Civil Law - Trademark Infringement – Similarity in Visual and Phonetic Structure – Permanent Injunction Granted – Defendant used the mark ‘BRIMESTONE’ for rubber products which was found deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known registered mark ‘BRIDGESTONE’ – Defendant replaced only two letters while retaining key phonetic and visual elements – Infringement and passing off established [Paras 31–37].

Ex Parte Proceedings – Non-Appearance of Defendant – Evidence Unchallenged – Defendant failed to file written statement or cross-examine plaintiff’s witness – Court deemed averments and documents admitted – Local Commissioner’s seizure report further corroborated infringing conduct [Paras 19–27, 42].

Damages – Quantified Based on Investigator & LC Reports – ₹34.41 Lakhs Awarded – Plaintiff established illegal profits from 3 years of sales using counterfeit mark – Court adopted conservative one-and-a-half-year base and 20% profit margin for “rough and ready” calculation – Damages awarded under category of repeated knowing infringer [Paras 43–49].

Costs – Actual Costs Recoverable – Bill of Costs for ₹14.38 Lakhs Submitted – Plaintiff directed to approach Taxation Officer for determination – Defendant’s evasion cannot shield it from compensatory consequences [Paras 50–53].

Decision: Suit decreed – Permanent injunction granted restraining use of ‘BRIMESTONE’ or any mark deceptively similar to ‘BRIDGESTONE’ – ₹34,41,240/- compensatory damages awarded – Costs to be determined by Taxation Officer – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 54–59].

Taxation Law – Reassessment under Income Tax Act – Issuance of Notice to Deceased Person – Petitioner, the legal heir of late Sh. Vijay Shankar Goel, challenged the reassessment notice under Section 148A(b) and subsequent order under Section 148A(d) – Notices were issued in the name of the deceased assessee despite the department being informed about his death – Held: Notices issued in the name of a deceased person are invalid, as per established precedents, unless the legal heirs are brought on record – Reassessment proceedings initiated post-death, without revising the notice in the name of legal heirs, suffer from a fundamental jurisdictional error – Notice under Section 148 and the proceedings thereunder quashed [Paras 10-17].

Legal Principle – Notice to Dead Person – The court reiterated that issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a deceased person is not merely a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional error – Cited precedents from Savita Kapila v. ACIT and Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT to emphasize that valid notice must be issued to the correct person, and a notice to a deceased person renders the entire proceedings invalid – Participation by legal heirs in such proceedings does not amount to waiver of this requirement [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Notices under Section 148A(b) and 148, and the subsequent order under Section 148A(d), all issued in the name of the deceased, set aside – Reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 quashed [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on DNA Evidence – Chain of Custody Compromised – The Appellant challenged his conviction for sexual offences under the POCSO Act and IPC, arguing that the DNA evidence used to convict him was unreliable due to improper handling of samples and a failure to maintain the chain of custody – The prosecution's case relied heavily on DNA reports which concluded that the Appellant and the victim were the biological parents of the foetus – Held: The integrity of the DNA samples was compromised as proper protocols for collection, preservation, and documentation were not followed – The evidence regarding the foetus’s preservation and chain of custody was incomplete, raising the possibility of contamination – As such, the DNA evidence was discarded, and the Appellant's conviction was overturned [Paras 1-40].

POCSO Act – Age of the Victim – Establishment of Minority – The prosecution established that the victim was below 18 years old at the time of the incident, qualifying her as a minor under the POCSO Act – The court held that while the victim’s minority was proved through school records, the prosecution failed to corroborate other critical evidence necessary to support the conviction [Paras 10-20].

Decision – Acquittal for Lack of Reliable Evidence – The court held that in the absence of reliable DNA evidence and other corroborative testimony, the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt – The conviction under both the POCSO Act and the IPC was quashed, and the Appellant was acquitted – The Appellant was ordered to be released unless required in another case, and any fines paid were to be refunded [Paras 40-45].

Land Acquisition – Delay in Payment of Compensation – Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The appellant's land was acquired for a public purpose in 1977, and despite an award being passed in 1984, compensation of Rs. 5003 was not paid – The appellant sought enhanced compensation under Section 28-A in line with other landowners, but the respondents failed to act on this request – Held: The non-payment of compensation for over 40 years is egregious, and the appellant, now 81 years old and bedridden, requires immediate compensation – The respondents were directed to pay the original compensation with 9% interest per annum from 1982 and to re-determine the market value of the land based on current rates [Paras 1-6, 11-14].

Constitutional Right to Compensation – Article 300-A – The court highlighted that the acquisition of land without adequate compensation violates Article 300-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property – The failure of the State to provide timely compensation to a marginal farmer constitutes a breach of fundamental rights, requiring judicial intervention to ensure justice is done [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Directions for Immediate and Enhanced Compensation – The court ordered the respondents to immediately pay the original compensation with interest within three weeks and to reassess the value of the land at current market rates, with the final compensation to be paid within four months – The court emphasized that any delay in compliance would be treated as a violation of its order [Paras 15-18].

Public Interest Litigation – Construction of Service Lanes and Irrigation Channels – Directed to Implement Measures - The petitioner argued that the construction of the Ring Road blocked essential access points for several villages and caused the drying up of irrigation channels. The court directed the respondents to construct either an Overhead Bridge or Underpass for the villagers' ease of movement and to restore blocked irrigation channels, ensuring the flow of water to agricultural lands. The court further ordered measures to prevent water stagnation during the rainy season. [Paras 6-10].

Commissioner's Report – Villagers Facing Hardships – Inadequate Access Provisions - A court-appointed commissioner confirmed the hardships faced by villagers due to the lack of proper access routes and water blockages. Despite claims by NHAI that work was in progress, the report found no visible signs of such progress, prompting the court to issue strict directions for corrective action. [Paras 6-8].

Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to complete the required construction and restoration within two months. [Para 10].

Income Tax – Infrastructure Development – Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA(4) – The respondent, engaged in infrastructure development at Kakinada Deep Water Port, claimed a deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act for the development of a Mechanised Port Handling System – The revenue disallowed the deduction, contending that the respondent had no direct agreement with the government, a condition under Section 80IA(4)(i) – The respondent argued that its agreement with Kakinada Sea Ports Limited (KSPL), a nodal agency under the Andhra Pradesh government, satisfied the requirement – Held: The respondent is eligible for the deduction as KSPL acted as the government’s authorized agency, and the port handling facility was certified as part of the government infrastructure – The court upheld the tribunal’s ruling, emphasizing that a rigid interpretation of the statute would defeat the legislative intent of promoting infrastructure development [Paras 1-28].

Taxation – Applicability of Circulars – CBDT Circular No. 10/2005 – The revenue argued that the respondent did not meet the conditions of Section 80IA(4) due to the absence of an explicit agreement with the government – The court referred to CBDT Circular No. 10/2005, which relaxed one of the conditions for deduction under Section 80IA(4) and required only certification of the infrastructure facility by the relevant authority – The respondent had obtained such certification from the Port Authority – Therefore, the court ruled that the deduction could not be denied on technical grounds [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Dismissal of Revenue’s Appeals – The court dismissed the revenue’s appeals, affirming the tribunal’s decision that the respondent was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA(4) – The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 80IA(4) was to encourage infrastructure development, and technical objections should not hinder genuine claims – Appeals dismissed [Paras 28-29].

Bail Application – Prolonged Custody – Delay in Trial – Bail Granted – The Applicant sought release on bail in a murder conspiracy case, citing his custody since January 2020 and the slow progress of the trial, with over 70 witnesses yet to be examined. The trial was proceeding slowly due to limited availability of the Sessions Judge and the complexity of the case – Held: Bail granted due to prolonged custody and violation of the Applicant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 17-20, 39].

Conspiracy and Financial Transactions – Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution alleged that the Applicant played a role in the conspiracy, maintaining financial records and disbursing money to the families of the co-accused. However, the evidence presented was circumstantial, involving entries in diaries and the Applicant’s employment by the principal conspirator – Held: The circumstantial evidence does not conclusively implicate the Applicant in the conspiracy. The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to guilt, which remains to be proven during trial. Bail granted [Paras 23-28, 39].

Confessional Statement of Co-Accused – Inadmissibility under Section 30, Indian Evidence Act – The prosecution relied on a confessional statement by a co-accused, Rashid Murtaza, implicating the Applicant. As the co-accused had passed away, the statement could not be used under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits the use of a co-accused’s confession unless there is a joint trial – Held: Confessional statement inadmissible under Section 30. It cannot be considered against the Applicant, as there is no joint trial. Bail granted [Paras 29-37].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – The court underscored the Applicant’s right to a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Despite the seriousness of the crime, the prolonged pre-trial detention of the Applicant warranted his release on bail. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling that delays in trial cannot justify continued detention if it infringes the fundamental right to a speedy trial – Held: Bail granted, trial delay violates Article 21 [Paras 18-21].

Family Law – Dismissal for Non-payment of Interim Maintenance – Rule 9, Order IX of CPC – The appellant's divorce petition was dismissed by the Family Court due to non-payment of interim maintenance in a prior proceeding – The Family Court dismissed the current petition on the same basis, invoking Order IX, Rule 9 of the CPC – Held: The Family Court erred in applying Rule 9, Order IX, as the earlier dismissal was not for default of appearance but for non-compliance with an interim maintenance order – The Court ruled that dismissal for failure to pay interim maintenance does not preclude a fresh petition and reversed the lower court’s judgment [Paras 1-7].

Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – The appellant sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, which were affirmed by the Family Court but dismissed for maintainability – The High Court, after examining the evidence, found sufficient grounds for divorce and dissolved the marriage, awarding permanent alimony of ₹2,00,000 to the respondent [Paras 8-12].

Decision – Divorce Granted with Permanent Alimony – The marriage was dissolved on the grounds of cruelty and desertion – The appellant was directed to pay ₹2,00,000 as permanent alimony, which was acknowledged in court by the respondent’s counsel – The respondent agreed to withdraw pending execution and criminal cases – Appeal allowed [Paras 13-16].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for the murder of her two minor children by allegedly throwing them into the river – Trial court sentenced her to life imprisonment – On appeal, High Court finds that the prosecution’s case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and fails to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Medical evidence reveals that one of the children died 13 hours after the accused was rescued, ruling out her involvement in the crime – Prosecution failed to establish motive, place of occurrence, or satisfactorily explain key lapses in the case – Held: Appellant acquitted [Paras 69-71].

Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory, to establish guilt – However, the evidence failed to form a complete chain that pointed exclusively to the guilt of the accused – Recovery of footwear, bow, and balloons from the alleged crime scene was not adequately proven to belong to the children – Significant time gap between the deaths of the children and their recovery from different locations undermined the prosecution’s case – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete, leading to acquittal [Paras 39, 42-43, 45-46, 49, 55].

Motive – Absence of Motive – Prosecution alleged that the accused, due to differences with her mother-in-law, committed the murder – No concrete evidence was presented to substantiate this claim – The High Court held that the alleged motive, even if accepted, was too weak to support the theory that a mother would murder her own children for such a reason – Absence of any valid motive weighed in favor of the accused, especially in a case based on circumstantial evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove motive [Paras 62-64].

Medical Evidence – Time of Death Inconsistent with Prosecution Case – Medical evidence indicated that one child died at least 13 hours after the accused was rescued from the river – This contradicted the prosecution's claim that both children were thrown into the river simultaneously by the accused – Medical testimony also revealed that it was unlikely the children could have survived in water for the time alleged by the prosecution – Held: Medical evidence strongly supported the defense and contradicted the prosecution’s case [Paras 44-45, 55, 61].

Last Seen Theory – Application and Limitations – The prosecution argued that the children were last seen with the accused, shifting the burden of explanation onto her under Section 106 of the Evidence Act – High Court ruled that the "last seen" theory alone, without corroborative evidence and considering the significant time gap and location discrepancies, was insufficient to prove guilt – The burden of proof remained on the prosecution, and they failed to meet it – Held: Last seen theory did not establish the accused's guilt [Paras 23-28, 67-68].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 71].