of T20 League) – Supplementary Agreement inseparably intertwined with PA and materially altered its terms – Performance of PA not feasible without Supplementary Agreement – Held: Even non-signatory to principal agreement can be referred to arbitration in composite transaction [Paras 41–44].

Arbitration – Necessary Party – Specific Performance – Relief sought by Applicant included right to participate in League – MCA being ultimate authority controlling participation was necessary party – No effective adjudication possible in its absence – Strengthens inclusion of MCA in arbitral reference [Para 54].

Arbitration – Limitation – Scope of Inquiry under Section 11 – Objection that claim is “deadwood” and time-barred – Held: At Section 11 stage, Court should not conduct detailed inquiry into limitation of claims – Only limited examination permissible – Issue of limitation to be decided by arbitral tribunal [Paras 55–58].

Arbitration – Role of Referral Court – Minimal Judicial Intervention – Court must adopt “hands-off approach” on disputed factual issues such as limitation and merits – Ensures party is not left remediless and aligns with legislative intent of Section 11(6-A) [Paras 55–56].

Arbitration – Incorporation of Arbitration Clause – Not Decisive – Though Supplementary Agreement lacked arbitration clause, Court held it unnecessary to examine incorporation by reference since arbitration agreement with MCA established through veritable party and composite transaction doctrines [Para 47].

Decision: Application allowed – Sole Arbitrator appointed (Justice Nitin Jamdar, former Chief Justice of Kerala High Court) – Disputes between Applicant and both Respondents referred to arbitration – All contentions kept open – No order as to costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 145 – Affidavit Evidence – Accused Cannot File Evidence-in-Chief by Way of Affidavit – Section 145(1) expressly enables only the complainant to give evidence-in-chief on affidavit in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act – The provision uses the word "complainant" and does not extend the same liberty to the accused – Legislature's deliberate omission of the word "accused" from Section 145(1) cannot be supplied by the Court – Section 145(2) is merely a procedural provision enabling the Court to summon and examine any person who has already given evidence on affidavit and does not confer upon the accused a right to adduce evidence-in-chief by affidavit – Held: The accused in a Section 138 proceeding cannot lead defence evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit – Impugned order of the SDJM discarding the affidavit evidence of the defence is consistent with law and calls for no interference [Paras 12, 13, 17, 18].

Precedent – Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore – Scope and Applicability – The Supreme Court in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. categorically held that Section 145(1) provides for the complainant to give evidence on affidavit and does not extend the same right to the accused – The accused's evidence is in the nature of rebuttal of presumptions and is not necessarily documentary, unlike the complainant's evidence which is largely documentary – Indian Bank Association v. Union of India did not overrule or dissent from Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. and the reference therein to the earlier decision was only by way of reiteration – Held: The ratio in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. remains good law and governs the field [Paras 14, 15, 16].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 18.07.2025 of the SDJM, Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No. 6557 of 2013 upheld – Interim order, if any, vacated.

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Trial Court allowed amendment without assigning reasons – Impugned order cryptic and non-speaking – Held: Judicial orders must disclose reasons – Order liable to be set aside [Para 7]

Amendment of Pleadings – Time-Barred Claim – Amendment sought to declare sale deeds (dated 24.01.2007 and 23.03.2016) as null and void – Relief relating to 2007 sale deed beyond limitation of 3 years – Held: Amendment introducing time-barred claim which divests accrued rights cannot be allowed [Paras 9, 8]

Limitation – Deemed Knowledge – Registered documents – Plaintiff claimed lack of knowledge of sale deeds – Held: Registration constitutes deemed notice – Party cannot extend limitation by pleading ignorance of registered documents [Paras 10-12]

Amendment – Change in Nature of Suit – Original plea based on sale transaction – Amendment sought to convert transaction into mortgage/security – Held: Amendment fundamentally altering nature of suit and cause of action impermissible [Para 13]

Amendment Principles – Supreme Court Guidelines – Court relied on LIC v. Sanjeev Builders – Amendment to be refused if it introduces time-barred claim or changes nature of suit – Liberal approach subject to absence of prejudice and limitation bar [Para 8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226/227 – Interference with discretionary order – Where Trial Court exercises discretion arbitrarily without reasons and contrary to settled principles, High Court justified in interfering [Paras 7, 14]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.04.2018 set aside – I.A. No. III for amendment rejected – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 21 and 25 – Quantity Below Commercial Threshold – Section 37 Not Applicable – Applicant arrested on 28.03.2025 for alleged recovery of 6.08 grams of heroin from speedometer of his motorcycle – Challan filed – 11 out of 19 witnesses examined – Trial not likely to conclude in near future – Multiple prior NDPS cases registered against applicant but no conviction in any – Bail applications earlier dismissed by this Court as withdrawn and by Special Court – Held: Quantity recovered does not fall within commercial quantity and therefore rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted – Registration of multiple prior cases without conviction cannot justify indefinite pre-trial custody – Bail cannot be refused as a matter of punishment – Pre-trial punishment prohibited under law – No useful purpose served by continued custody – Apprehensions regarding tampering and reoffending can be addressed through conditions – Bail granted [Paras 11-17].

Pre-Trial Detention – Prolonged Custody – Pendency of Trial – Applicant in custody since 28.03.2025 – Trial not likely to conclude in near future given pace of recording of evidence – Prior registration of cases without conviction cannot be a ground to keep accused in judicial custody for indefinite period – State made no effort to seek cancellation of bail in any of the other registered cases – Bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Subject to conditions of regular attendance, non-tampering with evidence, no inducement or threat to witnesses, and no travel outside India without prior permission of Court – State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions [Paras 17-21].

Criminal Law – Challenge to Remand Order - Production before Magistrate – Article 22(2) – Accused to be produced within 24 hours excluding travel time – Minor delay of 25 minutes beyond 24 hours explained by circumstances – Held: Not fatal and does not vitiate remand [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Arrest – Computation of 24 Hours – Time to be reckoned from official arrest and not mere apprehension – Arrest panchanama showed arrest at 5:00 p.m. – Production at 5:25 p.m. next day – Held: Delay marginal and justified [Paras 7-8]

Fundamental Rights – Violation of Article 22(2) – Allegation of illegal detention – Held: Exclusion of travel time and administrative circumstances permissible – No violation where delay is properly explained [Paras 9-10]

Remand – Validity – Non-production within exact 24 hours – Held: Slight deviation does not ipso facto invalidate remand if explanation is reasonable and no prejudice caused [Paras 10-11]

Bail vs Technical Grounds – Attempt to secure release on procedural irregularity after rejection of bail – Held: Petition under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to indirectly secure bail when no substantive illegality shown [Paras 7, 11]

Criminal Law – Serious Offence (Murder for Supari) – Gravity of offence relevant – Technical plea of delay cannot override substantive prosecution case [Paras 3, 5]

Judicial Precedents – Travel time exclusion – Courts consistently hold that time necessary for journey must be excluded in computing 24 hours [Paras 9.3, 9.5, 9.6]

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Remand order upheld – No violation of Article 22(2) – Delay in production held justified – No ground for release of petitioner.