parallel litigation - The Legal Chamber

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...

Deception in Court Backfires: Supreme Court Awards Custody to Father in Habeas Corpus Case

This Supreme Court judgment underscores that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overriding parental legal rights. It affirms the use of habeas corpus for child custody, directing interim custody to the natural guardian while prioritizing a stable environment and ordering the initiation of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a matrimonial dispute between Sandeep Kumar (father) and Latika Arora (mother) concerning their two children. In May 2021, the mother travelled to the UK with their daughter, 'Miss N', but left their son, 'Master K', in India with her parents without the father's knowledge or consent. The father, unaware of his son's whereabouts, initiated proceedings in the UK High ...

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...