Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL:

LEGAL STUDY MATERIAL FOR ALL

Motto: To support and uplift aspiring legal minds

CLAT PG- 2026

April 2025 Part-I Important Judgement

An initiative by-

UJJAWAL DIXIT SUNIDHI SACHDEVA

Advocate, Allahabad High Court B.A.LLB (JMI, New Delhi)
B.A.LLB (NLU Nagpur) CLAT PG 2024- AIR 50
LLM (RML NLU) CLAT PG 2025 -AIR 1
CLAT PG 2023 -AIR 35 Qualified- Haryana Judiciary
CLAT PG 2024 -AIR 22 Mains and Delhi Judiciary Mains
UGC Net Qualified

FOR MORE FREE MATERIAL AND MOCK JOIN TELEGRAM

https://t.me/+OldBBBV1wq5hYTU1
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

Case summary No. 1

Amar Jain & Pragya Prasun v. Union of India | Right to Inclusive Digital
Access under Article 21

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Bench:

Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Petitions Clubbed:

• Amar Jain v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 49/2025

• Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 289/2024

Facts:

• Petitioners (acid attack survivors and persons with blindness/visual impairment) were
unable to complete digital KYC/e-KYC due to inaccessible formats requiring facial
recognition, blinking, or physical signatures.
• They challenged the RBI’s 2016 KYC Master Directions which require a ‘live
photograph’ and other physically inaccessible procedures.
• Petitioners invoked the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and
constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, and 38.

Issues:

1. Whether the current digital KYC norms violate the constitutional rights of persons
with disabilities.
2. Whether the State has a constitutional duty to provide inclusive digital
infrastructure under Article 21.
3. Whether denial of reasonable accommodation in digital access amounts to
exclusion and discrimination.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity

• Articles 14 & 15 – Equality and Prohibition of Discrimination
• Article 38 – Directive Principle for Social Justice and Equality
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Sections ensuring accessibility and
reasonable accommodation
• RBI KYC Master Directions, 2016 – Norms requiring "live photograph", physical
OTP compliance, etc.

Key Observations by the Court:

• The right to digital access is integral to Article 21 in the digital age.

• The digital divide perpetuates systemic exclusion of vulnerable groups, including the
disabled, rural, elderly, and linguistically marginalized.
• The principle of substantive equality requires inclusive digital design.
• Access to governance, financial, healthcare, and educational platforms must be
universal.

“Bridging the digital divide is no longer a matter of policy discretion but a constitutional
imperative.”

Directions Issued:

• The Court directed a revision of digital KYC/eKYC norms to comply with the
accessibility needs of persons with disabilities.
• Ordered that all government portals, fintech services, learning platforms must be
universally accessible.
• The detailed list of 20 directions is to be released with the full judgment.

Significance:

• Landmark interpretation of digital access as a component of the right to life and

dignity.
• Establishes the principle of inclusive digital citizenship under constitutional law.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• Reinforces duties under the RPwD Act, 2016, emphasizing reasonable

accommodation in technology-based systems.

Case summary No. 2

Asim Mallik v. State of Odisha – Interim Bail Must Be an Exception, Not

Routine

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Case Title: Asim Mallik v. State of Odisha
Diary No.: 57403-2024
Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran

Facts:

• The petitioner was accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985
(relating to possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substances).
• He had spent nearly 3 years in jail.
• The Orissa High Court granted interim bail on multiple occasions instead of
deciding on regular bail.
• The State challenged the repeated grant of interim bail before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether interim bail can be granted repeatedly instead of deciding on regular bail.
2. Whether repeated interim relief without final disposal of bail application undermines
the judicial process.

Held:

• Interim bail should not be granted repeatedly or as a routine practice.

• Either the High Court should grant regular bail or reject the bail application.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• Interim bail is only justified in specific exigencies and must remain exceptional.

Key Observations:

“Granting interim bail should be an exception, and should not be granted in a routine manner
and repeatedly.”

• The Court expressed concern over the growing trend of recurring interim bail
being misused as a substitute for regular bail decisions.
• It directed the release of the petitioner on regular bail, considering his prolonged
incarceration and overall facts.

Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 – Possession of commercial quantity of

narcotic drugs.
• Bail Jurisprudence – Principles under Article 21 (Right to Personal Liberty) and
Section 437/439 CrPC.

Significance:

• Clarifies the limited scope of interim bail – not to be used as a stop-gap or default
solution.
• Strengthens the principle that judicial discretion in bail must be exercised firmly
and conclusively, not indefinitely postponed.
• Emphasizes the constitutional value of liberty while ensuring that process is not
reduced to formality.

Case Summary No. 3

Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora – Coordinate Bench Cannot Overturn Contempt

Finding

Citation:
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 469

Case Title: Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora
Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih

Facts:

• Dispute arose from a business arrangement involving RBT Pvt. Ltd. and Sanjay
Arora under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).
• Appellants alleged that Sanjay Arora violated court and arbitral orders and filed a
contempt petition.
• On 5th December 2023, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held the
respondent guilty of contempt and gave time to purge it.
• After a roster change, another Single Judge re-examined the matter and
discharged the contempt notice, holding that no contempt had occurred.

Legal Issues:

1. Can a Single Judge of a High Court overturn the finding of contempt made by
another coordinate bench?
2. Does such an act amount to an impermissible appellate review?

Held:

• No coordinate bench can sit in appeal over the order of another bench of equal
strength.
• The second Judge’s finding that no contempt occurred amounted to an appellate
review of the earlier coordinate bench’s decision.
• The proper remedy was an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, before a Division Bench.

Key Observations:

“Once a Judge of the High Court holds a party guilty of contempt, another Judge of
coordinate strength cannot re-examine the finding.”
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• Doing so violates judicial discipline and amounts to exceeding jurisdiction.

• The only issues that can be considered after a finding of contempt are:
o Whether the contempt has been purged, and
o What punishment (if any) should be imposed.

Legal Provisions Involved:

✅ Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Section 2(b) – Defines civil contempt as willful disobedience of court orders.

• Section 19 – Provides for appeal to a Division Bench against orders of contempt by a
Single Judge.

✅ Doctrine of Coordinate Bench Discipline (Judicial Discipline)

• A coordinate bench cannot review, revise, or overrule the judgment of another

bench of equal strength.
• Only an appellate court has the power to reverse or modify such decisions.

Significance:

• Reinforces the principle of judicial hierarchy and discipline within High Courts.
• Protects against intra-court inconsistencies that may erode the authority of judicial
orders.
• Clarifies that contempt findings cannot be overturned by another Single Judge,
only by appeal under law.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

Case Summary No. 4

Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi – Motive Not Essential When

Circumstantial Evidence is Strong

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 443

Case Title: Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi
Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran

Facts:

• The appellant (father) was accused of murdering his son with a licensed revolver at
night while other family members were asleep.
• The accused claimed suicide as the cause of death and argued absence of motive.
• The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including:
o Gunshot residue on the accused’s right hand,
o Lack of bloodstains on the screwdriver (alleged suicide tool),
o Eyewitness and family testimony indicating falsehood in suicide claim,
o The firearm was in exclusive possession of the accused.

Legal Issues:

1. Is proof of motive necessary for conviction in cases based on circumstantial

evidence?
2. Can strong circumstantial evidence alone sustain conviction, even if motive is
absent?

Held:

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reaffirming that absence of motive is not
fatal when the circumstantial evidence is convincing, coherent, and complete.
• An unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the
accused can displace the need for a motive.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

Key Observations:

“Motive loses importance when there is direct or strong circumstantial evidence pointing to
the guilt of the accused.”

• Motive helps strengthen circumstantial cases, but its absence alone cannot be a
ground for acquittal.
• The accused gave a false explanation and failed to account for possession and use of
the firearm.
• The court relied on witnesses’ corroboration and forensic findings (e.g., GSR) to
uphold guilt.

Relevant Case Cited:

• Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80

o Held that motive, though relevant, is not indispensable in all circumstances.

Legal Provisions and Principles Involved:

✅ Section 302, IPC – Murder

• Punishes culpable homicide amounting to murder.

✅ Circumstantial Evidence Rule (Judicially Evolved)

• Chain of circumstances must be:

o Complete and consistent,
o Point only to the guilt of the accused,
o Exclude every other hypothesis except that of guilt.

Significance:

• Reiterates that absence of motive cannot override clear, strong, and consistent
circumstantial evidence.
• Strengthens forensic and testimonial evidence in murder cases lacking direct
motive.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• Highlights the limited role of motive in modern criminal jurisprudence.

Case Summary No. 5

R. Baiju v. State of Kerala – Faulty Investigation Not Fatal if Credible Evidence

Exists

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 441

Case Title: R. Baiju v. State of Kerala
Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran

Facts:

• The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324,
427, 449, and 302 read with Sections 149 & 120B of the IPC and sentenced to
death.
• The High Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part II r/w Section 120B
IPC, imposing 10 years RI + fine, and 5 years RI under Section 450 IPC.
• The Appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the
investigation was flawed, and that his name was added later in the FIR, with
Section 164 CrPC statements taken only after judicial intervention.

Legal Issues:

1. Can a conviction be sustained despite flaws in the investigation?

2. Whether subsequent corroborated evidence can overcome an initially tainted
investigation?

Held:

• Faulty investigation by itself does not vitiate a criminal trial if there is credible and
convincing evidence.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, finding that the prosecution’s
ocular and corroborative evidence established the appellant’s presence, motive,
and role in the conspiracy and commission of the offence.

Key Observations:

“Even if the integrity of the investigation is questionable, the remaining evidence must be
scrutinised meticulously to ensure that the course of criminal justice is not derailed.”

• Motive was established through earlier altercations on the day of the crime.
• Ocular testimony (eyewitness accounts) and circumstantial evidence showed the
Appellant's presence and role in the murder.
• The culpability under Section 120B IPC was also supported by the evidence.

Case Relied Upon:

• State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715

o Held: Defective or biased investigation does not nullify the trial, provided
other admissible evidence proves guilt.

Legal Provisions Involved:

✅ Section 302 IPC – Murder

✅ Section 304 Part II IPC – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (knowledge, not intent)

✅ Section 120B IPC – Criminal conspiracy

✅ Section 149 IPC – Common object liability

✅ Section 164 CrPC – Recording of confessions/statements before Magistrate

Significance:

• Reaffirms that investigative lapses do not invalidate a prosecution if other evidence

is reliable.
• Prevents misuse of procedural irregularities to escape conviction.
• Highlights the importance of motive, eyewitnesses, and corroborative testimony
even when investigation is defective.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

Case Summary No. 6

S.C. Garg v. State of U.P. – Res Judicata Applies to Criminal Proceedings After
Final Adjudication

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 436

Case Title: S.C. Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra

Facts:

• Appellant's company received eleven cheques from the respondent (Tyagi), all of
which were dishonoured.
• Appellant initiated Section 138 NI Act proceedings; the court convicted Tyagi,
holding that three demand drafts issued were for separate liabilities, not in
discharge of the cheque amounts.
• Later, Tyagi filed an FIR under Section 420 IPC, claiming the appellant fraudulently
presented and encashed some cheques despite prior payment via demand drafts.
• The High Court refused to quash the FIR; the appellant approached the Supreme
Court, invoking the principle of res judicata.

Legal Issues:

1. Is the principle of res judicata applicable to criminal proceedings?

2. Can a criminal prosecution (Section 420 IPC) be sustained when the issue was
conclusively decided in prior NI Act proceedings?

Held:

• The principle of res judicata applies to criminal cases when there is a final
adjudication on merits.
• The findings in the NI Act conviction were binding and barred re-litigation of the
same factual issue.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• FIR under Section 420 IPC was found to be abuse of legal process and was quashed.

Key Observations:

“Tyagi cannot maintain a prosecution on the basis of allegations which were precisely his
defence in the earlier proceedings wherein he was an accused.”

• The Court distinguished earlier rulings (Devendra, Muskan Enterprises) by noting

they dealt with quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC where there was no
adjudication on merits.
• The Court clarified there is no conflict between Pritam Singh line (res judicata
applies post-trial) and Devendra/Muskan (no bar when no final decision is given).

Case Law Referred:

• Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415

→ Res judicata applies in criminal proceedings post trial
• Devendra v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495
• Muskan Enterprises v. State of Punjab, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
→ Held not applicable where there is no final adjudication on merits

Legal Provisions Involved:

✅ Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

• Penalizes dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds.

✅ Section 420, IPC – Cheating

• Punishes dishonest inducement causing delivery of property.

✅ Res Judicata (Judicial Principle)

• Once a court finally decides a matter, the same issue cannot be re-litigated.
• Applies in criminal cases where there is a finding of fact after trial.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

✅ Section 482, CrPC – Inherent Powers of High Court

• Power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice.

• Not a bar to re-filing if earlier petition was not decided on merits.

Significance:

• Reaffirms that res judicata applies in criminal law where the issue has been finally
adjudicated.
• Clarifies divergence between trial-based findings and pre-trial/quashing
proceedings.
• Strengthens safeguards against abuse of criminal process via repeated litigation on
same facts.

Case Summary No. 7

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora – No Power to Delete

Charges Under Section 216 CrPC

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors.
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Date of Judgment: April 17, 2025

Facts:

• Charges were framed under the NDPS Act against the accused by the Trial Court.
• Later, the Trial Court deleted the NDPS charges under Section 216 CrPC and
transferred the case to the Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act.
• The High Court upheld the deletion of charges.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) challenged this decision before the
Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Does Section 216 CrPC empower the court to delete charges once framed?
2. Is it legally permissible for the Trial Court to transfer a case to another court after
removing serious charges without an acquittal?

Held:

• Section 216 CrPC does not empower courts to delete or drop charges once
framed.
• Once charges are framed under Section 228 CrPC, the trial must conclude with either
conviction or acquittal.
• The Trial Court and High Court erred in discharging the accused without acquittal.
• The accused must now be tried by the NDPS Special Court.

Key Observations:

“The language of Section 216 CrPC provides only for addition or alteration of charge(s),
and not for deletion or discharge of an accused.”

• Deleting a charge without acquittal or conclusion of trial is not permissible.

• The procedure adopted amounted to judicial shortcut which violates the CrPC.

Legal Provisions Involved:

✅ Section 216, CrPC – Alteration or Addition of Charges

• Empowers the court to add or alter charges at any time before judgment.
• Does not permit deletion or dropping of charges.
• BNSS equivalent: Section 239

✅ Section 228, CrPC – Framing of Charges in Sessions Cases

• Once charges are framed, trial must proceed to judgment.

Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• No provision to “undo” a charge once framed.

✅ NDPS Act, 1985

• Special legislation dealing with narcotic drug offences.

• Requires trial by a Special Court (NDPS Court).

Case Approved:

• Dev Narain v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 3216

→ Held: Court has no power to delete charges once framed; must lead to acquittal
or conviction.

Significance:

• Clarifies limits of Section 216 CrPC—only for addition/alteration, not deletion.

• Prevents misuse of procedural discretion to bypass trial in serious offences.
• Strengthens procedural discipline in criminal trials under special statutes like NDPS
Act.

1. Section 216 – Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

• Title: Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is
pronounced.
• Purpose: Enables addition or alteration of charges during trial.
• Does not permit deletion or dropping of charges once framed.
• Supreme Court held: Deleting a charge under this provision is not legally
permissible.

✅ Section 228 – CrPC – Framing of Charges in Sessions Trials

• After consideration of materials, if the judge opines that there is ground to presume
guilt, charges are framed.
• Once framed under Section 228, the trial must end in conviction or acquittal, not
mid-way deletion.
• Supreme Court reiterated: Trial cannot bypass adjudication after charge framing.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

✅ NDPS Act, 1985 (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act)

• Governs offences relating to narcotics and psychotropic substances.

• Provides for Special Courts for trial of offences.
• Charges under NDPS Act cannot be transferred or diluted without proper trial
procedure.

✅ Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

• Regulates manufacture, sale, and distribution of drugs and cosmetics.

• Less stringent than NDPS Act.
• Trial for offences under this Act may be held before a Magistrate (not Sessions or
Special Court).

✅ BNSS Equivalent Provision: Section 239 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023)

• Equivalent to Section 216 CrPC in the new criminal procedure code.

• Also deals with alteration or addition, not deletion, of charges.
• Future relevance for procedural law questions in CLAT PG 2026.

Case Summary No. 8

Satish Chander Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh – Article 32 Cannot Be Used

to Challenge Supreme Court Judgments

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Case Title: Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan
Date of Judgment: April 16, 2025

Facts:
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• The petitioners, retired employees, were denied additional pensionary benefits after
the repeal of a pension scheme by the Himachal Pradesh Government.
• The earlier ruling in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood, (2016) 10 SCC 77, had
upheld the repeal and introduced a cut-off date, which the petitioners claimed was
arbitrary.
• Instead of filing a review or curative petition, the petitioners directly filed a writ
petition under Article 32 seeking to challenge the validity of the 2016 judgment.

Legal Issues:

1. Can a party invoke Article 32 to challenge a final judgment of the Supreme Court?
2. Does the doctrine of per incuriam apply when the Court consciously distinguishes an
earlier binding precedent?

Held:

• A final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged through a writ petition
under Article 32.
• The appropriate remedies are:
o Review petition, followed by
o Curative petition if the grievance remains.
• The judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood (2016) was not per incuriam, as it had
consciously distinguished D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983).

Key Observations:

“Article 32 is not an appellate provision. It is a remedial provision for enforcement of

fundamental rights, not a mechanism to reopen or reargue concluded cases.”

“Permitting such petitions would result in endless litigation and undermine the principles of
res judicata and finality of judgments.”
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

Legal Provisions Involved:

✅ Article 32 – Constitution of India

• Grants the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental
rights.
• Not a substitute for appeal or review.
• Cannot be used to assail the validity of Supreme Court judgments.

✅ Article 136 – Special Leave to Appeal

• Used to challenge lower court decisions in civil and criminal matters.

• Judgments delivered under this Article attain finality.

✅ Review and Curative Jurisdiction

• Review under Article 137; Curative petition as laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra v.
Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388.
• Exhaustion of these remedies is mandatory before approaching Article 32 in
exceptional cases.

Significance:

• Reinforces the finality of Supreme Court decisions.

• Clarifies the limited scope of Article 32 – not to be used to re-litigate decided
matters.
• Prevents abuse of constitutional remedies for bypassing proper procedural channels
(review/curative).

Doctrine of Per Incuriam

• A judgment is per incuriam if it was passed in ignorance of a binding precedent or

statutory provision.
• Court held: A decision that consciously distinguishes earlier binding precedent
(e.g., D.S. Nakara) is not per incuriam.
• Hence, Rajesh Chander Sood remains valid and binding.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

Case Summary No. 9

Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi – Limitation Begins When Cause of

Action First Arises, Not When Full Knowledge is Gained

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 428

Case Title: Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.
Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti
Date of Judgment: April 16, 2025

Facts:

• Plaintiff sought a declaration that a Will (04.02.2014) and Codicil (20.09.2014)

executed by his father were null and void, alleging fraud.
• Plaintiff admitted in the plaint that he had knowledge of the Will and Codicil in
November 2014, but filed the suit on 21.11.2017.
• The Civil Court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as time-
barred, holding it was filed beyond the 3-year limitation under Article 58 of the
Limitation Act.
• The Gujarat High Court reversed this, holding limitation should run from when the
plaintiff got “full knowledge”.
• Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Does the limitation period begin from the date of first knowledge of the cause of
action or from the date of full knowledge?
2. Can limitation be treated as a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence?
3. Is dismissal of a suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) permissible ex-facie for limitation?

Held:
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• The limitation period starts from the date when the cause of action first arises,
not when the plaintiff gains "full knowledge."
• The distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” is fallacious.
• If a suit is ex-facie barred by limitation, no evidence is needed and the court can
reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
• Supreme Court restored the trial court’s dismissal of the suit as time-barred.

Key Observations:

“It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between ‘knowledge’ and ‘full knowledge’...
Limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued.”

“Even assuming the cause of action arose in the first week of November 2014, the suit filed
on 21.11.2017 was barred by limitation.”

Legal Provisions Involved:

✅ Article 58 – Limitation Act, 1963

• Period: 3 years
• Commencement: When the right to sue first accrues.
• Applies to declarations, including declarations of invalidity of Wills.

✅ Order VII Rule 11(d) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

• Allows rejection of plaint if the suit appears from the plaint itself to be barred by
law (e.g., limitation).
• No need for evidence or trial if limitation is evident on the face of the pleadings.

Significance:

• Clarifies that limitation does not wait for the plaintiff to investigate or gain full
understanding.
• Strengthens the doctrine that procedural bars (like limitation) can be enforced
summarily.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• Prevents abuse of judicial process by filing stale claims under the guise of “full
knowledge”.

Case Summary No. 10

Cryogas v. Inox – Clarifying the Overlap between Copyright and Design

Protection

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Case Title: Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. & Ors.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: April 15, 2025

Facts:

• Inox filed a copyright infringement suit, claiming its engineering drawings for
cryogenic LNG trailers were original artistic works under the Copyright Act.
• Cryogas argued the drawings were industrial designs reproduced over 50 times and
hence lost copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, falling
under the Designs Act.
• The Commercial Court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, but the
Gujarat High Court restored it.
• Cryogas appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. When does an artistic work lose copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the
Copyright Act?
2. Can a design derived from an artistic work be automatically protected under the
Designs Act?
3. Was the Commercial Court justified in rejecting the plaint at the preliminary stage
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

Held:

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, restoring the suit for trial.
• Copyright protection under Section 15(2) ceases only when:
o The artistic work is used as a design,
o The design is capable of registration under the Designs Act,
o It remains unregistered, and
o It is applied to more than 50 articles industrially.
• The Commercial Court erred by making factual conclusions at the Order VII Rule
11 stage without trial.

Key Observations:

“An artistic work does not automatically lose copyright protection merely because a design
derived from it has been used in industrial production.”

“Whether something qualifies as a design under the Designs Act is a mixed question of law
and fact and cannot be decided at the stage of plaint rejection.”

Court's Two-Pronged Test for Section 15(2) Application:

1. Nature Test:
o Is the work a pure artistic work or a design derived from it applied
industrially?
2. Functional Utility Test:
o If not protected under copyright, is the work eligible for protection under the
Designs Act?
o If its dominant purpose is functional utility rather than aesthetic appeal, it
does not qualify under the Designs Act.

Legal Provisions Involved:

✅ Section 15(2), Copyright Act, 1957

• Artistic work loses protection if:

o It is capable of registration as a design,
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

o It remains unregistered, and

o Is reproduced industrially > 50 times.

✅ Designs Act, 2000

• Protects original and aesthetic industrial designs.

• Functional designs not eligible for protection.
• A design must be visually appealing and novel to qualify.

✅ Order VII Rule 11 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

• Permits rejection of plaint if the suit is barred by law.

• SC held: Suit involved triable issues requiring evidence → not fit for rejection at
preliminary stage.

Significance:

• Clarifies the interface between copyright and design protection.

• Establishes that artistic works retain copyright until specific conditions in Section
15(2) are met.
• Asserts that questions involving aesthetic vs functional character need trial and
cannot be decided at the threshold

1. Section 15(2) – Copyright Act, 1957

• Provision: Limits copyright protection for artistic works that are capable of being
registered as designs.
• Copyright ceases if:
o The artistic work is used as a design (i.e., applied to articles),
o It is capable of registration under the Designs Act, 2000,
o The design is not registered, and
o It is reproduced industrially more than 50 times.
• Key Point: A design derived from an artistic work loses copyright only if all four
conditions are met.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

✅ Designs Act, 2000

• Purpose: Protects original and aesthetically appealing industrial designs.

• Essential criteria for protection:
o The design must be new and original,
o It must be visually appealing,
o It must not be purely functional.
• Test of Functional Utility:
If the dominant purpose of the work is functional (not aesthetic), it is not eligible
for protection under the Designs Act.

✅ Doctrinal Clarification: Artistic Work vs Design

• Artistic Work (Copyright Act):

Original work having aesthetic or visual character, e.g., drawings, paintings,
diagrams.
• Design (Designs Act):
Artistic features applied to industrial articles, focusing on visual appeal and
commercial use.
• The Court introduced a two-pronged test:
1. Is the work an artistic work or an industrial design?
2. If not protected by copyright, does it qualify for design protection based on
functional vs aesthetic purpose?
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

Case Summary No. 11

SFIO v. Aditya Sarda – No Anticipatory Bail for Absconders in Economic

Offences

Citation:

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 414

Case Title: Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda & Ors.
Bench: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale
Date of Judgment: April 2025

Facts:

• The Ministry of Corporate Affairs directed the SFIO to investigate Adarsh Credit
Cooperative Society Ltd. (ACCSL) and 70 Adarsh Group companies.
• Investigation revealed fraudulent transactions worth ₹1700 crores, including
illegal loans granted to companies using forged financial documents.
• Charges were filed under various provisions of the Companies Act, 1956/2013 and
Indian Penal Code.
• The Special Court issued bailable warrants, followed by non-bailable warrants
and proclamation proceedings due to non-appearance.
• Despite this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail.
• SFIO challenged this order before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Can an absconding accused who avoids arrest and disrupts court processes claim
anticipatory bail?
2. Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in violation of the mandatory conditions
under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act?
3. Can courts ignore prior judicial orders such as non-bailable warrants or
proclamation proceedings while granting bail

Held:
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• The Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail, holding that absconders are not
entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
• The Court directed the respondents to surrender within one week.
• It also held that anticipatory bail is not a rule, especially where the accused have
disregarded court summons and warrants.

Key Observations:

“The law aids only the abiding, and certainly not its resistants.”

“When the Court taking cognizance has found the accused prima facie involved in serious
economic offences, the accused must submit to the authority of law.”

• Grant of anticipatory bail despite pending NBWs and proclamation proceedings

was held to be a grave error by the High Court.
• The judicial time of all courts must be respected; accused cannot derail proceedings
by avoiding appearance.

Legal Provisions Involved:

✅ Section 212(6) – Companies Act, 2013

• Imposes twin conditions for granting bail:

1. The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose bail.
2. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the
accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
• The High Court failed to comply with these mandatory requirements.

✅ Section 438 – CrPC (Anticipatory Bail)

• Discretionary relief, not a matter of right.

• Cannot be granted to absconders or those obstructing investigation or court
proceedings.

✅ Warrants and Proclamation Proceedings – CrPC

• Non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and proclamations reflect wilful non-cooperation.

Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL

• In such cases, anticipatory bail is generally impermissible.

Significance:

• Reinforces that anticipatory bail is a privilege, not an escape route for those evading
arrest or obstructing justice.
• Reaffirms that economic offences involving large-scale fraud deserve stricter
judicial scrutiny.
• Clarifies that Section 212(6) of the Companies Act must be strictly followed in
SFIO cases.