Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Decree Affirmed – The marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was affirmed by the High Court – Despite the appellant’s willingness to resume marital life, the respondent remained unwilling – The Supreme Court did not interfere with the findings on cruelty or the decree of divorce – Held: Divorce decree rightly upheld by the High Court and no merit found to reverse it [Paras 3.6–3.8, 13].

Permanent Alimony – Quantum Enhanced – One-Time Settlement of ₹50 Lakhs Ordered – The appellant challenged the ₹15,00,000/- alimony awarded by the Family Court and upheld by the High Court – On examining income affidavits and qualifications of both parties, the Supreme Court found the respondent capable of paying more and the appellant capable of some self-sustenance – Held: A just, fair, and reasonable one-time settlement would be ₹50,00,000/- to secure the appellant’s financial future [Paras 6–10, 13].

Financial Capacity – Consideration of Income and Prospects – Balanced Approach Adopted – The respondent, a doctor earning approximately ₹1.4 lakhs/month, had property and financial stability – The appellant, an M.Tech and LL.B graduate, claimed to be unemployed – Court held both factors must be balanced to determine reasonable alimony – Appellant not in acute economic hardship but entitled to a dignified standard of living post-divorce [Paras 7–9].

Installment Schedule – Court Directed Payment Timeline – The Court directed the enhanced amount of ₹50,00,000/- be paid in five equal monthly instalments from September 2025 to January 2026 – Appellant directed to provide bank details for remittance – Held: Payment structure will ensure timely and equitable compliance [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Divorce Decree Upheld – Alimony Enhanced – Supreme Court upheld the decree of divorce but modified the alimony awarded by increasing it from ₹15,00,000/- to ₹50,00,000/- as full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the marriage and litigation – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 13–14].

Maintainability of Review – Distinction Between Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC – Review Maintainable - Writ petition filed under Article 226 r/w Section 482 CrPC was decided ex parte without issuing notice to accused – High Court subsequently dismissed review petition as not maintainable, holding it was filed under Section 482 – Held: Since the original writ invoked Article 226, High Court had jurisdiction to entertain review – Review petition restored for reconsideration on merits.

Natural Justice – Hearing Not Granted to Accused – Order Set Aside – Appellants were arrayed as respondents in writ proceedings but were not served or heard before the High Court directed transfer of investigation – Held: Failure to issue notice vitiated proceedings – Matter remanded for hearing afresh on review petition.

Deemed Dismissal of SLP – Not Bar to Review – Procedural Fairness – Earlier SLP was withdrawn with liberty to approach High Court – Appellants filed review which was erroneously dismissed as not maintainable – Held: Liberty granted by Supreme Court allowed review route – Interests of justice require High Court to adjudicate on merits.

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Order dated 28.11.2024 dismissing review petition set aside – Review Petition No. 23105/2024 restored to High Court’s file – High Court directed to hear all parties and decide in accordance with law – Liberty reserved to appellants to approach Supreme Court again, if needed .

Dishonour of Cheque – Illegality of Underlying Transaction – Prima Facie No Legally Enforceable Debt – The petitioner relied on Kerala High Court’s ruling in C.V. Rajan vs. Illikkal Ramesan (2015 SCC OnLine Ker 6780), arguing that even if an agreement was illegal under Section 23 of the Contract Act, cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act could still be maintained – Supreme Court held prima facie that such amount cannot be treated as a “legally enforceable debt” under Section 138 – Kerala High Court’s view may not align with statutory provisions – Held: Notice issued to respondent, returnable in six weeks [Paras 2–3].

Taxation Law - Provisional Attachment – Renewal of Lapsed Orders – CGST Act – Appeal Allowed - Appellant challenged the legality of two fresh provisional attachment orders passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act after expiry of one year from the earlier orders – High Court upheld the second attachment as valid – Supreme Court held: Section 83(2) clearly mandates cessation of effect after one year, and there is no statutory or executive provision allowing renewal or reissuance – Renewal of attachment is ultra vires and contrary to legislative intent – Held: Fresh orders issued under the guise of “renewal” are null and void – Bank accounts to be de-freezed [Paras 1, 14, 29-32, 41-42].

Statutory Interpretation – No Implied Power to Renew Provisional Attachment – Express Limitation Under Section 83(2) – Held: Section 83(2) prescribes a one-year lifespan for provisional attachments – Absence of provision for extension precludes reissuance – Accepting contrary reasoning would defeat legislative safeguards – Maxim “ut res magis valeat quam pereat” applied to uphold efficacy of subsection (2) [Paras 19-21, 30-31].

Abuse of Revenue Power – Draconian Nature of Section 83(1) – Strict Compliance Mandated - Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is draconian and must be exercised strictly as per statute – Renewal without fresh grounds amounts to colorable exercise of power – Issuing repeated attachment orders would circumvent the procedural safeguards provided under the law [Paras 17-18, 30-32].

Delegated Legislation – Rule 159 Misaligned with Section 83 – GST Council Recommendation Noted – Court took note of misalignment between Rule 159(2) of CGST Rules and Section 83(2) of CGST Act – Recommended amendments by GST Council acknowledged – Held: Till rules are amended, strict adherence to statutory provision necessary [Paras 37-38].

Judicial Precedent – Kerala High Court Decision Approved – Contrary Gujarat High Court Ruling Overruled – Court endorsed view of Kerala High Court in Ali K. case disapproving reissuance of attachment after expiry – Held: Gujarat High Court’s view in present case and Shrimati Priti case is unsustainable [Paras 10, 34].

Decision – Attachment Orders Quashed – Bank Accounts to be De-Freezed – Appeal Allowed - Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders dated 13th November 2024 and 18th December 2024 – Directed immediate lifting of attachments and restoration of account operations – Revenue is not precluded from proceeding with investigation or other lawful steps [Paras 41-43].

Trademark Infringement – Composite Marks – Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act – Interim Injunction Refused – The appellants alleged that the respondent’s use of ‘LONDON PRIDE’ infringed their registered trademarks ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’ – The Commercial Court and High Court denied interim injunction – Supreme Court held that deceptive similarity must be assessed holistically including visual, phonetic and structural aspects – Found no error in the denial of interim relief – Held: No ground for appellate interference.

Trademark Law – Infringement and Passing Off – Denial of Interim Injunction – Appeal against denial of interim injunction in suit for trademark infringement and passing off – Appellants alleged deceptive similarity between their registered trademarks ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’ and respondent’s mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’ – Commercial Court and High Court dismissed application on ground that ‘PRIDE’ is a laudatory, commonly used term and no prima facie case was made out – Held: Marks must be compared holistically – Mere use of a common element like ‘PRIDE’ insufficient to establish deceptive similarity – No actionable confusion likely in the mind of an average consumer [Paras 20-24, 29.1, 30, 31.9, 32.4, 33.4, 34.6, 35.7, 44-45, 47, 49, 52-54, 56-57]

Trademark Law – Anti-Dissection Rule – Appellants sought to isolate the word ‘PRIDE’ from composite marks to allege infringement – Court reiterated that marks must be compared as a whole, not by dissecting generic components – Held: ‘PRIDE’ being a publici juris term, cannot independently ground a claim for exclusivity or infringement – No exclusivity over bottle shape or common colour schemes – Composite nature of marks must govern the infringement inquiry [Paras 25, 31.5, 32-32.4, 34, 34.2, 34.6, 51, 55]

Trademark Law – Dominant Feature Test – Word ‘PRIDE’ not dominant or distinctive enough to influence consumer perception – Dominant features in competing marks (‘BLENDERS’, ‘IMPERIAL’, and ‘LONDON’) are dissimilar and produce distinct commercial impressions – Held: No likelihood of confusion or false association arises from respondent’s mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’ – Shared use of ‘PRIDE’ insufficient to ground claim of infringement or passing off [Paras 33-33.4, 45, 50, 54]

Trademark Law – Passing Off and Infringement – Distinction – Court reiterated that infringement requires use of an identical or deceptively similar mark for same goods; passing off requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage – Held: Appellants failed to show goodwill in isolated term ‘PRIDE’, and no misrepresentation shown in respondent’s packaging or trade dress – Composite marks not deceptively similar – Suit to be tried on merits independently [Paras 29, 29.1, 29.5, 35.5, 41-43, 46]

Trademark Law – Average Consumer Test – Courts emphasized evaluation from perspective of average consumer with imperfect recollection – Held: In case of premium whiskey products, consumers presumed to be discerning and attentive – Overall impression of marks not likely to cause confusion – Similarities in colour or font insufficient to mislead such consumers [Paras 24, 25.1, 31.3, 35-35.7, 49, 53]

Interim Injunction – Equitable Principles – Denial of Interim Relief – No prima facie case or likelihood of confusion made out – No irreparable harm shown – Balance of convenience not in favour of appellants – Appellants’ conduct and past admissions undermined their claim – Held: Injunctive relief rightly denied by Commercial Court and upheld by High Court – Appellants’ reliance on generic word ‘PRIDE’ rejected as contrary to settled principles [Paras 22, 36-36.4, 37, 39, 57-58]

Previous Litigation – Estoppel – Appellants earlier failed in similar claim against United Spirits for use of ‘ROYAL CHALLENGE AMERICAN PRIDE’ – High Court held they had no registration over word ‘PRIDE’ – Supreme Court declined to interfere – Held: Appellants estopped from reasserting similar claims – Doctrine of estoppel applies where appellants earlier disclaimed rights over ‘PRIDE’ [Paras 37, 37.1, 56]

Foreign Jurisprudence – Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine – UK Supreme Court decision in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v. Dream Pairs Europe Inc discussed – Post-sale confusion not applicable to products like whiskey not meant for public display – Held: Though concept evolving in foreign law, not relevant to present facts – Confusion must be established at point of sale in Indian context [Paras 40-40.6]

Conclusion: Appeal dismissed – No case for interim injunction made out – Commercial Court to proceed with trial on merits uninfluenced by observations in interlocutory stage – No order as to costs [Paras 58-59]

Taxation Law – GST – Provisional Attachment – Reissuance of Provisional Attachment Orders Post-Lapse – Validity – Respondent issued fresh provisional attachment orders on 13th November 2024 and 18th December 2024 claiming them to be a ‘renewal’ of earlier orders dated 17th and 26th October 2023 – Appellant challenged the orders before Gujarat High Court claiming lack of jurisdiction and expiry of earlier orders under Section 83(2) of CGST Act, 2017 – High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding no embargo in law against reissuance of fresh attachment orders – Held: The CGST Act does not permit issuance of a second provisional attachment order under Section 83(1) after lapse of the first by virtue of Section 83(2) – Renewal or reissuance would render sub-section (2) otiose and enable perpetual attachment, contrary to legislative intent – Absence of statutory or executive authority to permit such ‘renewals’ – Attachment orders set aside [Paras 1, 2, 3, 5, 14, 19, 20, 29-31, 41, 42]

Statutory Interpretation – Literal Rule – Section 83(2) of CGST Act – Provides that every provisional attachment ceases to have effect after one year – Plain and literal interpretation must prevail – No scope for reading into the statute a power to reissue or renew attachment orders – Interpretation advanced by Revenue would reduce the limitation period to a nullity – Held: Any act of renewal not specifically empowered under the statute amounts to overreach and misuse of draconian power [Paras 19, 20, 30, 31]

Executive Power – Limitations – Statutory Supremacy – Principle that statutory authorities cannot exercise powers not conferred by statute or executive instruction – Constitution Bench decisions affirm executive power can supplement but not supplant legislation – No executive instruction authorizing renewal of attachment orders found – Held: Exercise of power in absence of statutory or executive source is ultra vires [Paras 26-28, 29]

Comparative Statutory Framework – Excise and Customs Acts – These enactments explicitly provide for extension of provisional attachment beyond initial periods – CGST Act does not – Held: Legislative intent clearly different – Absence of extension clause implies no implied power to renew or reissue attachment – Executive cannot import mechanisms from other statutes [Paras 6, 32, 39]

Judicial Precedent – Approval of Kerala High Court’s View – Kerala HC in Ali K. held that reissuance of provisional attachment post-lapse is ultra vires – View accepted and affirmed – Contrasted with Gujarat HC’s divergent view in present case – Held: Permitting fresh attachment on same grounds after lapse would lead to abuse and denial of due process [Paras 10, 34]

Administrative Inaction – Delay in Releasing Attachment – Statutory lapse after one year not implemented by authorities unless direction given to banks – GST Council itself proposed amendment to Rule 159 to resolve misalignment – Held: Failure to effectuate statutory lapse undermines rule of law and forces unnecessary litigation – Legislature’s intent and protection must be honoured by authorities [Paras 35-38]

Relief – Appellant's bank accounts directed to be de-freezed – Appeal allowed – Fresh attachment orders dated 13th November 2024 and 18th December 2024 set aside – Respondent not precluded from taking action under law if investigation leads to assessment or final demand [Paras 41, 42, 43]

Arbitration Law – Estoppel by Conduct – Consent Decree from Arbitral Award – Interim Measures Sought – Held Maintainable – Parties jointly appointed arbitrator and secured a consent decree in terms of the arbitral award which was not challenged – Respondents later opposed execution by claiming award was nullity under Section 92 CPC – Held: Respondents are estopped from challenging validity of award after accepting its terms and benefiting from decree – Plea of non-arbitrability cannot be raised after approbation and reprobation of the award and decree [Paras 2-20].

Civil Procedure – Section 92 CPC – Maintainability of Suit – Decree Passed in Appeal on Basis of Arbitration Award – Finality of Consent Decree – Suit originally rejected under Section 92 CPC – During appeal, parties opted for arbitration and secured decree based on award – Decree unchallenged – Respondents’ subsequent plea that award was a nullity is contrary to their conduct and cannot be permitted – Consent decree has binding effect and respondents’ objection rejected [Paras 9-14, 19-20].

Doctrine of Election and Estoppel – Change of Stand Not Permissible – Respondents Precluded from Contesting Arbitral Award After Accepting It – Respondents originally maintained that suit was maintainable, later invoked arbitration, accepted award, and secured decree – Subsequent denial of award's validity is impermissible – Cited authorities affirm that party cannot approbate and reprobate to the detriment of the other – Equitable estoppel applied [Paras 14-18].

Execution – Consent Decree Execution Permissible – Revival Allowed – Commercial Court and High Court erred in denying relief based on challenge to validity of award – Appellants allowed to revive execution proceedings (Misc. Case No. 122 of 2023) as they were withdrawn only to seek interim relief under Arbitration Act – Supreme Court sets aside impugned orders and permits execution to proceed [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Order of Commercial Court dated 24.05.2024 and High Court judgment dated 30.08.2024 set aside – Appellants permitted to revive execution proceedings in Miscellaneous Case No. 122 of 2023 – Execution to proceed on merits – Civil appeal allowed – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 21].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown – Article 142 of Constitution – Divorce Granted – Appeal against High Court’s judgment which set aside divorce decree granted by Family Court on grounds of cruelty – Parties have lived separately since 2010 with no prospect of reconciliation – Supreme Court held that the marriage had broken down irretrievably – Noted that husband remarried in 2017 and couple had no subsisting matrimonial relationship – Held: Divorce decree granted under Article 142 of the Constitution – Permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crore awarded to wife and son [Paras 2-9].

Cruelty – Grounds for Divorce – Acts of Third Party – Not Attributable to Spouse – Family Court granted divorce based on rude utterances of wife’s father – High Court correctly held that such conduct could not be attributed to the wife – However, long separation and failed reconciliation attempts warranted exercise of constitutional power [Para 3.7].

Permanent Alimony – Lump Sum Payment – ₹1.25 Crore Awarded – Instalments Directed – Appellant had not provided financial support for years – Considering financial status and circumstances, permanent alimony of ₹1,25,00,000/- awarded – To be paid in five quarterly instalments – Any default would recall the order and forfeit amounts paid [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 24.08.2018 set aside – Marriage dissolved by Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 – Permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crore to be paid in five equal quarterly instalments beginning 15.09.2025 – Default would result in recall of this order and forfeiture of amount already paid [Paras 9-12].

Limitation Law - Restoration of Appeal – Delay of 5,250 Days – High Court Order Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – Appellant challenged High Court’s order condoning an inordinate delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application for a First Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – Restoration was granted in absence of non-applicants based only on affidavit of private service – Supreme Court held that such a long delay must be scrutinized rigorously and involvement of third parties must be presumed – Held: Impugned order unsustainable – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision after hearing appellant [Paras 2, 11-14].

Delay Condonation – Long Lapse of Time – Court's Duty to Presume Third-Party Rights – Restoration Must Consider Subsequent Developments – Supreme Court emphasised that when delay is excessive, courts must account for changes in property rights and development—Courts should not condone delay mechanically without providing reasons—Especially critical when appellant had stepped in and begun construction on the disputed land during the pendency [Paras 12-14].

Natural Justice – Ex Parte Restoration – Affidavit of Private Service Not Enough – Right of Opponent Must Be Heard – Restoration order was passed without hearing the appellant who was not duly served – Supreme Court noted that private service was insufficient basis to restore an appeal after 14 years – Parties with interest must be given opportunity before setting aside dismissal for non-prosecution [Paras 9, 11].

Decision: Impugned High Court order dated 25.10.2023 condoning 5,250 days of delay and restoring First Appeal No. 1483 of 1988 is set aside – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted to High Court to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh after hearing the appellant-developer – Appellant may be impleaded as a party – Parties to appear before High Court on 02.09.2025 [Paras 14-15].