Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.33 R.5, O.33 R.15A— Application to sue as indigent - Rejection - Prima facie found that plaint does not disclose any cause of action and suit was barred by res judicata - Rejection, proper - However, Court granted time to applicant to pay requisite Court fee and on payment of such court- fees suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on date on which application for permission to sue as an indigent person was presented.

AIROnline 2022 Mad 220-Affirmed1999 AIR SCW 4699-Relied on(Paras6.56.6)

(Para 6.5 6.6)

Constitution of India , Art.226— Public interest litigation - Seeking direction against authorities to not to allow any person other than registered Pharmacist to compound, prepare, mix or dispense any medicine on prescription of any medical practitioner - Serious allegations were made against State Pharmacy Council and State for not taking any action with respect to fake pharmacists and/or running hospitals without registered pharmacists , thereby affecting health of citizens - Without going into details of grievances voiced before it , the High Court disposed of writ petition in most casual manner by taking note of fact that a fact-finding committee was constituted and it had forwarded its report to the State Government - Manner in which High Court disposed of public interest litigation, ventilating very serious grievances touching health and life of citizens , disapproved - Matter remanded.

Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8384/2018 ,D/- 09.12.2019 (Pat)-Reversed(Paras44.15)

(Para 4 4.1 5)

(A) Trade Marks Act (47 of 1999) , S.29— Quia timet suit - Meaning - Suits on basis of cause of action on a fear and apprehension is commonly known as quia timet suit.

(B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.7 R.10— Trade Marks Act (47 of 1999) , S.135— Return of plaint - Defect in territorial jurisdiction of Court - Suit for infringement of trademark 'Puma' - Averments in plaint are to be accepted as true, at stage of filing of plaint - Need for substantiation of averment in plaint by other material arises later - Plea of plaintiff that it was carrying on business through various stores within territorial jurisdiction of Court is to be assumed as true - Its apprehension that defendant would launch and start manufacturing the product in Delhi should also be considered - Plaint disclosed the cause of action within territorial jurisdiction of Commercial Court - Held, return of plaint is improper.

2017 (4) ADR 496-Relied on(Paras202122)

(Para 20 21 22)

Central Excise Act (1 of 1944) , S.11B, S.37— Central Excise Rules (2002) , R.18— Claim for rebate of duty - Denial - Bar of limitation - Application seeking rebate of duty has to be filed before expiry of one year from relevant date of export - S.11B bringing within its purview rebate of excise duty, is substantive provision of parent statute - R. 18 is subordinate legislation and cannot be read independent of requirement of limitation prescribed in S. 11B - Merely because enabling provision for grant of rebate of duty, does not mention S. 11B, provision contained in parent statute would not be inapplicable - Rebate claims of assessee made beyond one year from relevant date, rightly rejected for being barred by limitation.

WA No. 249/2020 ,D/-. 23.07.2021 (Kar)-AffirmedAIR 2000 SC 2027-DistinguishedAIROnline 2019 All 3149-DistinguishedAIROnline 1996 SC 1268-FollowedAIR 2015 SC (Supp) 1296-Followed(Paras910111315)

(Para 9 10 11 13 15)

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985) , S.20— Possession of contraband - Proof - Alleged recovery of contraband from rucksack of pillion rider of scooter driven by accused - Recovery was not effected from personal search of accused - All contents of reseal memo, spot memo prepared by IO on spot were written in one go - Omissions of IO to depose that after receiving case file and registration of FIR, he had filed relevant column of documents by mentioning FIR number in it, fatal to prosecution - There were contradictions regarding spot map - Evidence of official witnesses found unreliable - Moreover, version of police officials regarding search and seizure of alleged contraband from possession of accused was not supported by independent witnesses - Alleged eye-witness did not support case of prosecution - Accused persons entitled to benefit of doubt.

(Para 40 47 49 51 55 56)

(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985) , S.50— Search and seizure- Conditions under which search shall be conducted - Applicability - Alleged recovery was not effected by personal search of accused, but same was allegedly found containing in rucksack which was with accused who was pillion rider of Scooter driven by accused - Provisions of S.50 not applicable.

AIR 2005 SC 2265-FollowedAIR 2019 SC 5298-Followed(Paras4043)

(Para 40 43)

(C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985) , S.42, S.43— Search and seizure - Non-compliance of - Prosecution case that when police party was on patrolling duty, accused persons allegedly came there on Scooter - Police officials had no prior information regarding indulgence of accused persons in transporting contraband - It was case of 'chance recovery' - Question of non-compliance of S.42 does not arise as search was affected in public place - Findings regarding non-compliance of S.42, unsustainable.

AIR 2018 SC 4255-Followed(Paras3536)

(Para 35 36)