judiciary exam - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clarifies: Buying Software for Business Is Not ‘Consumer’ Activity

3Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Buying Software for Business Is Not ‘Consumer’ Activity

The Supreme Court held that a company purchasing software to automate and streamline its core, profit-generating business operations does so for a "commercial purpose" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, it does not qualify as a "consumer" and cannot maintain a complaint before a consumer forum for alleged deficiency in such services. Facts Of The Case: M/s Poly Medicure Ltd., the appellant, is a company engaged in the import and export of medical devices. To implement an export/import documentation system at its plant, it purchased a product license for the "Brillio Opti Suite" software from M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the respondent. After making the requisite payment, the appellant alleged the software was defective and non-functional. Cla...

Supreme Court Limits Clubbing of Multi-State FIRs in Financial Fraud Case

In this judgement, the Supreme Court rejected the petitioners' plea to club multiple FIRs registered across different states concerning an alleged financial scam. The Court clarified that while consolidation may be permissible for a single incident like a hate speech, it is impractical in multi-victim financial frauds where distinct transactions and witnesses are involved. It allowed limited clubbing of FIRs only within the states of Telangana and Maharashtra, directing the petitioners to seek regular bail from respective jurisdictional courts. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a series of FIRs registered against a firm, its partners, and management officials, including petitioners like Odela Satyam, Pawan Odela, and Kavya Nalluri, for allegedly defrauding investors. Th...

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in Telangana Job Case :Legitimate Expectation vs. Employer’s Right

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that candidates in a select list possess no vested right to appointment. An employer's decision to cancel a recruitment process is valid if based on bona fide reasons like administrative changes (e.g., state bifurcation) and altered requirements. The Court's role is limited to examining the decision-making process, not substituting its own view on the sufficiency of accommodations like age relaxation offered to affected candidates. Facts Of The Case: The erstwhile Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP-Transco) initiated a recruitment process in 2011-2012 for 339 Sub-Engineer posts across the composite state. This process was delayed due to litigation challenging the marks weightage given to in-service candidates. While the legal challe...