Bail Application – Accused involved in a case of alleged assault resulting in the death of the complainant – Bail sought under Section 439 Cr.PC – Charges under Sections 504, 448, 323, 324, 354 read with Section 34 IPC initially registered, later Section 302 IPC added – Case and counter-case registered in relation to the same incident. (Para 1)

Incident Details – Allegation of the complainant being physically assaulted and verbally abused by the accused in a sudden quarrel – Counter-complaint lodged by one of the accused, alleging aggression from the complainant’s side – Serious injuries sustained by both parties during the altercation. (Para 3)

Medical Findings – Post-mortem report indicates the cause of death as pulmonary embolism resulting from multiple injuries – Initial medical treatment sought by the complainant – Incident occurred on 02.04.2023, and the complainant succumbed to injuries on 05.04.2023. (Para 9)

Court’s Observations – No determination of intention to cause fatal injuries leading to death at this stage – Charge-sheet indicating involvement of both parties in causing injuries to each other – Prima facie material suggests a sudden quarrel. (Para 10)

Bail Grant – Petitioners’ detention not required – No criminal antecedents against the petitioners – Fear of tampering with witnesses and absconding addressed through imposing suitable conditions. (Para 11)

Rejection of Leave under Section 80(2) C.P.C. – Trial court’s rejection of leave under Section 80(2) C.P.C., finding no necessity for urgent relief in the suit matter, held untenable. High Court emphasizes understanding the real spirit behind Section 80 C.P.C. and its sub-sections.

Purpose of Section 80 C.P.C. – Section 80 C.P.C. mandates a two-month notice in writing before suing the Government or a public officer for acts in their official capacity. Sub-section (2) allows suits without prior notice if “urgent and immediate relief” is necessary.

Protecting the Plaintiff’s Interest – Sub-section (2) protects the plaintiff’s interests from emergent dangers or invasions of valuable rights. Court to consider the need for urgent relief over rigid compliance with two-month prior notice.

Subjective Satisfaction and Probability of Irreparable Injury – Court should assess the need for urgent relief based on subjective satisfaction and the probability of irreparable injury at the initial stage.

Section 80(2) C.P.C. as a Precautionary Measure – Section 80(2) C.P.C. is a precautionary measure to resolve grievances without litigation. Not an absolute condition precedent in all cases.

Overlooking the Cardinal Principle – Trial court overlooks the cardinal principle behind Section 80 C.P.C., returns suit without considering the application for urgent remedy. High Court sets aside the decision and restores the suit.

Restoration of the Suit – High Court restores the suit to the trial court for further consideration. Parties to appear before the trial court on 25/07/2023. Trial court to reconsider grant of leave and pass necessary orders.

Anticipatory Bail Application – Seizure of prohibited substances from a co-accused – Allegations of involvement in the supply of banned substances – Detailed investigation required to uncover potential substance-related racket – Identity of purchasers to be ascertained – Criminal antecedents of the applicant – Previous cases denying similar relief to applicants facing comparable charges – Prohibition under Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 – Refusal to grant pre-arrest protection. (Para No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10)

Second Appeal – Suit for declaration of mortgage redemption and right title interest – Appeal against the judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the suit – Dispute over a property claimed to be a mortgage by the plaintiff and a sale by the defendant – Bar under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibiting admission of oral evidence to contradict a registered deed of sale – Applicability of West Bengal Money Lenders Act and its provision for admitting oral evidence in loan transactions – Consideration of whether the suit is barred by limitation – Prior withdrawal of a similar case under the Bengal Money Lenders Act by the plaintiff – Examination of intention of parties in the transaction – Observations on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in related cases – Dismissal of the appeal, upholding the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

Criminal Case - Anticipatory Bail - Interim Anticipatory Bail - Making Interim Anticipatory Bail Absolute - Need for Custodial Interrogation - Misuse of Liberty - Consideration of Gravity of Offense - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 438, 341, 379, 294, 326, 34 of the Indian Penal Code - Investigation into Hailakandi Police Station Case No. 05/2023 - Allegations of Restraint, Attack, and Theft - Charge-sheet laid by Investigating Officer - Discretion of Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Absence of Misuse of Liberty during Interim Anticipatory Bail - Interim Anticipatory Bail made absolute with attached conditions - Disposal of Anticipatory Bail Application.

Marriage – Dissolution of marriage – Appeal against the judgment of the Family Court – Petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty – Allegations of improper behavior, refusal to cohabit, and making unreasonable demands – Examination of evidence – Failure to prove specific allegations of cruelty – No ground for dissolution of marriage. (Para 10)

Desertion – Not made out – Petition for divorce filed within two years of marriage – Requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years – Absence of such continuous desertion. (Para 8)

Inability to bear children – Not a ground for dissolving the marriage – Parties may consider alternative means such as adoption for having children. Marital duty – Duty to co-operate and support a spouse in times of illness or difficulties – Developing a disease during marriage not within the control of any spouse. Motive for divorce – Seeking divorce with the intent to remarry and have children with another person – Motive not recognized as a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.  (Para 11)

Bail - Constitutional Law – Personal Liberty – Arrest – Necessity for justification – Arrest and detention in police lock-up causing harm to reputation and self-esteem – Arrest cannot be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of offense – Justification required for arrest apart from the power to arrest – Arrest to be avoided if reasonable satisfaction as to the genuineness and bona fides of complaint and person’s complicity reached after investigation – Personal liberty being an important aspect of constitutional mandate. (Para 26.1)

Criminal Procedure – Remand – Application of mind by the court – Fundamentally a judicial function – Obligation on the Magistrate to satisfy himself of reasonable grounds for remand – Purpose of remand under Section 167 of CrPC – Investigating agency to send case diary with remand report for Magistrate’s appreciation – Remand not to be ordered automatically or in a mechanical manner. (Para 26.2)

Interpretation of Statutes – Distinction between arrest and remand – Accused already under incarceration – No need for further arrest – Custody not limited to police or judicial custody but presentation before the court – Pari materia provision having same effect as Section 167(2) CrPC – Accused entitled to default bail under appropriate satisfaction – Incarceration meaning confinement in jail or preventing someone from leaving a closed place. (Para 26.3)

Companies Act – Twin-conditions for bail under Section 212(6) – Accused not arrested before stage of cognizance – Summons issued instead of arrest warrants – Investigating officer not seeking police custody or judicial custody – Failure to record satisfaction that accused is guilty of offenses charged – Misdirection by court in applying twin-conditions – Flawed premise for remanding accused to judicial custody. (Para 27.7)

Bail – Seriousness of allegations not sole test for denial of bail – Gravity of allegations determining length of sentence upon conviction – Accused’s right to expeditious trial not to be undermined – Pre-trial detention to be limited – Justifiable reasons required for remand and articulation based on material against accused. (Para 27.9)

Conditions for bail – Personal bond, sureties, and compliance with court orders – Active cell-phone contact, surrender of passport, non-contact with witnesses, and evidence tampering prohibition – Restriction from contact or transaction with officials/employees concerned with the case – Issuance of Look-out Circular to prevent accused from leaving the country. (Para 28)

Economic Offenses – Severity of allegations not justification for pre-trial incarceration – Punishment to follow conviction – Importance of ensuring due process and safeguarding personal liberty. (Para 30)

Jurisdiction – Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Termination of LPG Distributorship – Petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Indian Oil Corporation Limited terminated the petitioner’s LPG Distributorship – Court to examine whether the termination was lawful and justified. (Para 1)

Background – Petitioner applied for LPG Distributorship and was declared successful candidate – Letter of Intent (LOI) issued on 07.11.2016 – Agreement executed between the petitioner and the corporation on 16.03.2017 – Complaint lodged against petitioner alleging an “agreement to sell” with her mother-in-law, leading to termination proceedings. (Para 2)

Allegations – Corporation alleged gainful employment of petitioner elsewhere, unauthorized foreign visits, and execution of General Power of Attorney (GPA) and agreement to sell in favor of family members – Petitioner denies the allegations and claims evidence of non-remunerative motivational lectures and pending civil suit regarding alleged forged documents. (Para 3)

Impugned Order – Corporation issued a show cause notice to the petitioner listing various allegations – Impugned order dated 30.06.2022 terminated the petitioner’s distributorship – Petitioner challenged the order before the High Court. (Para 4)

Arguments – Petitioner’s counsel contends that impugned order failed to address specific allegations and lacked proper examination of evidence – Corporation’s counsel argues that the order was passed after a fair opportunity of hearing and termination was justified within the contract’s terms. (Para 5)

Decision – High Court directs the corporation to pass a fresh order within two months, considering all documents on record and granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing – Corporation to address all issues raised in the show cause notice and the petitioner’s reply. (Para 6,7)

Interim injunction - Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC - Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendant's use of similar trademark - Plaintiff claiming prior adoption, registration, and extensive use of the mark - Defendant claiming honest and concurrent use - Analysis of passing off and infringement claims - Examination of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act - Plaintiff's contradictory stand on similarity of marks - Consideration of the Division Bench's judgment in a related case - Court's prima facie view on maintainability of infringement action - Need for trial to determine prior user of the mark. (Para 1)

Passing off - Essential elements - Misrepresentation, made by a trader in the course of trade, calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader, causing actual damage - Examination of the defendant's bona fide use of its own name - Application of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act - Court's prima facie view on defendant's entitlement to the defense under Section 35. (Para 2)

Division Bench's judgment in a related case - Findings on the generic nature of the word 'VASUNDHRA', existence of several registered trademarks with similar marks, requirement of establishing exclusive identification of the mark with the plaintiff's business, and plaintiff's contradictory stand on similarity of marks - Supreme Court's clarification on the limited scope of the Division Bench's judgment. (Para 3)

Plaintiff's invoices and genuineness - Reasonable doubt raised by defendant regarding the authenticity of plaintiff's invoices - Material to be examined during trial. (Para 4)

Volume of sales and reputation - Plaintiff's high turnover not determinative of reputation in the relevant market sector - Division Bench's findings on reputation associated with the plaintiff's trademarks. (Para 5)

Approbate and reprobate - Plaintiff's contradictory stand in its reply to the Examination Report - Bar on obtaining equitable relief after making contrary assertions before the Trade Marks Registry. (Para 6)

Conclusion - Prima facie view on the maintainability of the infringement action, need for trial to determine prior user, and defendant's entitlement to the defense under Section 35 - Interim injunction not granted. (Para 7)