Execution Proceedings – Arbitral Award – Judgment Debtor a Company – Arrest Warrant Against Director – Executing Court issued warrant under Order XXI Rule 37(2) and invoked Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC for non-disclosure of assets – Petitioner contended he was not party to award or execution – Held: Where judgment debtor is a corporation, officers can be examined and directed to file affidavit of assets under Order XXI Rule 41(1) & (2) CPC – However opportunity to comply must be afforded before coercive steps – Arrest warrant set aside with liberty to proceed afresh [Paras 2–4, 9–12].

Order XXI Rule 41 CPC – Scope and Consequences of Non-Compliance – Sub-rule (1) permits examination of officer of corporation – Sub-rule (2) enables Court to direct filing of affidavit of assets – Sub-rule (3) provides detention for disobedience – Invocation of sub-rule (3) permissible only upon established disobedience – Procedural safeguards must be adhered to [Paras 9–11].

Refusal of Notice – Due Process – Notice to petitioner returned as refused – Executing Court proceeded further – High Court held that as petitioner has now appeared and is willing to subject himself to jurisdiction, he must be granted opportunity to show cause and file affidavit of assets of judgment debtor company [Paras 2, 12].

Corporate Liability in Execution – Director/Shareholder – Though not party to arbitral award, officer of judgment debtor company amenable to examination regarding assets of company – Execution Court empowered to secure disclosure of assets to satisfy decree – No opinion expressed on merits of liability [Paras 10, 12].

Relief Granted – Impugned order dated 27.01.2026 insofar as issuance of arrest warrant against petitioner set aside – Petitioner directed to appear before executing Court and comply with Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC – One week’s time granted to file affidavit of assets – Executing Court to proceed in accordance with law [Order portion].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Arrest warrant against petitioner set aside – Petitioner directed to appear before executing Court on 03.03.2026 and file affidavit of assets within one week, if so advised – Executing Court to proceed in accordance with law – No opinion expressed on merits.

Petroleum Dealership – Termination – Tampering of Weights & Measures Seal – Inspection by Quality Control Cell – Critical irregularities under Marketing Discipline Guidelines – Personal hearing granted – Termination approved by Expert Committee – Held: Termination in accordance with MDG and DPSL Agreement – No arbitrariness or illegality established [Paras 4–5, 11].

Principles of Natural Justice – Institutional Hearing – “One who hears must decide” – Applicability – Personal hearing conducted by one officer, termination order communicated by another – Held: Decision to terminate dealership is an institutional decision involving multiple levels of administrative scrutiny – Institutional hearing is a recognised exception to the rule that the same authority must decide – No violation of natural justice in absence of proven prejudice [Paras 13–14].

Delay in Passing Order – Effect – Personal hearing conducted in 2015, termination order issued in 2019 – Held: Mere delay does not vitiate decision unless specific prejudice demonstrated – Appellants failed to plead or establish any change in circumstances or omission in consideration of their contentions due to delay – No prejudice shown [Paras 14–15].

Non-supply of Internal Opinions – Requirement – Clarifications sought from Legal Metrology Department and approval by Expert Committee part of internal administrative process – Held: Internal decision-making materials need not be independently supplied when final order (Ext.P6) contains detailed reasoning addressing dealer’s explanation – No denial of fair hearing [Paras 15].

Execution of Fresh Agreement during Interim Order – Effect – Ext.P9 agreement executed pursuant to interim status quo order of High Court – Held: Such agreement executed only to comply with interim order and to regulate operations – Does not amount to condonation of irregularities or renewal of dealership on merits [Para 12].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Writ Appeal – No perversity or patent illegality in judgment of Single Judge – No ground to interfere in appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(i) of Kerala High Court Act [Final Paras].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld – Termination of dealership sustained – Liberty granted earlier to make representation remains undisturbed.

Civil Law – Permanent Prohibitory Injunction – Boundary Wall Dispute – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Appellants/plaintiffs sought permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from raising construction over and excavating beneath the boundary wall claimed to be situated over Khasra Nos.1958, 1959 and 1960 – Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 14.05.2018 – First Appellate Court (District Judge, Chamba) confirmed the dismissal vide judgment dated 01.10.2018 – High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, found concurrent findings of fact warranting no interference – Held: Second appeal dismissed [Paras 1–7, 32–33].

"Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Location of Boundary Wall – Adverse Inference"

Injunction – Proof of Title and Possession – Burden on Plaintiff – Plaintiffs claimed joint ownership and possession of land and asserted the boundary wall stood over Khasra Nos.1958, 1959 and 1960 – However, no demarcation was obtained to ascertain the precise location of the boundary wall – Plaintiff (PW-1) admitted in cross-examination that no demarcation was carried out and no Local Commissioner was appointed – Corroborating witness (PW-2) admitted he did not know the khasra number over which the boundary wall stood – Neither oral nor documentary evidence established that the defendant excavated beneath the wall or caused danger to the plaintiff's house – Held: In absence of demarcation, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the plaintiffs [Paras 12–13, 22–23].

"Agreement Between Parties – Estoppel – Plaintiff's Admission"

Estoppel – Prior Agreement – Plaintiff's Undertaking – Defendant placed on record agreement (Ext. DW-5/B) dated 26.10.1998 executed between plaintiff Jitender Kalia and defendant Mohammad Hameed – Agreement showed plaintiff had installed glaze/window of his house towards the defendant's wall and had given undertaking that he would not object if the glaze is closed due to construction of the wall – Agreement admitted by marginal witnesses DW-5 (Anand Sagar) and DW-6 (Vijay Kumar) – Additionally, a prior decree dated 30.04.2014 (Ext. DY) was passed against plaintiffs restraining them from discharging dirty water towards defendant's property – Held: Prior agreement and decree operated against the plaintiffs' claim [Paras 19–21].

"Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings of Fact"

Second Appeal – Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Limited Scope – High Court's power under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law – Interference with concurrent findings of fact returned by both Courts below is not permissible unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the first appellate court – Substantial questions of law framed at admission answered against the appellants – Held: Concurrent findings of fact rendered by Courts below are legal, valid and sustainable and call for no interference [Paras 24–25, 32–33].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below affirmed – Pending applications, if any, also dismissed.

POCSO – Bail Rejected – Rape and Attempt to Murder of Minor – Sections 118(1)/75(2)/76/61(2)(a)/65(1)/109(1) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4, 8 & 12 of POCSO Act – The accused, known to the victim as "Dadu (grandfather)", lured her to an abandoned house, throttled her, struck her head with a brick, administered organophosphorus poison and sexually assaulted her – SFSL report confirmed presence of Chlorpyrifos and Organophosphorus group of pesticide in victim's stomach wash – Victim referred to AIIMS, Delhi with acute liver failure – Held: "Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations as well as the mode and manner of commission of alleged offences", bail refused [Paras 3–18].

Bail Jurisprudence – Gravity of Offence Overrides Socio-Economic Status of Accused – "Grant of bail calls for exercise of discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course" – Submission that accused being a poor fish-seller had lesser capacity to influence witnesses was rejected – Held: "The gravity and heinousness of the offence and punishment prescribed therefor are also relevant to decide the bail application" – Chance of influencing witnesses is not the sole criterion [Paras 13, 17–18].

Forensic Evidence and Victim's Statement – Prima Facie Case Established – Medical Officer found ligature marks on victim's neck – SFSL report prima facie confirmed Organophosphorus in stomach – Held: "Even if documents regarding treatment at AIIMS are not part of the chargesheet, still the accusations are very serious and grave in nature" [Paras 5–6, 11, 16].

Witness Protection – Victim's Psychological Trauma – Release of accused at this stage would send "a wrong message to society" and cause the victim to "suffer further psychological trauma" – Reliance placed on 198th Law Commission Report as cited in Ramesh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2017) 1 SCC 529 [Paras 12, 14].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – CD along with SFSL report directed to be returned to the learned PP – Trial Court record to be re-consigned with a copy of this order.

Trade Mark Infringement – Interim Injunction – Pharmaceutical Products – Plaintiffs proprietors of registered mark ‘NOVARTIS’ since 1996 – Defendants using ‘NOVIETS’ for identical pharmaceutical and veterinary goods – Marks held visually, phonetically and structurally deceptively similar – Replacement of letters ‘AR’ with ‘IE’ and omission of ‘I’ insufficient to distinguish – Triple identity established as marks, goods and trade channels identical – Prima facie dishonest adoption inferred – Interim injunction granted restraining use as trade mark and trade name [Paras 14-16, 29-31].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Online Presence – IndiaMart Listing – Defendants contended business confined to Bihar and website merely passive – Plaintiffs pleaded accessibility in Delhi and ‘Contact Us’ page showing place of business as Delhi – At demurrer stage averments in plaint to be presumed true – Functionality and interactivity of website mixed question of law and fact to be examined at trial – Prima facie jurisdiction made out – Objection rejected at interim stage [Paras 5-11].

Deceptive Similarity – Pharmaceutical Sector – Stricter Test – Average consumer with imperfect recollection test applied – In medicinal products lesser degree of proof of confusion sufficient in public interest – High likelihood of confusion and injurious association – Initial interest confusion doctrine applicable – Even transient diversion of consumer attention actionable under Section 29 of the Act [Paras 19-22].

Trade Name Use – Defence – Defendants’ plea that ‘NOVIETS’ used only as trade name and not product brand rejected – Use as trade name in identical line of business amounts to infringement and passing off – Injunction must ordinarily follow in cases of infringement and passing off [Paras 15-16].

Generic/Common to Trade – Prefix ‘NOV’ – Defendants contended prefix common to trade and derived from ‘Nova’ – Having sought registration of impugned mark, defendants cannot approbate and reprobate – Plaintiffs’ mark ‘NOVARTIS’ held distinctive and exclusively associated with plaintiffs in pharmaceutical field – Defence rejected [Paras 24-25].

Dominant Feature Test – Prefix ‘NOV’ common dominant element – Overall impression of competing marks deceptively similar – Prima facie case of infringement established [Paras 26-27].

Passing Off – Goodwill and Reputation – Plaintiffs demonstrated substantial sales and longstanding presence in India – Likelihood of confusion and damage to reputation established – Balance of convenience in favour of plaintiffs – Irreparable injury likely if injunction not granted [Paras 17-20, 28-30].

Decision: Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC allowed – Defendants restrained from using ‘NOVIETS’ and impugned device mark as trade mark or trade name in relation to pharmaceutical and veterinary products – Application disposed of.

Education Law – Fee Regulation – Removal of Difficulties Order – Interim Stay – Petitioners challenged Notification dated 01.02.2026 advancing timelines for constitution of SLFRC and approval of fee for block commencing 2026-27 – Held: Prima facie timelines unworkable and entire statutory process, including reference to District Fee Appellate Committee, cannot be concluded before 01.04.2026 – Operation of Clause 3(1) and 3(2) of Notification kept in abeyance pending final hearing [Paras 16–22, 28].

Section 3 of 2025 Act – Prohibition on collection of excess fee – Scope – Held: Section 3 does not impose blanket prohibition on collection of fee – Schools entitled to collect fee of previous academic year during pendency of reference before District Fee Appellate Committee under Section 5(7) – Hence, no immediate statutory vacuum necessitating accelerated timelines [Paras 19–22].

Removal of Difficulties Clause – Section 21 of 2025 Act – Limited Scope – Though detailed examination deferred to final hearing – Court observed prima facie that no “difficulty” requiring urgent removal under Section 3 was demonstrated, particularly when Act itself permits collection of previous year’s fee pending approval [Paras 22–23].

SLFRC – Requirement of Unanimous Approval – Challenge Pending – Petitioners contended that requirement of unanimous agreement under Section 5(4) is unconstitutional and unworkable – Court noted that if unanimity not achieved, matter must be referred to District Fee Appellate Committee – Notification did not provide revised timelines for such reference – Process unlikely to conclude before commencement of academic year [Paras 17–20].

Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Injury – Held: No irreparable loss to students if Notification stayed, as any excess fee charged would be subject to refund/adjustment in accordance with final outcome – Practical difficulties including ongoing examinations and non-availability of audited financial statements for FY 2025-26 weigh in favour of interim protection to Petitioners [Paras 24, 27].

Academic Year – Previous Year Concept – Court rejected contention that Notification sought to fix fee in same academic year – Held: Since Academic Year 2026-27 begins on 01.04.2026, fixation prior thereto would relate to previous academic year 2025-26 [Para 25].

Participation of Parents in SLFRC – Argument that newly admitted parents would be excluded – Rejected – Act contemplates fixation of fee for block of three academic years and parents admitted in second and third years would, in any case, not participate in constitution of SLFRC [Para 26].

Decision: Operation and implementation of Clause 3(1) and 3(2) of Delhi School Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2026 kept in abeyance during pendency of writ petitions – Petitioners permitted to collect same fee for Academic Year 2026-27 as collected in previous academic year, subject to final outcome of petitions and adjustment/refund mechanism – Applications disposed of – Final hearing fixed from 12.03.2026.

Cinema – Freedom of Expression – Interim Injunction Against Release – Film titled “The Kerala Story 2 Goes Beyond” certified by CBFC – Learned Single Judge stayed release for 15 days on ground that teaser indicated potential communal disharmony and lack of application of mind by CBFC – Held: Once CBFC grants certification after viewing film in entirety, presumption arises that statutory guidelines under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act have been duly considered – Stay of release based merely on teaser clips without viewing full film unsustainable – Interim order interdicted and stayed [Paras 4–6].

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Section 5B – Presumption of Due Application of Mind – Appellant had carried out insertions/excisions/modifications as directed by CBFC – Reinforces due application of mind by expert statutory body – Court cannot lightly assume non-application of mind solely on basis of selective clippings [Paras 5–6].

Article 19(1)(a) – Creative Content as Protected Expression – Creative content of cinema inseparable from freedom of speech and expression – Though subject to regulatory measures, once statutory Board certifies film, non-exhibition would infringe fundamental rights unless exceptional grounds exist – Reliance placed on Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 761 and Atul Mishra v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No.181 of 2026, SC) [Para 5].

Law and Order – Duty of State – Possibility of public disorder not ground to restrain exhibition of certified film – It is duty of State to maintain law and order – Courts should not prevent exhibition merely on apprehension of disturbance [Paras 5–6].

Judicial Review – Scope at Interim Stage – Writ petitioners had not viewed film in full and relied only on teaser – In absence of full consideration of film, conclusion that CBFC ignored statutory guidelines cannot be countenanced – Interim restraint on release not justified [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Interim order dated 26.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 6574 & 6854 of 2026 staying release of film set aside/stayed – Release of the movie permitted pending disposal of writ petitions – Writ Appeals admitted.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Limited Scope of Interference – Trial Court acquitted accused of offence under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act – High Court held that judgment was well-reasoned, based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse or illegal – In absence of perversity or patent illegality, no interference warranted in appeal against acquittal – Appeal dismissed at threshold [Paras 7-8].

Electronic Evidence – CD Recording – Mandatory Compliance of Section 65-B Evidence Act – Prosecution relied on CD containing alleged casteist remarks – No certificate under Section 65-B produced – In view of settled law in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, electronic evidence inadmissible without mandatory certificate – Trial Court rightly discarded CD evidence [Paras 4, 6].

SC/ST Act – Public View – Proof of Caste-based Insult – Allegations of hurling casteist abuses – Material contradictions between complaint to National Commission and deposition in Court regarding date and frequency of incident – Independent witnesses unreliable due to contradictions and admitted hostility/litigation – Evidence insufficient to establish insult in public view – Acquittal upheld [Paras 4, 6-7].

Contradictions and Delay – Appreciation of Evidence – Witnesses made improvements over original complaint – Complainant confined allegations to specific date in deposition though complaint alleged repeated incidents – Physical disability of accused and other inconsistencies considered by Trial Court – Findings not shown to be perverse [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld – No interference called for – Pending applications disposed of.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Post-Conviction Compromise – Quashing of Conviction – Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and conviction upheld by Sessions Court – During pendency of revision, parties entered into compromise and complainant stated nothing remained due – Held: Since the offence under Section 138 NI Act is compoundable and object of statute is recovery of legally enforceable debt, continuation of proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose – Conviction and sentence set aside and petitioner acquitted subject to payment of compounding costs [Paras 1, 4, 7, 9, 15].

Compounding of Offence – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – High Court empowered to quash proceedings even after conviction in appropriate cases to secure ends of justice – No statutory embargo against exercising inherent jurisdiction post-conviction when parties have amicably settled – Reliance placed on judicial precedents permitting post-conviction compounding – Held: Inherent powers rightly invoked to disrupt prosecution in view of compromise [Paras 6, 9].

Economic Offence – Legislative Intent – Penal Provision as Recovery Mechanism – Jurisprudence behind NI Act is to ensure credibility of commercial transactions and recovery of cheque amount rather than incarceration – When entire liability satisfied, punitive element can yield to settlement – Continuation of proceedings after full settlement amounts to abuse of process [Paras 5, 7, 8].

Compounding Costs – Damodar S. Prabhu Guidelines – 15% of Cheque Amount – Cheque amount Rs. 8,75,000/- – 15% calculated as Rs. 1,31,250/- – Compounding made subject to deposit with High Court Legal Services Authority on or before stipulated date – Failure to deposit to result in automatic recall of order under Sections 403 and 528 BNSS 2023 and listing for hearing on merits – Provision made for seeking reduction/dispensation upon disclosure of financial capacity – Bail bonds discharged subject to compliance [Paras 10–14].

Decision: Petition allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2015 set aside – Petitioner acquitted subject to deposit of Rs. 1,31,250/- as compounding costs – Non-compliance to entail automatic recall of order – All pending applications closed.