Trademark Infringement – Unauthorized use of ‘PATANJALI’ trademark in an advertisement for men’s undergarments – Allegations of the video being defamatory and disparaging to the brand ambassadors – Claim of revenue generation by the respondents from the video. [Para 3-5]

Jurisdiction – Dispute characterized as a commercial matter by the Trial Court, invoking the definition of ‘Commercial Dispute’ under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Trial Court’s decision to return the plaint for presentation in the appropriate court challenged. [Para 6-7, 10]

Intermediary Liability – Respondents’ claim of intermediary status under the Information Technology Act, 2000 – Exemption from liability discussed with reference to Section 79 of the said Act. [Para 8]

Trial Court Procedure – Non-compliance with Order VII Rule 10A CPC by the Trial Court – Appeal against the Trial Court’s decision to return the plaint without following due process. [Para 10-11]

Freedom of Speech – Respondents’ defense of parody content under fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression – No financial gain claimed by the respondents from the video. [Para 12]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Trial Court directed to rehear the matter and decide issues after fresh hearing – Parties to appear for hearing on 01.12.2023. [Para 13]

Contempt of Court – Initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for willful disobedience of court's order – Petitioner alleges non-compliance with judicial precedents on primacy of perjury applications – Respondent No. 1's order in civil suit challenged for non-adherence to precedents – Contempt petition dismissed, liberty granted to petitioner to seek legal remedies against the impugned order. [Para 1, 24, 43]

Civil Procedure – Dismissal of suit for non-payment of cost – Examination of Section 35B of CPC – Supreme Court judgment cited for interpretation that non-payment does not automatically lead to dismissal – Court's discretion in extension of time for payment of costs acknowledged – Respondent No. 1's decision based on non-fulfillment of precondition for restoration of suit. [Para 25, 32]

Judicial Officers – Protection from litigation for acts done in good faith within judicial capacity – Reference to Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 and Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Petitioner's contempt action against judicial officer deemed improper – Independence of judiciary underscored as a cornerstone for the rule of law. [Para 30, 33]

Professional Conduct – Role and independence of the bar in legal proceedings – Advocate's professional capacity and misconduct not grounds for contempt – Advocates Act, 1961 as the governing statute for professional misconduct – Petitioner's contempt allegations against Respondent No. 2 for representing Respondent No. 3 found unsustainable. [Para 38, 40]

Civil Suit Proceedings – Historical timeline of civil suit for possession of property – Multiple dismissals and restorations – Perjury applications filed by petitioner and subsequent orders for cost payments – Respondent No. 3's previous civil suit and petitioner's applications for waiving costs. [Para 3-19]

Judicial Precedence – Emphasis on precedence of criminal over civil proceedings – Supreme Court judgments cited by petitioner to establish precedence of perjury applications over civil matters – Petitioner's contention of trial court's order being contrary to established law. [Para 24]

Administration of Justice – Protection of judiciary's majesty and conduct of judges – Supreme Court's stance on protecting the administration of justice and maintaining public confidence – Petitioner's approach to seek contempt against judge viewed as an attack on judicial sovereignty – Contempt jurisdiction not to be misused to question judicial decisions. [Para 34, 35]

Regular Bail – Denial of Regular Bail – Petitioner's repeated absconding and non-cooperation in the investigation – Petitioner declared a proclaimed offender twice – Bail application dismissed due to potential obstruction of a fair trial and risk of absconding. [Para 10-14]

Criminal Procedure – Fair Trial and Bail Considerations – Importance of ensuring a fair trial for both the accused and the prosecution – Conduct of the accused obstructing the trial deemed a valid ground for denying bail – Supreme Court precedents on bail considerations emphasized. [Para 7, 11]

Proclaimed Offender – Impact on Bail Application – Petitioner's history of absconding affecting the bail decision – Court emphasizes the necessity of the accused's presence for a fair trial – Miscommunication with counsel not accepted as a valid excuse for non-appearance. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Petitioner's bail application for regular bail rejected – Court finds no merit in the petitioner's reasons for absconding and non-compliance with legal proceedings – Observations made in the judgment solely for the purpose of this petition and not affecting the merits of the case. [Para 14-15]

Eligibility for District Judge Appointment – Practising Advocate Requirement: Challenge to interim order precluding appellant, a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee, from participating in viva-voce for District and Sessions Judge appointment. Legal scrutiny of whether such training status affects eligibility as a practising advocate. [Paras 1, 4, 5, 6]

Judicial Service vs Advocate Practice – Professional Status: Examination of the professional status of a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee in relation to the definition of a practising advocate. References to precedent decisions to understand the impact of judicial training on the practice of law. [Paras 7, 9, 10, 12]

Advocate Eligibility under Article 233(2) – Interpretation: Analysis of the term “practising advocate” for eligibility as District and Sessions Judge. Emphasis on the necessity of uninterrupted legal practice for qualifying. [Paras 8, 11, 13]

Appeal Dismissal: The appeal and writ petition were dismissed, establishing that a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee does not qualify as a practising advocate for direct recruitment to the post of District and Sessions Judge. [Para 13]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction upheld by the appellate court for dishonour of cheque issued by revision petitioner – Substantive sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 4 lakh. [Paras 1, 5, 7]

Borrowed Money – Claim of Rs. 4 lakh loan by respondent substantiated with bank statements and testimonies – Revision petitioner’s contention of blank cheque given as security for vehicle loan found unsubstantiated. [Paras 10-12, 16]

Presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act – Accused’s responsibility to rebut presumption that cheque was for debt discharge – Failure of revision petitioner to provide cogent evidence against presumption. [Paras 14, 15, 17]

Section 313 Cr.P.C – Non-confrontation of accused with certain discrepancies in prosecution evidence not a ground for trial vitiation – Accused’s failure to dispute signature on cheque and dishonour due to insufficiency of funds. [Paras 18-23]

Final Decision – Dismissal of revision petition – Revision petitioner directed to surrender and comply with sentence and fine payment by the trial court. [Para 25]

Maintenance – Grant of Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC – Application filed by wife, Smt. Deepa, and minor son, Rohit, for maintenance against husband, Harish – Trial court allowed application, granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to wife and Rs. 4,000/- to son from July 2010 – High Court upheld trial court's decision, dismissing revisions filed by both parties. [Para 5, 26]

Assessment of Income and Maintenance Entitlement – Trial court assessed income of applicant wife to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and non-applicant husband's net income over Rs. 21,000/- per month – High Court found no error in trial court's assessment and entitlement of applicants to maintenance. [Para 5, 23, 26]

Res Judicata Principle Inapplicable – Earlier application u/s 125 of CrPC withdrawn, not decided on merits – High Court held principle of Res Judicata inapplicable in current maintenance application. [Para 15, 16]

Wife's Earning Capacity and Maintenance Claim – Wife, despite being educated and skilled, found to have limited earning capacity – High Court concurred with trial court's observation of her probable income around Rs. 3,000/- per month – Maintenance awarded considering wife's limited earning and husband's adequate income. [Para 22, 23]

Increased Maintenance Award Justified – Trial court awarded maintenance more than initially claimed – High Court upheld, citing increased income of husband and inflation, emphasizing duty of court to award just and reasonable maintenance. [Para 24, 25]

Judgment and Order Justified – High Court found no material irregularity or illegality in trial court's judgement and order – Both revision petitions dismissed, maintenance order upheld. [Para 26, 27]

Anticipatory Bail in Case of Child Custody Dispute - Petitioner granted anticipatory bail in FIR No.64 dated 08.08.2023 under Section 384 IPC for allegedly abducting her children and demanding money. The Court, considering the circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, directed the petitioner's release on bail if arrested, subject to bail bonds and compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. [Para 1, 12-13]

Child Abduction and Demand for Money Allegations - Petitioner accused of abducting children from husband and in-laws and demanding ₹1.25 crore for their return. Petitioner's re-marriage with ex-husband and custody disputes highlighted, with allegations of fraudulent child removal and monetary demands for their return. [Para 2, 5, 8, 10]

History of Marital Discord and Legal Actions - Petitioner's troubled marital history with Deepak Bansal, including divorce, custody battles, allegations of physical relations post-divorce, and remarriage detailed. Various legal actions, including FIRs and custody disputes, outlined. [Para 4, 6-7]

Court's Observations on Petitioner's Role and Rights - Court acknowledges petitioner's remarriage and consequent legal guardianship of children, questioning the abduction claim. Emphasizes the need for trial to address money demand allegations, noting the absence of such demands in past significant interactions. [Para 12]

Anticipatory Bail Granted - Court grants anticipatory bail, imposing conditions for petitioner's cooperation in investigation and adherence to legal requirements, ensuring her availability for investigative processes. [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under POCSO Act and IPC – Appeal against life imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial court for offenses under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Appellant convicted for sexually assaulting his daughter. [Paras 2-5]

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Reliability of victim's testimony and corroborating evidence – Appellant's actions corroborated by victim's brother and other family members. Trial court's reliance on consistent and credible testimonies despite lapses in investigation. [Paras 6-24]

Medical Evidence – Absence of definitive medical proof of rape – Medical examination of the victim did not conclusively prove rape, but lack of physical evidence does not exonerate the appellant. [Paras 29-34]

Investigation Lapses – Inadequacies in the investigation process – Investigating officer's failure to record neighborhood statements and conduct forensic examination of seized clothes. However, these lapses deemed insufficient to dismiss the prosecution's case in light of victim’s credible testimony. [Paras 35-37]

Decision – Upholding of trial court's judgment by High Court – Appellant's appeal dismissed, with the High Court finding justification in the trial court's decision based on the overall evidence and circumstances. [Paras 38-39]

Delay and Laches – Discretion in Exercising Jurisdiction – Petitioner challenged various orders related to penalties imposed by respondents – High Court’s discretion in cases of delay and laches – Importance of legal sustainability and manifest illegality in delayed petitions. [Para 2-3]

Legal Precedents on Delay and Laches – Emphasis on prompt approach to court for relief under Article 226 – Inordinate delay as a ground for refusal of relief. [Para 4-5]

Doctrine of Delay and Laches in Equitable Jurisdiction – High Court’s duty in balancing rights protection with principles of equity – Impact of inordinate delay on relief in writ petitions. [Para 6]

Principles Governing Delay, Laches, and Acquiescence – Factors affecting the right to relief, including length of delay and developments during the intervening period. [Para 7]

Application in Present Case – Petition dismissed due to significant delay and lack of manifest illegality in impugned orders. [Para 8-9]

Decision – Dismissal of the petition due to delay and laches. [Para 11]