Facts: Petitioners and Respondents: Jambo Plastics Pvt. Ltd. And Merushikhar Infra LLP filed a writ petition against the Chief Quality Assurance Establishment and the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The petitioners sought to quash certain endorsements and letters issued against them, particularly those dated 15.07.2016 and 03.09.2016. [Para 1-5]

 Issues and Analysis: Works of Defence Act, 1903: Court holds that the Works of Defence Act, 1903, exclusively governs the imposition of land-use restrictions near defense establishments, thereby limiting the scope of executive power in this domain. [Para 15, 22]

Executive Power and Fundamental Rights: Court emphasizes that executive instructions cannot abridge fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution, citing Apex Court decisions. [Para 21, 32]

Validity of Guidelines: Court rules that the guidelines issued are not executive instructions capable of imposing restrictions on the petitioners’ rights. [Para 20, 28]

Authority of Law for Deprivation of Property: Court cites Article 300-A to state that deprivation of property can only occur through authority of law, not executive fiat. [Para 34]

Executive Fiat and Fundamental Rights: Court references Article 13(2) and Article 19 to assert that rights cannot be abridged by executive action without legislative backing, supported by Apex Court decisions. [Para 31-33]

Transaction of Business Rules: Court finds that the Guidelines were not issued in the name of the President, making them invalid under Article 77(3) of the Constitution. [Para 35-37]

Decision: Validity of Guidelines and Endorsements: Court sets aside endorsements based on Guidelines, directing respondent-BBMP to proceed with the grant of the sanction plan without relying on the Guidelines. The process is to be completed as per law, within a period of three months. [Para 38-39]

Interlocutory Application – Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC – Suit for partition of ancestral property – Allegation of mortgage of property by defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge – Defendant’s contention of initiation of SARFAESI proceedings – Defendant’s claim of Civil Court lacking jurisdiction – Trial Court granting temporary injunction – Appeal against granting of injunction – Examination of whether Trial Court erred in entertaining injunction application and the jurisdiction of Civil Court in such matters. [Para 2-16]

Mortgage and Loan Recovery – Dispute over Ancestral Property – Secured Debt under SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff’s claim of ancestral joint family property – Defendant No.1 mortgaging the property to the appellant-bank – Loan becoming NPA – Plaintiff’s contention of defendant No.1’s irresponsible use of loan – Defendant No.1’s property being self-acquired – Property devolving under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – Three generations needed for ancestral property – Plaintiff’s residence with defendant No.1 – Loan obtained when plaintiff and defendant No.2 were minors – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act for secured creditor to enforce security interest – Bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff seeking injunction against bank’s possession – Fraud allegation without particulars insufficient – Court’s analysis of previous judgments – Plaintiff’s motive to stall recovery proceedings – Trial Court’s erroneous injunction order set aside. [Para 17-37]

Property Ownership and Loan Recovery – Suit to Prevent Possession – Plaintiff’s claim of ancestral property – Defendant No.1’s mortgage to appellant-bank – Loan becoming NPA – Plaintiff alleging defendant No.1’s neglect and misuse of loan – Defendant No.1’s property being self-acquired – Property devolving under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiff residing with defendant No.1 – Loan obtained when plaintiff and defendant No.2 were minors – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act for secured creditor to enforce security interest – Bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff seeking injunction against bank’s possession – Fraud allegation without particulars insufficient – Court’s analysis of previous judgments – Plaintiff’s motive to stall recovery proceedings – Trial Court’s erroneous injunction order set aside. [Para 17-37]

Civil Revision Petition – Land Dispute – Prima facie case for injunction – Discrepancy in revenue records for a couple of years – Plaintiffs' claim to land ownership and possession supported by recent records – Prima facie case in favor of plaintiffs – Interim injunction granted – Lower courts' reliance on irrelevant documents for denial of injunction not justified – Orders of lower courts set aside – Suit to be disposed of by considering all relevant documents. [Para 15-17]

Matrimonial Dispute - Quashing of FIRs - Settlement between parties - FIR No. 843/2020 and FIR No. 477/2020 registered at PS New Usmanpur and PS Amar Colony, respectively - Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and POCSO Act offenses. [Para 1-2]

Settlement reached between the parties before the Mediation Centre - Mutual consent for separation and divorce granted - Withdrawal of all claims and disputes - Custody of minor children decided. [Para 4]

FIRs stem from misunderstandings - Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC - Pragmatic approach adopted - Continuance of FIRs serves no useful purpose - No objection to compromise from complainant - Possibility of conviction bleak - FIRs quashed. [Para 8-11]

Rights of children born out of the wedlock preserved - Petitioner, a lawyer, directed to handle ten Pro bono cases as part of the settlement - Compliance report to be filed within a month. [Para 12-14]

Bail – Delay in trials and undertrials’ prolonged incarceration – Concerns about prosecution’s conduct in criminal cases leading to trial delays and undertrials languishing in jail – Court’s attention drawn to orders highlighting such issues – State directed to enforce the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for timely appearance of prosecution witnesses – Affidavit filed by Assistant Inspector General of Police (Litigation) detailing compliance and action taken against defaulting officials – Court emphasizes need for strict adherence to SOP and action against erring officials for non-appearance – Circulars issued to ensure effective administration of criminal justice – Court’s order to be circulated to all presiding officers for compliance [Para 3-7]

Bail – Speedy trials and undertrials’ rights – Bail petition seeking release in a NDPS case – Four earlier bail petitions dismissed – Allegations of lack of compliance with mandatory provisions of NDPS Act – Lack of independent witness during recovery – Petitioner’s assertion of false implication – Challan filed more than four years ago – Charges framed – Majority of prosecution witnesses examined – Trial progressing slowly – Petitioner’s prolonged incarceration – Allegations matter of trial – No documentary evidence in petitioner’s possession – No likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – Petitioner’s release on bail not likely to pose threat to society – Petitioner’s non-violent offence – Court orders release on bail with additional conditions [Para 15-20]

Anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Allegations of offenses under Sections 307/120-B/427/34 IPC, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 - Petitioner seeks regular bail - Petitioner's claim of separation and dissolution of marriage by mutual consent challenges the alleged motive - Petitioner's absence from the country on the day of occurrence - Petitioner's counsel emphasizes extensive incarceration and completion of investigation with challan submitted - Lack of criminal history and evidence highlighted - Petitioner's counsel does not dispute the provided factual information.

Court's Decision: Bail granted - Court considers petitioner's prolonged custody, concluded investigation, and submitted challan - Bail granted upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate's satisfaction - Court clarifies that decision does not indicate an opinion on the case's merits.

 Facts - Marriage between petitioners, both physicians, was solemnized on 19.08.2017 - two children, including a son named Agam Pratap Singh born on 01.11.2019. Respondent No.3, the Superintendent of Police, is married to petitioner No.1’s brother but has no children of her own. She took custody of Agam Pratap Singh while petitioner No.1 was away for a fellowship. The case revolves around the legality of this custody and the adoption process. [Para 3]

 Child Custody – Habeas Corpus - petition for habeas corpus was not maintainable as the minor child was not in illegal custody. The court emphasized that the dispute was more related to the adoption of the minor child rather than the legality of his current temporary custody. [Para 16-17]

 Adoption – Legal Procedures - credibility of documents submitted by both parties to support their claims regarding adoption is a matter for trial. Issues raised include the legality, context, and admissibility of affidavits and the adoption deed. [Para 17]

 Jurisdiction – Writ Petition - court role in such a case is limited to examining the affidavits and determining whether a trial is required. The court emphasized that issues of child custody and adoption fall under specific family laws. [Para 18-20]

 Decision - directed an interim arrangement for weekly visitation rights for the petitioners and ordered them to initiate appropriate proceedings for adjudication of their claim to the child’s custody within two months. The arrangement will continue until the rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent court. [Para 26-27]

Intellectual Property - Copyright Infringement - Suit for infringement of copyright and misuse of confidential information - Maintainability of the suit - Plaintiff alleging that defendants, former employees, misused confidential and proprietary information including customer database, marketing material, and copyrighted content - Defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit based on a precedent - Issue framed whether the suit as framed is maintainable - Court examined the plaint and pleadings - Plaintiff's claim centered around unique marketing strategies, proprietary statistical techniques, and databases - Copyright subsisting in business techniques, marketing material, and data - Plaintiff expounded its business model based on targeted advertising and data analysis - Court analyzed the nature of claims and preliminary objections - Special leave granted to examine maintainability. [Para 1-5]

Intellectual Property - Copyright in Marketing Techniques - Unique business model of plaintiff involving targeted advertising - Analysis of customer data, creation of customized content, and marketing strategies - Copyright claimed in proprietary statistical techniques, databases, and creative content - Plaintiff's investment in data analytics, advertising optimization, and customer segmentation - Consideration of plaintiff's copyrighted material as integral to its unique marketing methods - Plaintiff's methodology explained - Copyright protection extended to data generated through complex analytical processes. [Para 14-15]

Intellectual Property - Copyright Infringement - Plaintiffs alleging misuse of their confidential information and copyrighted material by defendants - Plaintiffs asserting that they developed a customer database with extensive technical expertise and creativity - Plaintiffs claiming economic value of their database - Defendants contesting the validity of plaintiffs' claims - Defendants relying on a prior judgment dismissing a similar claim - Court analyzing the nature of the plaintiffs' database, the allegations, and the prior judgment - Court finding that the present case involves more detailed assertions and a distinct factual scenario - Court rejecting defendants' argument to equate the cases - Court observing that plaintiffs' assertions distinguish the present case from the earlier one - Court emphasizing that a triable issue exists and dismissing defendants' request to dismiss the suit summarily. [Para 11-15]        

Revision Petition – Application for Additional Evidence- Accused/petitioner challenges the order that declined his application for leading additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Accused was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. [Para 1-2]

Dishonored Cheque – Signature Dispute- Petitioner contends that the signature on the dishonored cheque does not belong to him and argues for the necessity of additional evidence through a handwriting and fingerprint expert. [Para 3]

Opposition to Additional Evidence- Respondent argues against the necessity of additional evidence, citing case laws that deem it unnecessary if a cheque is not returned due to a mismatch of signature. [Para 4]

Legal Precedents and Expert Opinion- Coordinate Bench of this Court and other High Courts opine that expert opinion is not required unless the bank returns the cheque due to a mismatch in signature. [Para 5-6]

Factual Assessment and Signature Dispute- Cheque was dishonored due to a closed bank account and not due to mismatched signature; petitioner's claim deemed an afterthought. [Para 7]

Discretion Under Section 391 Cr.P.C.- Appellate Court has the discretion to allow additional evidence only when necessary for a just decision; should not be used to remedy negligence or omissions. [Para 8]

Final Decision - Petition lacks merit; application for additional evidence is dismissed and the appellate court’s order is upheld. [Para 9]