Tag: Litigation strategy

Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, a suit alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights inherently contemplates urgent interim relief. The Court held that mere delay in filing the suit does not negate urgency, as each ongoing act of infringement causes immediate and irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing market deception also factors into the assessment. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a Danish company named Novenco Building and Industry A/S, held patents and design registrations in India for its industrial fans sold under the brand ‘Novenco ZerAx’. It had entered into a dealership agreement with respondent No. 1, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in 2017. The appellant later discov...
Read More
Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
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...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Consent Decree Based on Arbitration Must Be Honored, Estoppel Applies
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Consent Decree Based on Arbitration Must Be Honored, Estoppel Applies

The Supreme Court held that a party cannot raise a plea of estoppel against law after its own conduct induced the other party to alter its position to its detriment. The doctrine of election and estoppel by conduct precludes a party from approbating and reprobating, thereby preventing it from challenging the validity of a compromise decree it had previously accepted. Facts Of The Case: The respondents, claiming the appellants had been removed as trustees, filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain them from entering a school run by Guru Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the suit was barred by Section 92 CPC. During the pendency of the respondents' appeal against this order, the parties mutually appointed a sol...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground
15Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground

The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an NCLT order under the IBC must be filed within 30 days from the date of its pronouncement. It reiterated that mandatory filing of a certified copy of the impugned order is integral to a valid appeal, and non-compliance renders the appeal barred by limitation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an order dated June 23, 2023, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. in the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor. The respondent, DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd., being aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging the NCLT's decision. The ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plea of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if it was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, framed as an issue, and proven during trial. Such a surprise claim prejudices the opposite party and is impermissible as a decision must be based on the case pleaded. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a title suit filed in 1999 by the plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & Ors.) against the defendants (Govind Rao & Ors.). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a 1997 sale deed executed by the original plaintiff, Sudama Devi, in favour of the defendants was bogus, inoperative, and fit for cancellation. They also prayed for confirmation of their possession and a permanent injunction again...
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...
Read More