Tag: Forum Shopping

Judicial Propriety Upheld: Supreme Court Says Validity of Sanction Must Be Challenged Only Before It
Supreme Court

Judicial Propriety Upheld: Supreme Court Says Validity of Sanction Must Be Challenged Only Before It

The Supreme Court ruled that when a sanction order is issued pursuant to its ongoing monitoring of proceedings, its validity can only be challenged before the Supreme Court itself. No other court, including a High Court, is entitled to entertain such a challenge or grant a stay on that sanction while the matter remains pending before the apex court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the Supreme Court's suo moto action concerning illegal construction and rampant tree felling within the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The investigation, initially directed by the Uttarakhand High Court and later monitored by the Supreme Court, was conducted by the CBI. The CBI filed a final report, leading to the requirement of prosecution sanction against involved officers. While the State of ...
Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of an infringement suit from Delhi to Bombay High Court under Section 25 of the CPC, prioritizing the suit filed earlier in time to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. It held that a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act constitutes an independent cause of action, but consolidation is necessary when legal and factual issues substantially overlap. Facts Of The Case: Atomberg Technologies launched its "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier on June 20, 2025. Shortly after, its competitor, Eureka Forbes Limited, allegedly made oral threats to Atomberg's distributors, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action. In response, Atomberg filed a suit for "groundless threats...
Clarifying Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Reaffirms Exclusive Power of MP Arbitration Tribunal for Public Works
Supreme Court

Clarifying Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Reaffirms Exclusive Power of MP Arbitration Tribunal for Public Works

The Supreme Court upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal over disputes arising from state works contracts, as per the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. It ruled that a private arbitration clause in a concession agreement cannot override this statutory mandate, rendering such arbitration non-est in law. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Concession Agreement dated 05.01.2012 between Umri Pooph Pratappur Tollways Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) and the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (Respondent) for the development of a state highway on a BOT (Toll + Annuity) basis. Following alleged breaches and delays attributed to the Respondent, the Appellant first initiated proceedings in 2018 before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, a s...
Parallel Proceedings Lead to Heavy Costs: Supreme Court Slams Appellant for Hiding Facts, Upholds Environmental Compliance
Supreme Court

Parallel Proceedings Lead to Heavy Costs: Supreme Court Slams Appellant for Hiding Facts, Upholds Environmental Compliance

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the NGT's decision that the petrol pump complied with environmental norms under CPCB guidelines. It imposed costs of ₹50,000 for suppressing parallel proceedings before the High Court, emphasizing judicial integrity. The Court clarified that challenges under state municipal laws remain open for independent adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over the construction of a petrol pump by Reliance BP Mobility Ltd. on Khasra No. 109/1/2 in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The appellants, including Arun Kumar Sharma and others, challenged the project before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), alleging violations of environmental guidelines, including improper distance from residential areas, schools, and hospitals as per CPCB norm...