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]

Promotion - Dispute regarding promotion to the rank of Commandant in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) - Petitioners holding the rank of Second-in-Command and Deputy Commandant challenge a Signal calling for nomination of officers from other Central Armed Police Forces for Commandant posts in SSB - Allegation of potential deprivation of promotional opportunities and non-functional selection grade for Deputy Commandants - Petitioners argue for preference to promotion over deputation as per Recruitment Rules and request relaxation of eligibility criteria - Director-General's power to grant local rank also raised as an issue - Concerns about morale and promotion stagnation within SSB due to deputation. [Para 1-8]

Deputation vs. Promotion - Court's view that Central Government should consider petitioners' grievances and the proposal for appointment by deputation - Direction to place the petitions before the competent authority for consideration - Request for relaxation and grant of local rank to be addressed by the competent authority - Orders of the Court and petitions to be presented to the competent authority for further action. [Para 11-13]

Decision – High Court disposes of the petitions, directing them to be placed before the Central Government as representations – The competent authority is tasked with considering the grievances and requests for relaxation and/or local rank made by petitioners. [Para 11-14]

Anticipatory Bail – FIR registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC - Applicants sought anticipatory bail - Applicants claimed no direct or indirect allegations against them in the FIR - Contradictory and evasive stands taken by applicants - Custodial interrogation necessary to unearth transactions linked with the accused firm at the behest of the present applicants and entities under their control - Applications for anticipatory bail dismissed. [Para 1-18]

Custodial Interrogation - Importance of custodial interrogation in certain cases for eliciting information and materials - Protection of suspects through pre-arrest bail orders may reduce the effectiveness of interrogation - Responsible conduct of police officers presumed during custodial interrogation. [Para 14-15]

Quashing of FIR - Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. aimed at quashing FIR No. 182/2022 lodged under Sections 354/354A/376 IPC, alongside all resultant proceedings, inclusive of the chargesheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., concerning allegations of sexual harassment and assault by the petitioner towards the prosecutrix during her employment tenure. [Para 1]

Allegations of Harassment - Prosecution alleges petitioner’s recurrent harassment of the prosecutrix by inappropriate physical contact and demands for physical favours over a span of 7-8 years during her employment. Notable delay in FIR registration pointed out, with the petitioner asserting the vagueness and unverifiable nature of allegations due to lack of specific incident details. [Para 2-9]

Inconsistencies and Contradictions - Noteworthy inconsistencies observed between the FIR, the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and representations made to the Delhi Commission for Women, coupled with contradictions in the family’s financial situation as cited by the prosecutrix to justify the delay in reporting. [Para 22-26]

Absence of Medical and Forensic Evidence - Lack of medical and forensic evidence to corroborate allegations, highlighted by the refusal of the prosecutrix for internal medical examination and non-submission of relevant clothing for forensic analysis. [Para 28]

Malicious Intent and Ulterior Motive - Evident malice and ulterior motive deduced from the prosecutrix’s pursuit of gratuity payment, not legally entitled to her, as the primary cause for the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court deduces an attempt to arm-twist the petitioner into fulfilling financial demands by leveraging false allegations. [Para 30-31]

Quashing Justified - Observations lead to a justified quashing of the FIR and associated proceedings, given the glaring inconsistencies, lack of evidence, malicious intent, and the improbability of allegations. The advanced age of the petitioner (85 years) also considered in rendering the judgment. The Court underscores the malicious initiation of criminal proceedings for personal vendetta or to fulfill ulterior motives, drawing attention to the alarming trend of false cases. FIR Quashed. Allowed. [Para 32-35]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Settlement between parties – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.654/2021 dated 30.11.2021 under Sections 354D IPC, 1860, and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 – Medical evidence indicating petitioner’s mental health issues – Settlement between parties – Father of the victim consenting to quash the FIR – Medical board’s report confirming petitioner’s condition – FIR and proceedings quashed in view of petitioner’s mental health and settlement between parties. [Para 1-17]

Medical Ethics – Issuing professional certificates without examining patients – Complaint against doctors for issuing a certificate without examination – Warning issued by UP State Medical Council – Appeal before Medical Council of India – Consideration of regulations 7.7 and 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 – Power of Medical Council to impose penalties – Discretion to impose penalties beyond removal from the Medical Council rolls – Precedents on interpreting the term "liable" in statutes – Dismissal of writ petition challenging Medical Council's warning and authority to impose penalties upheld. [Para 1-16]

Writ Petition - SARFAESI Act vs. MSMED Act - Priority of Recovery - Challenge to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) - Default in repaying a loan availed from the respondent Bank - Classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) - Issuance of notices and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act - Petitioner's request for constitution of a Committee under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and loan restructuring - Dispute regarding priority of recovery under the SARFAESI Act vis-à-vis the MSMED Act - Applicability of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act - Supreme Court precedent establishing SARFAESI Act's priority affirmed. [Para 2-23]

Statutory Remedy - Availability of an effective alternate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act - Discretion of the High Court to entertain writ petitions - Exceptions to the rule of exhausting alternate remedies - Principles laid down in previous judgments regarding interference by High Courts in matters involving recovery of public dues and commercial disputes - Disapproval of entertaining writ applications challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings without exhausting statutory remedies - Dismissal of writ petition. [Para 14-23]

Partition Suit - Dispute over the ownership and partition of a property - Plaintiff claimed to be the son of the original owner and sought partition - Defendants denied the plaintiff's biological relationship with the original owner - Trial Court dismissed the suit - First Appellate Court reversed the decision, acknowledging the plaintiff's status as the son of the original owner - Defendants appealed. [Para 1-5]

Admissibility of evidence regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and the original owner - Oral testimony of a witness claiming no biological relationship versus documentary evidence, including school records and birth certificates, suggesting a father-son relationship. [Para 15-19]

Burden of Proof - Plaintiff's claim supported by documentary evidence, including school records and birth certificates, indicating a father-son relationship - Defendant's oral testimony alone insufficient to rebut the probative value of documentary evidence - Court upholds the judgment of the First Appellate Court, affirming the plaintiff's right to partition. [Para 23-24]

Decision - The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court is upheld.

Bail Application – Second application for regular bail – Petitioner accused of committing an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Allegation of transporting contraband – Arrested with a significant quantity of Ganja – Search conducted between sunset and sunrise – Compliance of 2nd proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act in question – Petitioner a first-time offender – One year in custody – Trial not materialized within six months – Parameters for bail in NDPS cases discussed – Petitioner granted bail on specified conditions. [Para 1-9]