Trademark Infringement – Ad-interim Injunction – High Court Division Bench erred in allowing an appeal against a Single Judge’s order granting time for filing affidavits and postponing the hearing for ad-interim injunction – Order by Single Judge did not have finality traits, thus not appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent – Division Bench’s order granting injunction reversed [Paras 22-25, 35-38].

Civil Procedure – Appeal against Interlocutory Orders – Not every order passed by a trial judge constitutes a ‘judgment’ under Clause 15 – Only orders affecting vital and valuable rights, having traits of finality, are appealable – Appeal against Single Judge’s order was not tenable, as it merely postponed the injunction hearing and allowed filing of affidavits [Paras 15-21, 23-26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Division Bench’s judgment set aside – Single Judge’s order reinstated, directing the matter for prompt resolution without influence from prior observations [Paras 38-40].

Judicial Service Examination – Age Limits – Upper age limit for DJS and minimum age requirement for DHJS challenged – Delhi High Court amended the age criteria, leading to candidates becoming ineligible due to examination delays – Supreme Court allowed candidates who would have qualified in 2020 and 2021 to appear for 2022 exams as a one-time measure – For DJS, candidates who would have been eligible if exams were held in 2020 and 2021 can apply by 3 April 2022 and appear on 24 April 2022 – For DHJS, candidates eligible in 2020 and 2021 can apply by 26 March 2022 and appear on 3 April 2022 [Paras 18-20, 28-30].

Constitutional Law – Article 233 – Age Requirement – Article 233(2) prescribes a seven-year practice requirement for District Judge appointment but does not preclude High Courts from setting minimum age limits – Age limits ensure maturity and experience – Challenge to minimum age of 35 for DHJS rejected, as it aligns with Shetty Commission recommendations and policy for attracting experienced candidates [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Age criteria relaxed for 2022 exams – Writ petitions disposed of [Paras 30-32].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – High Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of limitation and maintainability – Entire plaint must be considered, not isolated averments – Plaint cannot be partially rejected; reliefs are interconnected – Cause of action for permanent injunction can arise when possession is sought to be disturbed – High Court exceeded jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint without properly considering the entire plaint averments [Paras 7.1-8].

Transfer of Property – Section 53A – Maintainability – Suit invoking Section 53A for declaration and permanent injunction cannot be summarily rejected – Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Section 53A to be determined at trial – High Court erred in concluding that such a suit is not maintainable [Paras 7.4-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order rejecting the plaint set aside – Trial to proceed on merits without being influenced by observations regarding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant, Chairman and Managing Director of MSPL Limited, implicated in conspiracy to evade road tax – Allegations of short payment of road tax found to be baseless – Supreme Court held the proceedings against the appellant to be misconceived and harassive – The chargesheet lacked specific allegations or material evidence against the appellant – Criminal proceedings quashed as they were in abuse of process of law [Paras 25-45].

Director's Liability – No Vicarious Liability – Court reiterated that criminal proceedings against company officials require specific allegations of individual involvement – Summoning order must reflect application of mind and satisfaction of prima facie case against officials – Absence of specific role attributed to the appellant warranted quashing of proceedings [Paras 25-28, 34-36].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Proceedings against appellant quashed – Further proceedings in lower court stayed [Para 45].

Employees Compensation – Interest on Compensation – Deceased sugarcane laborer died from snake bite – Compensation awarded by Commissioner with interest from date of incident – High Court modified interest commencement to one month after Commissioner’s order – Supreme Court held liability to pay compensation arises from date of death, thus interest payable from date of accident – High Court's judgment modified to reflect this [Paras 4.1-6].

Compensation – Due Date – As per Section 4A(1) and 4A(3)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, compensation is due immediately upon death of employee – Interest at 12% per annum payable from date of accident [Paras 4.1-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order modified – Interest on compensation to be paid from date of incident [Para 6].

Constitutional Law – Transfer Policy – Protection of Family Life – State's responsibility to consider the preservation of family life as part of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy under Article 21 – Supreme Court emphasized that in formulating transfer policies, the State must not be oblivious to the importance of family life – Policies should account for the necessity of maintaining family life without compromising administrative requirements [Paras 1-7].

Service Law – Judicial Review of Transfer Policies – The court's jurisdiction to review transfer policies is limited – Policies must be consistent with constitutional values, particularly Article 21 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the withdrawal of Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICTs) was valid and did not violate constitutional provisions – High Court's judgment sustained, affirming that the transfer policy is within the State's domain provided it considers family life in accordance with Article 21 [Paras 7-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment affirmed – State directed to ensure that transfer policies respect family life under Article 21 [Para 12].

Service Law – Seniority – Compassionate Appointments – High Court correctly assigned seniority to compassionate appointees vis-à-vis direct recruits – Seniority list of Assistant Engineers published as on 1st January 2004 in conformity with Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 – Compassionate appointees regularized from the date of initial appointment or w.e.f. 16th July 1993 – Seniority of compassionate appointees upheld [Paras 1-41].

Compassionate Appointments – Legal Validity – Despite the Supreme Court's judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) restricting compassionate appointments to Class III and IV posts, the State of Tamil Nadu continued to make appointments in Class II posts until 2006 – Compassionate appointees, having served for over two decades, not to be disturbed – Seniority list upheld as appointments were in accordance with prevailing Government Orders [Paras 31-45].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Seniority list as on 1st January 2004 upheld – Seniority assigned to compassionate appointees maintained – Adverse comments on Government’s policy, but no changes to seniority [Paras 46-47].

Land Acquisition – Compensation and Deduction – Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 19.03.1999 for acquiring land for Defence Security Forces – Land Acquisition Officer assessed market value at Rs. 687,837/- per acre, Reference Court enhanced it to Rs. 965,000/- per acre – High Court further increased it to Rs. 1,130,000/- per acre after a 50% deduction on sale instances – Supreme Court held 50% deduction excessive, reduced to 40%, resulting in a fair market value of Rs. 1,354,200/- per acre [Paras 2.1-8].

Location and Size Considerations – Location of acquired land abutting National Highway No. 21 – Sale instances pertain to smaller plots compared to the acquired lands – A deduction of 40% considered appropriate to account for differences in size and location [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Market value of acquired lands fixed at Rs. 1,354,200/- per acre – Landowners entitled to statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation – Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 1805-1806 of 2022 not entitled to interest for 1033 days delay but eligible for solatium [Paras 7-8].

Family Law – Divorce and Maintenance – Parties married in 1998 and separated since 2002/2004 with a daughter born in 2001 – Appellant filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was dismissed – Respondent accused appellant of dowry demands and harassment – High Court reversed trial court’s dismissal of divorce petition on grounds of desertion – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to grant divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage considering prolonged separation and failure of reconciliation attempts [Paras 1-26].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Supreme Court recognized the impossibility of reconciliation given the long separation and mutual acrimony – Court invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage to do complete justice between the parties [Paras 12-18].

Financial Settlement – Appellant's financial status reviewed, including salary and property holdings – Court determined that respondent, living with her brother, lacked means – Permanent alimony of Rs. 1,000,000/- fixed to be paid by the appellant, considering the educational and future needs of the daughter if supported by the respondent [Paras 20-25].

Decision – Decree of divorce granted on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Appellant to deposit Rs. 1,000,000/- as permanent alimony within two months – Civil appeal allowed with parties to bear their own costs [Paras 26-27].