Examination of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Importance of putting material circumstances to the accused - Failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused constitutes a serious irregularity - Prejudice caused to the accused - Curability of the defect depends on various factors, including the passage of time since the incident - Unjust to remand the case after a significant period. (Para 20, Para 24) 

Violation of principles of natural justice - Incriminating evidence not properly put to the accused - Failure to comply with Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Prejudice caused to the appellant - Conviction based on improperly presented evidence cannot be sustained. (Para 20, Para 24) 

Examination of witnesses - Appellant not confronted with specific incriminating statements made by witnesses - Failure to give accused opportunity to explain adverse circumstances in the evidence - Fundamental part of a fair trial - Irregularity that may vitiate the trial if it prejudiced the accused. (Para 20, Para 23) 

Family members' testimony - Material statement of prosecutrix's sister regarding the open door - Raises doubt about how the appellant knew the children were sleeping in the room - Raises questions about the veracity of the prosecution's case. (Para 25) 

Remand of the case - Passage of time since the incident - Unjust to remand the matter for examination after a significant period - Consideration of fairness and practicality. (Para 24) 

Precedents - Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of putting all relevant questions and material circumstances to the accused during the examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Failure to do so may result in imperfect appreciation of evidence and violation of natural justice. (Para 21, Para 23) 

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 28(1), 28(3), and 27(2) – Passing off action – Infringement of registered trademark – Prohibitory injunction – Interplay between registered proprietors of identical or nearly resembling trademarks – Exclusive right to use a registered trademark – Right to bring an action for passing off goods or services not affected by registration – Requirements for initiating a passing off action – Goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage – Need for evidence establishing confusion among ordinary consumers – Stricter approach required for medicinal products to avoid dire effects on public health. (Para 5, Para 8, Para 10)

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 27(2) – Passing off action – Scope and applicability in India – Consideration of literacy levels, language barriers, and potential for confusion among purchasers – Stricter approach when dealing with medicinal products – Importance of protecting consumers from misrepresentation and confusion. (Para 12, Para 15)

Passing off action – Essential elements – Goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage – Protection of goodwill in business against misrepresentation – Prerequisite to prove confusion among consumers due to similarity of marks and surrounding factors – Damage to goodwill to be assessed based on economic loss in the market. (Para 18, Para 22)

Registered trademarks – Exclusive rights – Subject to other provisions of the Trade Marks Act – No infringement action between registered proprietors of identical or nearly resembling trademarks – Concurrent rights of registered proprietors against third parties – Option for rectification or cancellation of offending trademark. (Para 28, Para 30)

Comparison of products, labels, color schemes, and designs – Assessment of deceptive similarity – Likelihood of creating confusion in the minds of ordinary consumers – Determination of misrepresentation in passing off action. (Para 36, Para 40)

Market share and economic loss – Consideration of data for evaluating damage – Impact of new products on existing market share – Market share of the respondents unaffected by the appellants’ marketing of similar products. (Para 45, Para 50)

Interference with the impugned order – Passing off action not established – Order dated 20.03.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.42 of 2022 set aside – Appeal allowed. (Para 52, Para 55)

Insurance claim – Repudiation of claim – Grounds for repudiation – Lack of registration certificate, route permit, and fitness certificate – Temporary registration certificate issued for newly purchased vehicle – Fitness certificate deemed to be included in temporary registration certificate – Lack of route permit not applicable when vehicle being moved for safe custody after purchase – Lack of valid grounds for repudiation – Decision: Repudiation of claim on the grounds of lack of registration certificate and route permit deemed invalid, as temporary registration certificate and exemption under Section 66(3)(j) of the Motor Vehicles Act applied. Lack of fitness certificate also deemed invalid as fitness certificate deemed to be included in temporary registration certificate for a newly purchased vehicle. (Para 26, 28-29, 37-38, 40-41, 44)

Interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 66(3)(j) – Requirement of route permit – Exemption when vehicle not used for carrying passengers or goods and being moved without any commercial purpose – Temporary registration certificate sufficient for moving vehicle for safe custody after purchase – Decision: Route permit not required when vehicle being moved for safe custody after purchase, as exemption under Section 66(3)(j) applies. (Para 28-30)

Fitness certificate for newly purchased vehicle – Deemed to be included in temporary registration certificate – No requirement for separate fitness certificate for brand-new vehicle – Repudiation on grounds of lack of fitness certificate deemed invalid – Decision: Lack of separate fitness certificate for a newly purchased vehicle deemed invalid, as fitness certificate deemed to be included in temporary registration certificate. (Para 37-38, 42-43)

Burden of proof – Insurance Company’s failure to provide evidence of vehicle carrying more passengers than allowed – Failure to make specific claims in repudiation letter and objection filed before Commission – Inference cannot be drawn without specific averments – Beneficial interpretation of Motor Vehicle Act in favor of insured – Decision: Insurance Company’s failure to provide evidence of vehicle carrying more passengers than allowed and failure to make specific claims deemed detrimental to their case. Beneficial interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Act in favor of the insured. (Para 46-47)

When two views are possible, the one favoring the insured must be preferred – Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Beneficial statute – Decision: In case of ambiguity or conflicting interpretations, the Court must adopt the view that favors the insured, in line with the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicle Act. (Para 48)

Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. provides that an under-trial cannot be detained for a period longer than the maximum punishment provided for the offence. The applicant had already exceeded the maximum prescribed sentence for the non-bailable offence, entitling him to release on bail. [Para 17, 34-35]

The offence under Section 389 of the IPC is a bailable offence. Considering the facts and the law, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail for both Section 384 and Section 389 of the IPC. [Para 36, 52]

The dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) does not preclude the filing of a fresh bail application if the trial extends beyond the specified period. The trial was still pending with numerous witnesses remaining to be examined, thus granting the applicant the liberty to file a fresh bail application. [Para 39, 41-42]

The applicant's failure to surrender on the specified date due to hospitalization cannot be considered a violation of bail bond conditions, as the court found the non-bailable warrant issued without verification improper. [Para 48, 50]

Alleged threats to witnesses while on interim bail did not lead to any action being taken by the State for several years. Insufficient grounds existed to deny bail for a bailable offence. [Para 51]

Bail application - Grant of regular bail - Offences under Sections 384, 389, 411, 120-B, and 34 of the IPC - Applicant charged with extortion and blackmailing complainant - FIR registered - Applicant already undergone more than three years of incarceration - Previous bail applications dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed SLP but granted liberty to file fresh bail application if trial exceeds six months - Trial pending with 42 witnesses yet to be examined - Applicant entitled to benefit of Section 436A Cr.P.C. - Bail granted. [Para 52 and 53]

Sections 436, 436A, and 389 of the Cr.P.C. - Accused entitled to release on bail for bailable offence - Undertrial cannot be detained beyond maximum punishment for the offence - Liberty granted by Supreme Court to file fresh bail application - Dismissal of SLP in limine does not constitute binding precedent - Applicant entitled to file fresh bail application - Bail granted. [Para 34, 35, and 52]

Violation of bail bond conditions - Failure to surrender due to hospitalization - Non-bailable warrant issued without proper verification - No violation of bail bond conditions - Section 436(2) Cr.P.C. not attracted - Applicant not disentitled to bail for bailable offence. [Para 47 and 48]

Alleged threats to witness while on interim bail - No action taken by State for more than four years - Witness already examined - Allegation alone does not disentitle applicant from bail for bailable offence. [Para 50]

Criminal Procedure - Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Charges under the NDPS Act - Recovery of "Commercial Quantity" of poppy pods - Consideration of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail - Prima facie satisfaction required - Likelihood of influencing witnesses or absconding (Para 9).

Falsification of Involvement - Allegation of false implication due to land dispute and previous case against police officials - Claim of innocence - Factual issues to be determined during trial - Insufficient to establish prima facie innocence for bail under the NDPS Act (Para 10 and 12).

Judicial Observation - Court's decision on bail application - Not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case - Trial to proceed independently - Bail application dismissed (Para 13).

Foreign Judgment – Execution in India – Merits of the Judgment – Principles governing the enforceability of foreign judgments in India discussed. [Para 11]

Natural Justice – Failure to consider reply – Conclusiveness of foreign judgment – Impact of non-consideration of evidence and reply filed by the judgment debtor on the merits of the foreign judgment. [Para 29]

Definition of “Judgment,” “Decree,” and “Order” under Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Connotation of “decree” including “judgment” and “judgment” including “order” – Clarification on the application of these definitions to the foreign court’s order. [Para 31]

Determination of Executability – Application of Section 44A of the CPC – Examination of whether the foreign judgment meets the criteria for enforceability in India as per Section 44A – Analysis of the concept of “judgment on merits.” [Para 26]

Effect of Non-appearance by the Defendant – Impact on the conclusiveness of foreign judgments – Distinguishing between exparte judgments on merits and judgments passed merely due to the absence of the defendant – Consideration of evidence adduced by the plaintiff in making such judgments. [Para 27]

Notice and Jurisdiction – Significance of service of notice – Discussion on the jurisdictional aspect and the alleged surrender of jurisdiction by the judgment debtor. [Para 32]

Enforcement of Foreign Decrees in Reciprocating Territories – Interpretation of Section 44A – Purpose and scope of the provision – Consideration of England as a reciprocating territory for the purpose of the section. [Para 28]

Decision on Executability – Finding that the foreign judgment is not passed on merits – Foreign judgment declared not executable in India – Revision petition allowed – Application filed under Section 47 of CPC allowed. [Para 33]

Criminal Bail Petition - Regular Bail - FIR registered under various sections including the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, Explosive Substances Act, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act - Petitioner not named in original FIR, implicated based on disclosure statements of other arrested accused - Petitioner in custody since 23.08.2022, none of the 30 prosecution witnesses examined - Similar relief granted to petitioner in two other cases - Petitioner granted regular bail - Furnishing of bail/surety bonds required - Monthly appearance before police station and submission of affidavit ordered - FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited by petitioner - Order not reported.(Para No. 1-5)

Criminal Procedure - Regular Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - Petitioner seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 22-C of the NDPS Act - Petitioner in custody for over two years - Investigation completed, but trial likely to take more time - Petitioner not involved in any other case - Violation of right under Article 21 of the Constitution claimed - Previous court orders granting bail based on the length of custody cited.

Precedents - Bail under NDPS Act - Court refers to several previous judgments where bail was granted in NDPS Act cases based on the length of custody alone, despite the bar under Section 37 of the Act for offenses involving commercial quantity of drugs.

Grant of Bail - Court considers the petitioner's prolonged custody and the possibility of further delay in trial as significant factors - Regular bail granted with conditions to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, including not tampering with evidence and not intimidating prosecution witnesses.