Criminal Revision Application - Challenge to Judgment and Order of Sessions Judge - Prayers for setting aside the judgment and directing the District Judge and Sessions Judge to decide the matter based on evidence and law under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). [Para 1-2]

Background - Applicant is the informant in a complaint related to property disputes - Accusations of fraudulent property transfer by the accused - Chargesheet filed under various IPC sections - Trial and acquittal of accused - Appeals by the State and applicant - Sessions Judge's decision partly allowed the appeals, confirming acquittal for some charges and ordering re-trial for Section 406 of IPC against one accused - Detailed description of the case background. [Para 3-10]

Criminal Revision – Reconsideration of Acquittal – Appeal challenging the acquittal under Sections 181, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC – Remand of the case for fresh consideration – Application allowed. [Para 13-20]

Evidence and Intent – Examination of evidence and intention of the accused – Observations by the Appellate Court regarding the admissibility of documents and incriminating evidence – Remand ordered to re-evaluate charges under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, read with Section 34 of IPC – No express findings on the merits of the case. [Para 20]

Procedural Order – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Directions for the rehearing of appeals before the Sessions Court – Parties to appear before the Appellate Court – Six-month time frame for deciding the appeals – No expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 20]

Land Acquisition - Challenge to proceedings for property acquisition - Appellant's appeal against order of Single Judge - Appellant contends proceedings lapsed due to delay in award - Appellant invokes Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) - Claim of inadequate compensation - Appellant seeks enhancement - Single Judge's order dismissing writ petition - Appellant directed to avail remedy under Act 30 of 2013 - Direction to expedite appellant's case before Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority - Writ appeal disposed. [Para 3-20]

Property Dispute - Unilateral cancellation of a gift deed - Validity of unilateral cancellation - Requirement of donor's right to revoke the gift deed with the consent of the donee - Applicability of Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act - Gift deed cancelled by power agent without consent of donee - Unilateral cancellation declared null and void. [Para 7-8]

Registration Act - Circular No.67 issued by Inspector General of Registration - Withdrawal of Circular - Amendment to Registration Act providing for cancellation of registered documents - Reference to Larger Bench regarding applicability of Section 77A of the Act to pre-amendment documents - Disposal of the case with liberty to pursue remedy in civil court - No order as to costs. [Para 9-12]

Land Acquisition – Quashing of notification and award – Challenge to the notification and award pertaining to land acquisition for the National Highway project – Petitioners argued that the land would be used for horticultural purposes instead of highway construction – Court finds that the land’s utilization for floricultural and horticultural activities is in line with the holistic purpose of mitigating carbon emissions along national highways – Petition dismissed. [Para 1-6]

Trade Notice Challenge – Export of Broken Rice – Eligibility criteria for allocation of quota – Restriction based on past export history to specified countries – Violation of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India alleged – Selective approval for certain exporters questioned. [Para 1-4]

Background on Broken Rice Export Policy – Prohibition on export of broken rice, with limited exceptions – Requests from foreign governments – DGFT permitting exports based on foreign government requests without verification. [Para 5-13]

Challenges Raised – Petitioners claim discrimination and unreasonable restriction on trade – Reference to Tata Cellular case and Radhakrishna Agarwal case – Assertion of mala fide actions favoring specific exporters. [Para 14-26]

Export Policy - Allocation of quota for export of broken rice to specific countries - Challenge to eligibility criteria - Violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - Examination limited to eligibility criteria for securing allocation of quota - Classification of rice exporters based on past exports to specific countries - Judicial review not barred - The classification of rice exporters into separate classes for allocation of export quota subject to scrutiny under Article 14 - [Para 32-34]

Article 19(1)(g) - Restriction on the freedom to carry on the business of exporting broken rice - Exporters' freedom curtailed by prohibition on export of broken rice - Challenge to policy on grounds of Article 19(1)(g) violation - Restriction on the business of exporting broken rice - Examination of whether such restriction is unreasonable. [Para 35]

Classification of Rice Exporters - Criteria for allocation of export quota - Objective to ensure capacity and quality - Allocation based on past exports to specific countries - Lack of material or rational basis for assuming quality assurance based on past exports - Classification lacks nexus with the objective of ensuring capacity and quality. [Para 50-55]

Scope of Judicial Review - Classification not required to be scientifically perfect but must have a real and substantial intelligible differentia - Classification must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved - Exclusion of certain rice exporters requires a deeper scrutiny. [Para 60]

Comparison to Other Cases - Distinction from cases involving procurement and export of goods with different objectives and rationale - Application of rational nexus test to the given classification. [Para 61-62]

Setting Aside the Trade Notice - Impugned trade notice setting the allocation criteria for export of broken rice to be set aside - Respondents directed to re-evaluate the criteria for allocation of quota for export of broken rice. [Para 64]

Bail Application – Denial of bail by trial court – Petitioner seeks release as an undertrial – FIR registered under Sections 327, 323, 294, 506, 120-B, 384, and later Section 201 IPC added – Allegations of conspiracy and torture by police officials – Co-accused granted interim anticipatory bail – Petitioner seeks bail on grounds of parity – Cancellation report in an earlier case found allegations false – Retaliatory nature of present FIR alleged – Previous convictions of complainant and involvement in multiple cases – Court observes dubious conduct of complainant – Petitioner’s custody for over three months – No probability of tampering with evidence – No flight risk – Petition allowed, petitioner to be released on bail. [Para 1-16]

Civil Procedure – Stay of partition suit under Section 10 of the CPC – Petitioner seeking relief against stay order – Dispute regarding partition of properties belonging to the deceased – Respondent filing a partition suit in Bihar, petitioner filing a suit in Delhi – Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and Section 10 of CPC – Mediation attempted but failed – Trial Court granted stay under Section 10 of CPC – Petitioner aggrieved by the stay order – Submissions on maintainability and jurisdiction – Interpretation of Section 10 of CPC and its applicability – Question of whether Delhi properties are part of the estate of the deceased – Dispute regarding female ownership under Hindu Succession Act – Jurisdiction of the Trial Court in Delhi – Prayer for relief. [Para 1-26]

Civil Procedure – Scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC – Whether a party to a previous partition suit can file a subsequent suit for partition of the properties not included in the previous suit? If yes, can the said suit be adjudicated parallel to the pending suit, or the same needs to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC – Revisional powers of the High Court limited to questions of jurisdiction – Interference by High Court only when subordinate Court assumes jurisdiction not vested in it by law. [Para 27-36]

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Partition Suit - Stay of subsequent suit under Section 10 of CPC - Applicability of Section 10 CPC - Essential ingredients for invoking Section 10 CPC - Non-inclusion of properties in the previous partition suit - Departure from the general rule against partial partition - Principles regarding partial partition - Right to file a subsequent suit for left-out properties - Whether a suit filed for partition of properties not included in the previous partition suit can be kept in abeyance under Section 10 of CPC - Decision allowing the continuation of the suit for partition of properties situated in Delhi without staying the same. [Para 37-65]

Habeas Corpus - Petitioner seeking the custody of her minor son - Background of the case involving abduction of the child - Court granting interim custody to the petitioner with conditions - Respondent seeking extension of visitation rights - Maintainability of the application for interim custody or visitation rights - Relief already granted, no further orders required - Apprehension of the petitioner fleeing the country - Liberty granted to respondents to approach the appropriate forum - Petitioner directed not to leave the country for three weeks. [Para 1-12]

Trademark Infringement - Counterfeit products bearing the mark 'PUMA' - Plaintiff, a German company, filed suit seeking injunction against the defendant's counterfeit products - Plaintiff's mark 'PUMA' and 'leaping cat device' well-known and registered in various countries including India - Defendant engaged in manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'PUMA' products - Local Commissioner's report confirms extensive manufacturing of counterfeit goods by the defendant. [Para 2-20]

Evidence - Report of the Local Commissioner - Report and evidence collected by the Commissioner admissible in the suit - Defendant did not challenge the report - Court relies on the report to assess damages. [Para 23]

Damages - Defendant deliberately engaged in manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'PUMA' products - Court awards damages to the plaintiff - Damages calculated based on the defendant's profits and the nature of infringement - Costs awarded to the plaintiff. [Para 31-38]

Injunction - Decree of injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff - Defendant restrained from manufacturing, selling, and marketing products with the 'PUMA' mark and logo. [Para 40-45]