Contract Law – Fraudulent Agreement – Sale of Vehicle under Hire Purchase – Void Contract – Plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs. 4,90,000/- under agreement dated 16.10.2012 for purchase of truck – Defendant represented that she had cleared substantial loan though outstanding dues existed – Agreement executed during subsistence of hire-purchase loan – Held: Agreement having fraudulent object is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act [Paras 3–7, 11].

Money Suit – Recovery of Earnest Money – Breach of Contract – Plaintiff sought refund of earnest money on discovery of fraud – Trial Court decreed suit directing refund of Rs. 4,90,000/- with interest – Appellate Court affirmed – High Court upheld concurrent findings – Held: Plaintiff entitled to restitution under Section 73 of the Contract Act [Paras 6–8, 11].

Hire Purchase – Ownership of Vehicle – Right to Transfer – During subsistence of hire-purchase agreement, ownership vests with finance company – Defendant had no legal right to sell vehicle to third party – Agreement of sale executed without title – Held: Defendant legally incompetent to transfer vehicle [Paras 7–8].

Evidence – Admission – Effect – Defendant admitted receipt of Rs. 4,90,000/- from plaintiff and failed to prove payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to finance company as claimed – No documentary proof produced – Held: Admission coupled with absence of rebuttal evidence establishes plaintiff’s case on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 6–8, 11].

Civil Procedure – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court reiterated that second appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on evidence – Held: No substantial question of law arises for consideration [Paras 1, 11–12].

Restitution – Return of Property and Money – Vehicle seized in criminal case and handed back to defendant – Defendant having regained possession of vehicle cannot retain earnest money – Held: Direction to refund entire earnest money justified [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 15.03.2021 in Money Suit No. 02 of 2014 and judgment dated 23.12.2022 in Money Appeal No. 1 of 2021 upheld – Decree directing refund of Rs. 4,90,000/- with interest affirmed.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Limitation – Suit for Specific Performance – Plaintiff filed suit in 2015 for an oral agreement allegedly made in 2008, asserting cause of action arose in 2010 when defendant sold land to third party – Held: Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period is 3 years from the date fixed for performance or when notice of refusal is received. Even by plaintiff's own admission, refusal was manifest in 2010. Suit filed in 2015 is ex-facie barred by limitation. Clever drafting to create an illusion of cause of action cannot save a time-barred suit. [Paras 12-14, 18]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Refund of Money – Limitation – Plaintiff alternatively sought refund of money paid in 2008 – Held: Suit for recovery of money is governed by Article 113 (3 years). Suit filed 7 years after alleged payment is barred. [Para 17]

Decision: Revision Application allowed. Plaint rejected. [Para 20]

Criminal Law – Bail - Rape Allegation – Consent – Breach of Promise to Marry – Petitioner accused of offences under Sections 69 and 75(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS for allegedly refusing to marry the victim after a consensual relationship – Relationship between petitioner and respondent lasted over three years – Victim lodged complaint only after petitioner refused marriage – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, consensual relationship based on a genuine promise to marry, later not fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, does not amount to rape – FIR lacks allegations showing false promise from inception – No prima facie case under Section 69 BNS made out [Paras 3–14]

Bail – Principles for Grant – Promise to Marry – Consent and Misconception of Fact – Court relies on binding precedents from Supreme Court including Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Prithivirajan, Kunal Chatterjee, and Maheshwar Tigga – Held: Physical relations on the basis of a genuine promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it is proved that the promise was false from the beginning – Petitioner's prolonged relationship and absence of coercion negate allegation of misconception of fact – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 4–16]

Bail – Conditions Imposed – Accused directed to furnish bond with sureties and report weekly to police – Restrictions imposed on travel outside Andhra Pradesh and on influencing witnesses – Cooperation with investigation mandated [Para 16]

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Bail granted to the petitioner/accused on furnishing bond and subject to strict conditions including weekly reporting, restricted travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation.

Intellectual Property Law – Passing Off – Trade Dress – Trinity Test – Suit for injunction in respect of packaging and get-up of coconut oil containers – Plaintiff’s packaging in yellow and green HDPE bottles used since 2006 – Defendant’s similar packaging introduced in 2017 – Trial court granted interim injunction restraining use of deceptively similar trade dress – Held: Plaintiff has established (i) prior and continued goodwill since 1945 and with HDPE bottles since 2006, (ii) deceptive similarity in shape, colour scheme and label, and (iii) potential damage to market reputation – All three limbs of Trinity Test satisfied – No illegality in trial court’s order [Paras 47–77]

Trademarks – Infringement and Passing Off – Scope – Registration of individual elements (logo, label) does not bar common law action for passing off based on overall trade dress – Held: Section 27(2) of Trade Marks Act preserves passing off rights irrespective of registration – Passing off provides a broader remedy than infringement – Distinctive appearance and packaging entitled to protection [Paras 27–30, 42–45]

Interim Relief – Prima Facie Case – Irreparable Injury – Balance of Convenience – Where plaintiff demonstrates long-standing market dominance (Rs. 450 crore turnover), unique trade dress, and clear likelihood of confusion due to similar packaging used by defendant, interim injunction justified – Defendant’s claim of hair oil packaging refuted by lack of disclosure and admitted edible oil sales [Paras 55–61, 76]

Trade Dress – Average Consumer Test – Applicability in India – Court applied Indian test of average market-goer with ordinary recall value, not meticulous scrutiny – Impressionistic similarity between plaintiff’s and defendant’s packaging sufficient to cause confusion – Colour schemes, shape of bottles, coconut tree graphics and overall appearance compared holistically [Paras 48–54]

Publici Juris – Defence of Generic Packaging – Rejected – Defendant failed to prove common trade use of same trade dress – On the contrary, defendant’s own application for design registration of the bottle shape post cease-and-desist notice acknowledged distinctiveness [Paras 72–73]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference – Appellate court will not interfere merely because another view is possible – Trial court’s reasoning was plausible and supported by record – No perversity or error found [Para 79]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 15.05.2024 passed by Commercial Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 23 of 2023 upheld – Connected applications CAN 2 and CAN 3 of 2024 also disposed of – Trial Court directed to adjudicate suit uninfluenced by findings in this order – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Suit by Public Trust – Mandatory Consent Under MPT Act – Plaintiffs’ own pleadings and annexed documents repeatedly describing Defendant as “trustee/permanent trustee/erstwhile trustee” held decisive – Suit for recovery of compensation for misuse of trust property by a trustee falls squarely within Section 50 clauses (a), (e), (f), (p), (q) – Held: Without prior consent of Charity Commissioner under Section 51, suit is statutorily barred [Paras 11–18].

Trust Property – Recovery from Trustee – Section 50 MPT Act – Suit seeks recovery of compensation for occupation of trust property by Defendant during tenure as trustee – Documents (letters, opinions, correspondence) annexed to plaint addressing Defendant as trustee held to override later verbal assertions that he was a “trespasser” – Plaint averments read holistically demonstrate action against trustee for breach/misconduct, not trespass – Section 50 attracted [Paras 10–15].

Trespass Argument Rejected – Plaintiffs’ Case Inconsistent with Record – Plaintiffs’ attempt to classify Defendant as “rank trespasser” held untenable when plaint averments and exhibits consistently acknowledge him as trustee discharging obligations – Once trust itself admits fiduciary capacity, suit cannot be framed as simple trespass to bypass statutory requirement of consent [Paras 14–17].

Scope of Section 51 MPT Act – Consent Mandatory – When suit is of a nature specified under Section 50, plaintiffs must obtain Charity Commissioner’s prior written consent; Commissioner becomes necessary party – Absence of consent renders suit non-maintainable at inception – Bar attracts Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 16–18].

Pleadings Control O7R11(d) – Court Reiterates – For O7R11(d), plaint averments and plaint documents alone are considered – Defence cannot cure statutory bar – Here, plaint itself revealed suit to be one “relating to trustee” requiring consent; absence is fatal [Paras 7–12].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit held not maintainable without prior consent under Sections 50 & 51 MPT Act – Pending Interim Application No. 4005 of 2025 disposed [Paras 19–21].

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Equivalence of Qualifications – Diploma and B.Tech in Civil Engineering – Petitioners disqualified from selection to the post of Surveyor Grade II in KWA on the ground that their qualifications (Diploma and B.Tech in Civil Engineering) were not equivalent or presupposed the lower prescribed qualification of National Trade Certificate (NTC) – Petitioners relied on Government Orders issued by Higher Education Department declaring Diploma and B.Tech as higher qualifications – Held: As per Rule 10(a)(ii) KS&SSR, only qualifications declared by competent authority—i.e., Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department—can be relied upon – Higher Education Department lacks authority to declare equivalence or sufficiency – Exts. P4 to P6 cannot form basis for eligibility [Paras 7-10]

Recruitment – Role of Competent Authority – PSC and Government – Division Bench holds that only Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of Government and PSC are competent to assess and determine sufficiency of qualifications under Rule 10(a)(ii) KS&SSR – Other departmental orders are merely recommendatory – Exts. P4 to P6 issued by Higher Education Department are ultra vires [Paras 9-10]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Recruitment Process – Court reiterates limited scope of judicial review in recruitment matters – Review restricted to checking whether PSC and Government applied correct legal test (Jyoti K.K. test) – No retrospective application of Government or PSC decisions unless made before issuance of recruitment notification [Para 9]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments in W.P.(C) Nos. 2159 and 12312 of 2025 set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Orders of disqualification upheld – Government Orders relied upon by writ petitioners held incompetent and without binding effect on PSC.

Commercial Law – Maintainability of Commercial Suit – Appellant challenged classification of suit as commercial on ground that no formal written agreement existed and service was not commercial – Held: Provision of transportation and storage of goods by Plaintiff (a packers and movers business) is a commercial transaction falling under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) and (xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act – Objection held untenable – Suit rightly instituted as a commercial suit [Paras 23-24]

Contract and Cause of Action – Recovery of Storage Rent – Plaintiff proved entrustment of goods and obligation to pay monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- – Defendant failed to lead evidence – Cause of action clearly made out – Existence of valid agreement inferred from conduct and documentary evidence – Plea that document was only a quotation held to be afterthought [Paras 25, 31]

Procedure – Electronic Records – Compliance with Order XI Rule 6 CPC – Plaintiff fulfilled requirements of declaration and certification under Section 65B of IEA and Section 63 of BSA – Court held procedural compliance was adequate – Defendant’s objections dismissed [Para 26]

Evidence Law – Relevance of Prior Judgments – Objection raised to admissibility of previous unchallenged judgments under Section 43 IEA / Section 37 BSA – Held: Judgments inter-partes admissible not as conclusive proof but as evidence of habitual default under Sections 8 and 13 of IEA – Relevance upheld [Paras 28-29]

Inspection and Condition of Goods – Local Commissioner Report – Allegation of damage to goods rejected – Most items intact, minor wear due to time – Refusal of Defendant to open sealed items led to adverse inference – No proof of misappropriation found [Para 30]

Equity and Unjust Enrichment – Defendant continued to enjoy benefit of storage without fulfilling payment obligations – Conduct showed intent to avoid liability while taking advantage of services – Trial Court's decree found just and equitable [Paras 32-34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s decree for Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @10% p.a. affirmed – Suit rightly treated as commercial – No procedural or evidentiary infirmity found – Costs imposed on Appellant.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Applicant found with 460 grams of MD (Commercial Quantity) – Held: The rigors of Section 37 apply. The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. Given the recovery and circumstances, such satisfaction cannot be recorded. [Paras 12-14]

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 50 Compliance – Search of Person – Applicant argued panchas did not sign the Section 50 notice – Held: The Applicant signed the notice waiving her right to be searched by a Magistrate. The failure of panchas to countersign the Section 50 notice is a minor lapse and does not vitiate the search or entitle the accused to bail at this stage, especially when the search was conducted by a Gazetted Officer. [Para 9]

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 42 Compliance – Held: The information received from co-accused was reduced to writing and forwarded to the Senior Officer. Section 42 compliance was prima facie established. [Para 7]

Decision: Bail Application rejected. [Para 17]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action – Distinction Between Non-disclosure and Non-existence – Rejection Set Aside – Suit filed by Indian-origin locally recruited staff of Italian Embassy alleging pay discrimination under Italian Presidential Decree – Trial court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, holding no cause of action existed – Held: Learned Single Judge erred in prematurely evaluating merits – Factual questions such as classification, equal pay, and cost of living require evidence – Plaint disclosed triable issues – Impugned order set aside – Suit to proceed to trial [Paras 1–3, 16–22, 26–27]

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Diplomatic Employment – Prima Facie Claim – Appellants pleaded being in the same homogeneous category as their Italian-origin counterparts – Alleged violation of Article 157 of Italian Presidential Decree – Held: Prima facie case made out – Whether pay parity applies requires trial – Plaint not liable to rejection at threshold [Paras 4–5, 17–18]

Pleadings – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Summary Rejection Improper – Court reiterated that plaint must only be rejected if it fails to disclose any cause of action on its face – Distinction drawn between non-disclosure (procedural defect) and non-existence (merits-based conclusion) – Rejection not warranted where plaintiffs allege material facts supporting a right to sue, even if ultimately unproven [Paras 20–22]

Limitation – Recurring Cause of Action – Suit Maintainable – Respondents’ objection of limitation rejected – Held: Discriminatory pay alleged to be ongoing, giving rise to recurring cause of action – Part relief may be barred, but entire suit not liable to be dismissed – Doctrine of laches inapplicable [Paras 24–25]

International Law – Sovereign Immunity – Consent Under Section 86 CPC – Appellants obtained prior consent from Government of India to sue foreign state – Objection to maintainability on grounds of sovereign immunity not accepted at preliminary stage [Para 7, 14]

Judicial Precedents – Reiterated Principles – Reliance placed on Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100 – Courts must not adjudicate merits while considering rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 22]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order rejecting plaint set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC dismissed – Suit restored for trial on merits [Paras 26–28]