Civil Procedure – Power to Amend and Strike Out Issues – Petition challenging the trial court’s order deleting certain issues in a civil suit and denying further cross-examination – High Court examined the validity of the trial court's suo moto deletion of issues and refusal to recall a witness for cross-examination on additional documents – Court reinstated two issues considering their relevance to the dispute but upheld the denial of further cross-examination – Jurisdiction under Article 227 explained as supervisory, not appellate [Paras 1-35].

Adoption and Property Dispute – Suit for possession and mesne profits of property involving complex family and adoption claims – Petitioner contested the suit claiming oral family settlement and disputed the adoption of respondent – Trial court deleted issues related to the adoption and nature of the property – High Court reinstated the issues concerning adoption and property characterization due to their critical role in resolving the dispute [Paras 1-5, 28-31].

Evidentiary Procedure – Application for further cross-examination denied – Trial court refused to recall respondent for cross-examination on new documents related to a will and probate order – High Court upheld the decision, finding no relevance or necessity for additional cross-examination on those documents [Paras 3, 13, 32-33].

Decision – Petition Partially Allowed – Held – The impugned order was set aside to the extent of deleting issue nos. 4 and 5, as they were deemed relevant to the case – The application for recalling the respondent for further cross-examination was rightly dismissed – High Court emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction for correcting grave errors rather than reassessing factual matters [Para 34-35].

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Petitioner, accused of possessing 8.25 grams of MDMA, sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Arrested on 30.3.2024, currently in judicial custody – Petitioner claimed innocence and alleged false implication – No previous criminal antecedents and no apprehension of absconding if granted bail [Paras 2-4].

Considerations for Bail – Court considered the quantity of the substance (intermediate quantity) and the period of custody – Noted that the prosecution raised no concerns of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence – Emphasized on the right to liberty and due process while ensuring conditions to prevent misuse of bail [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and prevent tampering with evidence [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory and Regular Bail – Appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act – Appellants accused of abusing and threatening the complainant using casteist slurs – Complaint filed 14 days post-incident – Accused sought anticipatory bail (A1) and regular bail (A2) [Paras 1-4].

Delay in Filing Complaint and Nature of Dispute – Delay of 14 days in filing complaint – Complainant not an eyewitness – Complaint based on hearsay – Incident related to a civil dispute over allotment of sites [Paras 5-9].

Prima Facie Case and Applicability of SC/ST Act – Court found no prima facie case under SC/ST Act based on complaint – Cited Supreme Court's decision in Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala, which allows anticipatory bail where no prima facie case under the Act is made out – Stringent conditions imposed to safeguard investigation process [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Appellant (A1) granted anticipatory bail – Appellant (A2) granted regular bail – Both appellants required to comply with specific conditions to prevent interference with the investigation and trial processes [Paras 13-13].

Patent Law – Inventive Step and Patentability – Appeal challenges the rejection of a patent application for a probiotic formulation involving Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714) – Controller of Patents refused the application citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(c), 3(d), and 3(e) – High Court assesses the distinctiveness and technical advancement of the claimed formulation over prior art [Paras 1-4, 16-24].

Prior Art and Synergistic Effects – Examination of prior art documents D1 to D5 revealed similar probiotic formulations – Key issue revolves around whether the properties of Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714) demonstrate significant technical advancement – Appellant argues for the unique immunomodulatory properties and therapeutic benefits of the strain [Paras 9-11, 18-24].

Legal Standards for Obviousness – High Court applies jurisprudential guidelines from Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd., Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd. – Emphasizes the need for an objective assessment of obviousness without hindsight bias – Evaluates the inventive step based on a person skilled in the art (PSITA) framework [Paras 12-15, 21-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to the Controller of Patents for fresh consideration – High Court directs a limited revaluation of the novelty and inventive step of the claimed formulation – Controller to provide a detailed analysis addressing specific questions regarding the novelty, technical advancement, and second medical use of the strain – Final decision to be rendered within four months [Paras 25-31].

SARFAESI Act – Recovery Proceedings – Petitioner challenged the recovery actions initiated by Kerala Gramin Bank for an outstanding amount of Rs. 11,40,929/- – The court acknowledged the bank’s amenability to grant the petitioner an opportunity to repay the amount in monthly installments – Court directed the petitioner to clear the outstanding amount in 12 equal monthly installments commencing from 01.06.2024 – Further directed that in case of default in any installment, the bank may proceed with recovery – Court ordered recovery proceedings to be kept in abeyance subject to compliance with repayment schedule [Paras 1-4].

Recovery Proceedings – Instalment Payment – Petitioner to pay Rs. 11,40,929/- in 12 equal monthly installments starting from 01.06.2024 – Any default will result in the cancellation of the facility, permitting the bank to continue recovery actions [Para 3].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Petitioner granted 12 monthly installments to repay the outstanding amount – Recovery proceedings to be suspended subject to adherence to the repayment schedule [Para 3].
 

Service Law – Mental Illness – Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner suffering from Bipolar Disorder Hypo-mania challenged the disciplinary actions leading to withholding of increments and other penalties – Pleadings included his treatment and certification of fitness by medical authorities – Disciplinary actions initiated without considering petitioner's mental health condition – High Court referred to Section 47 of RPwD Act and Supreme Court judgments emphasizing non-discrimination against persons with disabilities – Disciplinary actions set aside as violative of RPwD Act provisions and constitutional rights [Paras 1-23].

Mental Health – Disability Rights – Protection under RPwD Act – High Court discussed various facets of Bipolar Disorder, its impact on behavior, and the necessary accommodations under the RPwD Act – Referred to landmark Supreme Court rulings affirming the protection and non-discriminatory treatment of employees with disabilities – Court mandated periodic medical evaluations and appropriate adjustments to ensure the petitioner's rights and dignity at the workplace [Paras 8-18].

Decision: Disciplinary actions against the petitioner, including orders dated 23.01 .2012 and 25.07.2012, were set aside. The respondents were directed to provide the petitioner with necessary medical evaluations and support, ensuring compliance with the RPwD Act provisions. The petitioner's writ petition was disposed of with observations and directions to prevent future discrimination based on his mental health condition.
 

Resignation and Withdrawal – Validity – Appellant, a headmistress, tendered resignation effective from a future date – Withdrawal of resignation submitted before the effective date – Court emphasized the general principle that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective – Resignation becomes effective only when it terminates the employment – Courts below erred in holding resignation effective upon acceptance by the school authority without considering the timely withdrawal by appellant [Paras 8, 9, 27, 29].

Employment Law – Prospective Resignation – Admitted facts indicated resignation was not given effect immediately and appellant continued duties until the specified future date – Withdrawal of resignation received before the effective date, making the resignation ineffective – Decision by managing committee after receipt of withdrawal letter is legally untenable [Paras 16, 19, 29, 34].

Judicial Precedents – Application – Court referred to established precedents affirming the right to withdraw a prospective resignation before it takes effect – Cited Supreme Court decisions underscoring the principle that a resignation can be rescinded before it affects the tenure of employment [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Judgment and decree by trial court and appellate court set aside – Suit dismissed – Appellant deemed to have withdrawn resignation validly before it became effective – Proper application of law required acknowledgment of withdrawal [Paras 34-36].

Motor Vehicles Act – Motor Accident Claims – Negligence – Tribunal's Findings – Appeal by insurer challenging award for damages to respondent’s car – Accident caused by rash and negligent driving of an Alto car insured by appellant – Tribunal awarded Rs.1,07,447/- with interest – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court principles on the nature of Tribunal proceedings and reliance on police reports as prima facie evidence of negligence upheld [Paras 1-11].

Evidence – Documentary Proof – Formally Proving Documents – Tribunal relied on survey report and repair bills – Appellant contended lack of formal proof – Court held that non-objection to documents at trial stage and their prima facie reliability justified Tribunal’s reliance [Paras 12-13].

Quantum of Compensation – Depreciation – Appellant argued for deduction based on vehicle's age – Tribunal accounted for depreciation in awarding lesser amount than claimed – No fault found in Tribunal’s method, adherence to established law on depreciation noted [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal's award upheld – No substantial questions of law or errors in Tribunal’s findings – Appellant directed to deposit remaining award amount within one month.

Motor Accident Claims – Insurance Company Appeal – Appeal against award of compensation by the II Additional District MACT, Kasaragod – Accident involving collision between a Ford Escort car and an Alto car insured by the appellant – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,07,447/- with interest to the respondent for damages to the car – Insurance company contended lack of negligence proof, improper reliance on unproved documents, and failure to account for depreciation – High Court upheld Tribunal’s decision based on prima facie evidence of negligence from police records and unchallenged survey reports and bills – Appeal dismissed, interim orders vacated, appellant directed to deposit awarded amount within one month [Paras 1-15].

Negligence and Liability – Proof of Negligence – Tribunal’s finding based on FIR, final report, and motor vehicle inspection report – Insurance company's lack of challenge to the evidentiary documents and absence of driver do not negate proof of negligence – High Court reinforced established principle that police charge sheet is prima facie evidence of negligence [Paras 11-12].

Assessment of Damages – Evidentiary Value – Reliance on unchallenged survey report and bills for repair costs – Tribunal’s acceptance of reliable documents and rejection of unreliable ones upheld – High Court found no error in Tribunal’s approach or awarded amount considering depreciation [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Motor Accident Claims Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award upheld – Appellant directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month – No costs [Para 15].