Daily Judgments of 14 May
Supreme Court of India
C.A. No.-003919 - 2023
Parties: THE HP POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. vs M/S BRUA HYDROWATT PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Contract Law
The Court held that the HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd (HPPTC) was entitled to recover the entire cost for the construction of the 66kV Bay at Urni and the operation and maintenance charges from the Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP Ltd) alone, as per the terms of the Connection Agreement (CA) dated 02.07.2021.
The Court observed that the other two generating companies, Darjeeling Power Pvt. Ltd. and Roura Non-Conventional Energy Pvt. Ltd., were not party to the CA and had no privity of contract with the HPPTC, and therefore could not be held liable for the charges. The Court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) and restored the order of the State Commission, which had held the BHP Ltd solely responsible for the Bay charges.
C.A. No.-005321-005321 - 2025
Parties: THE STATE OF TELANGANA vs DR. PASUPULETI NIRMALA HANUMANTHA RAO CHARITABLE TRUST
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE MANMOHAN
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court held that the land in question was allotted by the state government to the respondent-trust under a statutory scheme, and not sold. The allotment was subject to certain conditions, including that the land be used only for the purpose for which it was allotted. The court found that the respondent-trust had violated these conditions by cutting a colony on the land and selling plots, which amounted to a fraud on the statute. The court set aside the High Court's judgments that had upheld the respondent-trust's ownership of the land, and allowed the state government's appeal.
C.A. No.-004655 - 2023
Parties: BRIG SANDEEP CHAUDHARY vs THE UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court held that the expunction of figurative ratings by the Initiating Officer (IO) and Reviewing Officer (RO) in the Qualities to Assess Potential (QsAPs) and Box gradings of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for both the periods, 12/17 to 06/18 and 07/18 to 06/19, is justified.
The court found evidence of an intent by the 4th respondent (who was the IO) to intentionally award lower ratings in the portions of the ACRs that were not visible to the appellant, with the purpose of affecting the appellant's performance assessment. The court directed the reconsideration of the appellant's promotion to the rank of Major General, taking into account the expunged portions of the ACRs, within three months. If the appellant has already superannuated, his case for notional promotion and monetary benefits shall be considered within the same time period.
C.A. No.-006807-006807 - 2025
Parties: M/S HARCHARAN DASS GUPTA vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The Court held that the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Development) Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) override the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) when it comes to disputes between MSME suppliers and buyers. The court relied on its previous decision in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was held that the MSMED Act, being a special law, prevails over the general Arbitration Act.
The court rejected the argument that an independent arbitration agreement between the parties would override the statutory provisions of the MSMED Act, holding that the MSMED Act's provisions, particularly Section 18, give the MSME supplier the choice to approach the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution, even if there is an existing arbitration agreement. The court also held that the provisions of the Arbitration Act would apply to the arbitration proceedings conducted by the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act.
Crl.A. No.-001157-001157 - 2011
Parties: TUKESH SINGH vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and accordingly quashed the High Court's judgment and acquitted the appellants/accused. The key reasons were:
1. The eyewitnesses failed to properly identify the accused present in the court as the ones they had seen committing the crime. This was a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case.
2. There were material omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, which were brought out during cross-examination. These contradictions were so relevant that they constituted contradictions under the explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The delay in recording the statements of some of the eyewitnesses was also a concerning factor.
4. The existence of a counter-case registered by the defense, which was not tried together with the main case, was also considered by the Court.
Considering the discussions and the evidence on record, the Supreme Court concluded that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and accordingly acquitted the appellants/accused.
C.A. No.-011708-011708 - 2016
Parties: VIJAYA BANK vs PRASHANT B NARNAWARE
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Area of Law: Labor Law
The Court held that the clause in the appointment letter requiring the employee to pay liquidated damages of Rs. 2 lakhs if resigning before 3 years does not amount to an unreasonable restraint of trade or be opposed to public policy. The court referred to previous judgments drawing a distinction between restrictive covenants operating during employment versus after termination, finding the former generally not a restraint of trade. On public policy, the court considered the employer's need to retain skilled staff, the time and cost of recruitment, and the employee's senior position, and found the liquidated damages clause to be reasonable in this context. The court distinguished the present case from a previous High Court judgment and upheld the validity of the clause.
C.A. No.-002572-002572 - 2025
Parties: NOBLE RESOURCES AND TRADING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ANDAGRO SERVICES PVT. LTD.) vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The Court held that the circular No. 10/2004-Cus. dated 30.01.2004 could not have expanded the exclusionary clause in the statutory notification No. 53/2003-Cus. dated 01.04.2003 to include all types of products derived from agriculture/dairy origin, as a circular cannot whittle down or restrict the scope of a statutory notification.
The Court further held that the crude degummed soyabean oil imported by the appellant is a distinct manufactured product from the original agricultural product soyabean, and not an agricultural product itself. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefits under notification No. 53/2003-Cus. dated 01.04.2003.
Delhi High Court
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)-1/2023
Parties: ROMIL GUPTA TRADING AS SOHAN LAL GUPTA vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks cancelling the registration of the appellant's trade mark, finding that the Registrar's order was unsustainable. The court held that the notice issued by the Registrar under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act did not comply with the mandatory requirement to provide at least one month's notice, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court also noted that the Registrar's order went beyond the ground mentioned in the notice, i.e., "substantial alteration" of the applied mark, and made findings on other issues like the need for a fresh user affidavit, which were not part of the notice. The court found that the amendment made by the appellant was merely a minor correction of a clerical error and did not amount to a "substantial alteration" of the applied mark.
BAIL APPLN.-731/2025
Parties: SHAMIKH SHAHBAZ SHAIKH vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the applicant's anticipatory bail application in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 419/420 IPC for an organized cyber fraud involving Rs. 17.95 lakhs. The court found a prima facie case against the applicant, noting that a substantial portion of Rs. 4 lakhs from the defrauded amount was traced to the applicant's account, and there were connections between the applicant and the co-accused, including his own brother-in-law. The court held that the gravity of the economic offense, the applicant's alleged role in enabling the laundering of proceeds, and the need to uncover the full conspiracy weighed against granting anticipatory bail. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not influence the consideration of a regular bail application, if filed by the applicant.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)-2/2024
Parties: MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED vs ZHEJIANG YIGE ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT GROUP CO LTD & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court allowed the appeal by Mankind Pharma Limited, setting aside the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks that had dismissed the appellant's opposition to the registration of the trademark 'FLORASIS' by Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd.
The court held that the appellant's registered trademark 'FLORA' is a coined and distinctive word with over two decades of continuous use, and the respondent's 'FLORASIS' mark is visually, phonetically and structurally similar, likely to cause confusion among consumers. The court emphasized the need for higher caution in trademarks related to pharmaceutical and healthcare products to avoid detrimental effects on public health. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry for the 'FLORASIS' mark from the register.
CRL.M.C.-2313/2021
Parties: ANIQUE ABDULLAH vs MAHENOOR @ EIRUM & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court held that the appropriate interim maintenance amount to be paid by the petitioner (husband) to the respondent (wife) and their two children under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is Rs. 20,000 per month.
The court found that while the petitioner claimed a limited income, the evidence suggested he had other business interests and credit card usage that indicated a higher earning capacity. The court also noted that the respondent wife was maintaining the children in private schools, suggesting she had some financial means, likely from rental income. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court modified the previous order and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000 per month as interim maintenance.
CRL.M.C.-1000/2018
Parties: SUSHILA DEVI MITTAL & ORS vs SHIKHA GARG
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court quashed the domestic violence complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner Amit Mittal (brother-in-law of the respondent), finding that the allegations against him were general in nature and lacked specific incidents or dates. The court held that the respondent's attempt was to somehow rope in all the family members, even though the specific allegations were against the deceased husband and mother-in-law. The court found that no acts of domestic violence were made out against the petitioner Amit Mittal and allowed the petition seeking quashing of the domestic violence complaint.
CS(COMM)-334/2024
Parties: PLUTO TRAVELS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs PTW HOLIDAYS PRIVATE LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Pluto Travels India Private Limited, restraining the defendant, PTW Holidays Private Limited, from using the marks "PLUTO TOURS" and "PLUTO TOURS" (device mark) until the disposal of the main suit.
The court found that the plaintiff has established continuous and uninterrupted use of its registered trademarks "PLUTO" (word mark) since 2004 and "PLUTO" (device mark) since 2016. The court held that the defendant's adoption of the similar marks is likely to cause confusion and deception among customers, as the prominent and dominant feature of the rival marks is the word "PLUTO."
The court rejected the defendant's defenses, such as providing different services or the "PLUTO" term being a common word, as unconvincing and lacking in substance. The court concluded that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case with the balance of convenience in its favor, and if not granted, the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm.
CRL.M.C.-3376/2025
Parties: NXXXX XXXXX vs STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's criminal miscellaneous petition, holding that the Investigating Officer's actions in the case, including issuing a notice under Section 41A CrPC to the respondent instead of arresting him, and not examining certain witnesses or seizing the respondent's mobile phone, were in accordance with the law. The court noted that the petitioner's grievances had been adequately addressed by the revisional court, which had dismissed the petitioner's protest petition against the police report. The petitioner had the option to challenge the revisional court's order, but opted not to do so.
W.P.(C)-14437/2006
Parties: SUDHIR DHAKA vs NTPC LTD & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Area of Law: Employment Law
The High Court held that the employee, who was under suspension due to a criminal proceeding but was later acquitted, was entitled to encashment of earned leave and half-pay leave, and ex-gratia payment for the period of suspension. The court relied on the NTPC's Standing Orders, which mandated that an employee who is not found guilty of any misconduct must be reinstated and paid all emoluments, including allowances, as if the period of suspension was treated as duty.
However, the court rejected the employee's other claims, such as those related to promotion, washing allowance, generation incentive, and conveyance allowance, finding them to be in accordance with NTPC's relevant policies and rules. The court set aside the NTPC's office order to the extent it denied the employee the benefits of leave encashment and ex-gratia payment, but upheld the order on other aspects.
CRL.M.C.-2757/2025
Parties: RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS. vs STATE OF NCT DELHI THROUGH P.S. SHO CRIME(WOMEN) CELL NANAKPURA, DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed the FIR No. 70/2023 under Sections 498A, 34, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code registered against the petitioners (Rajeev Kumar and his family members) at the PS Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura, based on the amicable settlement reached between the parties.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, which recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes, and found that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unfair and amount to an abuse of the process of law. The court recorded the statements of the parties and the investigating officer, and found the consent to be genuine and not obtained under any undue influence or pressure.
CRL.M.C.-3150/2025
Parties: RAKESH KUMAR & ORS. vs THE STATE & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the petition filed by Rakesh Kumar and others, quashing the FIR registered against them under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, which recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and allowing the quashing of criminal proceedings in such cases. The parties had entered into a compromise/settlement deed and their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent. The respondent (wife) confirmed that the matter has been amicably settled, and she has no objection to the FIR being quashed. The case was placed before the Joint Registrar, who recorded the statements of the parties to ascertain the veracity and genuineness of the settlement.
CRL.M.C.-444/2025
Parties: RAJAT PILLAI & ANR. vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, who had previously filed various complaints and litigations against each other, including an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
The parties had resolved their disputes through mediation, executed a settlement agreement, and also obtained a mutual divorce decree from the Family Court.
Considering the Supreme Court's observation in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab that the High Court must consider whether continuing the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice despite the settlement between the parties, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Calcutta High Court
FAT/230/2021
Parties: SHRIMATI SUMATI PAHARI AND OTHERS vs UMAPADA PAHARI AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the suit challenging the D/1 Schedule gift deed. The court found that the registered gift deed was validly executed and accepted by the donee during the donor's lifetime, as evidenced by the deed itself, the donor's lack of challenge during his remaining 6 years of life, and other corroborating evidence. The court also held that there was no substantive proof of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the deed, as the donor's signatures on other deeds executed on the same day suggested he was fully aware of the transactions. The requirements of Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act were duly fulfilled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.
FA/4/2019
Parties: GOURANGA SAHA vs BARIN BURMAN AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court held that the trial court was correct in considering the unregistered Deed of Rehabilitation of Tenant and Lease Agreement submitted by the plaintiff-appellant, as these documents had only collateral value to prove the appellant's tenancy rights, and their admissibility was not barred under the Indian Stamp Act.
The court further held that the sale deeds of the defendants-respondents, when read in conjunction with the Deed of Rehabilitation and Lease Agreement in favor of the appellant, clearly showed that the four demarcated car parking spaces on the northern side of the ground floor belonged exclusively to the appellant. The common rights of the defendants-respondents were confined to the open paths, passages, and driveways, excluding the appellant's allocated car parking spaces.
Finally, the court held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of Ashish Roy, as he was not a necessary party since the defendants-respondents, and not the landlord, were seeking to infringe the appellant's tenancy rights.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court's judgment, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-appellant, declaring him as the bona fide tenant of the four car parking spaces and granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from disturbing his possession.
CO/4274/2024
Parties: GITA RANI PATRA vs RENUKA NASKAR AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court upheld the decision of the trial court to not accept the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, finding it to be ambiguous and inconsistent. The main legal issue was regarding the encroachment of a common passage by the defendants, as described in the schedules D and E of the plaintiff's plaint. The High Court observed that the Commissioner's report did not clearly identify the disputed properties, and there were discrepancies in the evidence and the report. The High Court, however, has not precluded the plaintiff from approaching the court again with a prayer for appointing a new Advocate Commissioner, and has directed the trial court to consider a time frame for submission of such a report, given the long pendency of the suit.
FMA/359/2025
Parties: CHARU DIESELS LLP AND OTHERS vs M/S. E. L. PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court allowed the appeals (F.M.A. No.359 of 2025 and F.M.A. No.360 of 2025) filed by the appellants (Charu Diesels LLP and Others) against the grant of temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 (M/s. E.L. Properties Private Limited) in two separate suits. The court held that the plaintiff, being neither a lessee nor in actual physical possession of the suit properties, did not have the locus standi to maintain the suits or seek any consequential relief. The court also found that the sub-tenant WEBEL was not barred by estoppel from disputing the plaintiff's title, as the plaintiff's lease had expired by efflux of time. Accordingly, the court set aside the orders granting the temporary injunction.
MAT/84/2025
Parties: RATNA MITTER vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN, JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court held the following:
1. The school, being a minority institution, is not bound to follow the Management Rules of 2018 and can proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the assistant teachers based on its own rules and regulations. Prior approval from the Board is not required for such proceedings.
2. However, since the earlier disciplinary proceedings were not concluded following the principles of natural justice, the High Court directed the school to hold a fresh de novo enquiry, appointing an independent and impartial enquiry officer. The teachers are to be given a reasonable opportunity to participate in the new enquiry proceedings.
IPDPTA/1/2025
Parties: VIIV HEALTHCARE COMPANY vs DY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by ViiV Healthcare Company challenging an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application No. 3865/KOLNP/2007. The court held that the Deputy Controller had misinterpreted a previous court order in the Natco Pharma Ltd. case, and wrongly concluded that the entire expert evidence relied upon by the appellant need not be considered in adjudicating the pending objections. The court directed the Patent Office to consider all the expert evidence filed by the appellant in the pre-grant opposition proceedings, except in the case of Natco Pharma Ltd., and to dispose of the patent application within eight weeks. The court also noted the prolonged delay in disposing of the application, which it found unjustifiable under the Act.