legal precedent - 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 on NDPS Bail: Delay and Custody Can’t Override Statutory Bar for Commercial Quantity

3Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court on NDPS Bail: Delay and Custody Can’t Override Statutory Bar for Commercial Quantity

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order, holding it failed to properly apply the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, mandating a reasoned assessment of the accused's involvement, statutory compliance, and the substantial quantity of seized contraband before granting bail. Facts Of The Case: The case involves appeals by the Union of India against two bail orders granted to the respondent, Vigin K. Varghese, by the Bombay High Court. The prosecution, initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, stemmed from the seizure of approximately 50.232 kilograms of cocaine on October 6-7, 2022. The narcotics were found concealed within a consignment of pears imported from South Africa in the name of M...

Supreme Court: Insurance Claim Can’t Be Denied Based on Age of Equipment

3Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Insurance Claim Can’t Be Denied Based on Age of Equipment

The Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot repudiate a claim merely by invoking an exclusion clause for wear and tear. The burden lies on the insurer to prove material non-disclosure, fraud, or that the loss was definitively caused by an excluded peril. A valid statutory fitness certificate creates a strong presumption of the equipment's insurable condition, shifting the evidentiary onus onto the insurer. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a sugar mill, held an insurance policy from National Insurance Co. Ltd. covering its boiler. During the policy period in May 2005, an incident occurred causing two boiler tubes to detach. The insurer repudiated the claim, citing Exclusion Clause 5, which excludes losses from wear, corrosion, and gradual deterioration. It relied on a surveyor's ...

Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed

The Supreme Court held that a counter-claim by impleaded defendants against a co-defendant is not maintainable in a suit for specific performance. Such a claim must be incidental to the original suit's cause of action and cannot be independently raised against another defendant. The Court set aside the admitted counter-claim. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Sanjay Tiwari, filed a suit for specific performance against the first respondent, Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao, based on an alleged oral agreement dated 02.12.2002 for the sale of 0.93 acres of land. The plaintiff claimed full payment was made and he was put in possession. The first defendant, in his written statement, contended that defendants 2 and 3 were in possession of part of the property, making the suit defective for non-joinde...

Supreme Court Decides Long-Running Property Dispute on Mortgage Redemption

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides Long-Running Property Dispute on Mortgage Redemption

This Supreme Court judgement clarifies the limitation period for redeeming a usufructuary mortgage. The Supreme Court held that the right to redeem does not arise from the mortgage's creation date. Instead, the limitation period commences only when the mortgagor tenders the mortgage money, meaning the mortgagor's redemption right is not extinguished by mere lapse of time. Facts Of The Case: This case originated from a dispute over the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage concerning agricultural land in Punjab. The respondents' ancestors had mortgaged the property to the appellants' predecessors. In 1975, the Collector allowed the respondents' application for redemption under the Redemption of Mortgage Act, 1913. Challenging this, the appellants (original plaintiffs) filed a civil suit, ...

Alternative Remedy Rule Strengthened: Supreme Court Says Writ Petition Not Maintainable If Appeal to High Court Was Available

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Alternative Remedy Rule Strengthened: Supreme Court Says Writ Petition Not Maintainable If Appeal to High Court Was Available

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates the principle that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, especially one before the High Court itself, is a valid ground for refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasizes that discretionary writ relief is generally unavailable where a litigant has, through their own fault, failed to exhaust an equally efficacious alternative forum provided by statute. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rikhab Chand Jain, faced proceedings concerning 252.177 kg of allegedly smuggled silver seized on September 27, 1992. The Additional Collector of Customs, respondent no. 3, ordered the confiscation of the silver and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant via an order dated May 7, 1996. The appellant app...

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Case, Emphasizes Lawyers’ Responsibility as “Officers of the Court”

31Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Case, Emphasizes Lawyers’ Responsibility as “Officers of the Court”

In this suo moto contempt proceeding, the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the growing trend of lawyers making scandalous allegations against judges in pleadings. Reaffirming that an advocate's overriding duty is to the court as its officer, the Court cautioned that subscribing to such pleadings amounts to contempt. However, accepting the unconditional apology tendered before the concerned High Court Judge, it closed the proceedings. Facts Of The Case: In a criminal transfer petition (TP(Crl.) No. 613 of 2025) filed before the Supreme Court, the pleadings contained scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting Judge of the Telangana High Court. When the bench expressed its displeasure, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition. The Court, however, refused permis...

Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance; Unilateral Cancellation Not Permitted

30Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance; Unilateral Cancellation Not Permitted

The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance, ruling that a suit for specific performance is maintainable without a declaratory relief against a unilateral termination when the agreement is not determinable in nature. The subsequent purchasers were held not to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: On 28.04.2000, the original vendors executed an unregistered Agreement to Sell (ATS) in favour of the original vendees for agricultural land in Karnataka. The vendees paid a substantial part of the consideration and performed their obligations, including getting the land converted and tenants relocated. In 2003, the original vendors issued a unilateral termination notice citing pending litigation...

Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent

30Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent

The Supreme Court held that transactions involving the outright sale of land, even if accompanied by ancillary facilitation activities, do not constitute taxable services of a ‘Real Estate Agent’ under the Finance Act, 1994. The activity must involve a clear contract of agency. Mere sale of immovable property is excluded from the definition of ‘service’. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, M/s Elegant Developers, entered into three Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) for the identification, acquisition, and development of land parcels for real estate projects. Under these agreements, Elegant Developers was responsible for tasks like purchasing contiguous land blocks, obtaining title clearances, securing necessary government approva...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

29Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a decree under Section 2(2). Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it constitutes a final adjudication, not merely an interlocutory order restricted by the proviso. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court. The respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. Their ground was that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The...