List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that suit for injunction simpliciter can be filed only if the defendant does not raise any dispute with regard to title of the property.                          

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Krushna Chandra Behera & Ors v.  Narayan Nayak & Ors. (2024). 

What was the Background of Krushna Chandra Behera & Ors v. Narayan Nayak & Ors. Case?  

• The plaintiffs in this case filed a suit praying for the following reliefs: 
  • The defendant be perpetually injuncted from entering the suit land. 
  • The defendant should not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 
  • The defendant was temporarily injuncted not to enter upon the suit land till the disposal of the suit and not to cut the present standing paddy crops. 
• In the title suit a decree was passed by the Trial Court in the favor of plaintiffs. 
• The defendants preferred to appeal against the decree passed by the Trial Court before the District Judge, Jaipur. 
• This appeal came to be dismissed and the decree passed by the Trial Court was affirmed. 
• The defendants thereafter went to the High Court by way of second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
• The High Court in this case framed the following two questions of law for consideration: 
  • Whether the Courts below have erred in asking for the relief of injunction simpliciter without asking for the relief of possession and declaration of title. 
  • Whether the Courts below were correct in holding the alleged document to be sale when there is controversy as to whether the document is sale or mortgage by conditional sale. 
•  The High Court decided the first issue in favour of the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 
• The only ground the High Court gave in granting the relief in favour of High Court was that the relief of injunction simpliciter was asked for. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court.  

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that it is a settled law that if the defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiffs then the suit should not fail only on the ground that the matter has been filed only for injunction simpliciter and no main relief in the form of declaration has been prayed for. 
• The Court held that in the present facts when the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (original defendants) was confronted with this, he submitted that since the defendants are in possession, it was obligatory on the part of the appellants – herein as plaintiffs to pray for main relief seeking possession of the suit property. 
• It was observed that the High Court did not make any observation on who is in possession of the suit property. 
• In view of the facts above the Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the Second Appeal in accordance with the law. 

What is a Suit of Injunction?

• Injunction is a remedy which is asked for from the Court prevent breach of any obligation that exists in favor of a person. 
• According to the duration of injunction there are two types of injunctions: 
  • Permanent Injunction: 
    • A permanent injunction is a court order that restrains a party from engaging in certain conduct or compels them to perform specific acts. 
    • It is considered a final and permanent remedy, distinct from preliminary injunctions, which are issued on a temporary basis during the pendency of a legal proceeding. 
    • Permanent or Perpetual injunction is granted under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). 
    • Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of SRA states that a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favor, whether expressly or by implication.
  • Temporary Injunction:  
    • Order XXXIX of the CPC specifically deals with temporary injunctions.   
    • It outlines the conditions under which a court may grant an injunction to restrain a party from doing a particular act or to compel a party to do a specific act.   
    • The key considerations include:  
      • The likelihood of success on the merits of the case.  
      • The possibility of irreparable harm to the applicant.  
      • The balance of convenience between the parties.

What are the Important Case Laws on Maintainability of Injunction Suit? 

• TV Ramakrishna Reddy v. M Mallappa (2021): 
  • The Court laid down in this case that a suit simpliciter for injunction can only be filed in those cases where the title of the plaintiff over the property is not under cloud.
• Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) (2008): 
  • This is the landmark case where the Court laid down as to when the suit for injunction simpliciter can be filed: 
    • The Court laid down that in following cases suit for injunction simpliciter can be filed: 
      • If someone raises doubts about the plaintiff's ownership of property and the plaintiff is not in possession, the plaintiff should file a case asking for a declaration of ownership and possession, with or without an additional request to stop interference. 
      • If the plaintiff's ownership is clear and not questioned, but they are not in possession, they need to file a case for possession along with a request to prevent interference. 
      • If the plaintiff is in possession but faces interference or a threat of being dispossessed, they can simply file a case asking for the interference to stop. 
    • The Court further answered the question as to whether in a suit for injunction the issue of title will be directly and substantially in issue: 
      • A suit for an injunction simpliciter focuses primarily on possession, not ownership (title). 
      • Typically, the question of ownership (title) is not directly or significantly considered in such cases. 
      • The court will decide the injunction request based on the possession status. 
      • However, in situations like disputes over vacant land, establishing legal possession (de jure possession) may require proving ownership. 
      • In such cases, determining ownership becomes essential to decide the question of possession.
    • It was further laid down the following points on whether issue of title can be decided in a suit for injunction: 
      • When there are proper pleadings and evidence regarding ownership (title) and the issue is straightforward, the court may decide the question of ownership even in a suit for injunction. 
      • This is an exception to the general rule that ownership disputes are not decided in injunction suits. 
      • If someone with clear ownership and possession files for an injunction, they should not be forced into a more complex and expensive suit for a declaration just because someone wrongfully challenges their ownership or tries to encroach on their property. 
      • The court should exercise its discretion wisely to determine:  
        • When to examine ownership in an injunction suit, and 
        • When to direct the plaintiff to file a broader suit for declaration. 
      • The decision should depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

The Delhi High Court ruled that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 can be filed or sustained even after the expiry of a patent's term. Justice Amit Bansal clarified that the expiration of a patent does not render related legal proceedings, including infringement suits or revocation petitions, infructuous.  

• The Court distinguished the scope of revocation petitions from the defence of invalidity under Section 107, stating that only High Courts can entertain standalone revocation petitions. 

What was the Background of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. The Controller of Patents & Anr. Case? 

• Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., engaged in manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products including anti-diabetic drugs, filed a revocation petition under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging Indian Patent IN 243301. 
• The patent in question, registered to Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (a German company), pertained to a medicinal product called 'LINAGLIPTIN', an anti-diabetic product. 
• The subject patent was granted to Boehringer on 5th October 2022, with a priority date of 21st August 2002. 
• Macleods filed the revocation petition on 17th February 2022, just before their planned commercial launch of generic LINAGLIPTIN on 22nd February 2022. 
• Subsequently, Boehringer filed an infringement suit against Macleods before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 19th February 2022. 
• The term of the subject patent expired on 18th August 2023. 
• Boehringer filed multiple applications:  
  • One is seeking dismissal of the revocation petition claiming it was filed twelve years after the patent grant. 
  • Another requesting transfer of the revocation petition to Himachal Pradesh High Court. 
• Macleods subsequently filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the Himachal Suit to Delhi High Court, which remains pending. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court distinguished between the scope of a revocation petition under Section 64 and the defense of invalidity under Section 107 of the Patents Act, noting their fundamentally different legal implications and procedures. 
• The Court observed that while District Courts can adjudicate patent infringement suits and related Section 107 defenses, only High Courts have the authority to entertain revocation petitions. 
• The Court noted that a successful revocation petition results in complete removal of the patent from the Register as if it never existed, whereas a finding of invalidity under Section 107 requires additional steps for register rectification. 
• The Court observed that findings in an infringement suit operate in persona (binding only the contesting parties), while patent revocation operates in rem (affecting all parties universally). 
• The Court determined that a party has the independent choice to either file a revocation petition or file a counter-claim in a pending suit, with no statutory limitation curtailing this choice. 
• The Court recognized that the expiry of a patent does not automatically render a revocation petition infructuous, particularly when related infringement proceedings claiming damages are pending. 
• The Court affirmed that a "person interested" under Section 2(1)(t) of the Patents Act retains standing to maintain a revocation petition even after patent expiry, especially when they face potential liability in pending infringement proceedings. 

What are Revocation Petitions? 

• About:  
  • A revocation petition is a legal mechanism to challenge and potentially invalidate a granted patent. 
  • It is a statutory remedy provided under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. 
• Filing Authority: 
  • Revocation petitions can only be filed before the High Court. 
  • They cannot be filed before lower courts or any other authority. 
• Legal Standing: 
  • Can be filed by "any person interested" as defined under Section 2(1)(t) of the Patents Act. 
  • Can be filed by the Central Government. 
  • Can be filed as a counter-claim in an ongoing patent infringement suit. 
• Timing Aspects: 
  • Can be filed during the term of the patent. 
  • Can continue even after patent expiry if there are pending infringement proceedings. 
  • No statutory time limit is prescribed for filing revocation petitions. 
• Effect of Successful Petition: 
  • Results in complete removal of the patent from the Register of Patents. 
  • Operates in rem (affects all parties universally). 
  • Makes the patent void ab initio (from the beginning). 
• Procedural Requirements: 
  • Must be served on all registered patent proprietors. 
  • Must be served on all persons having registered interest in the patent. 
  • Must specify grounds of revocation under Section 64. 
• Distinguishing Features: 
  • Different from invalidity defense under Section 107 in infringement suits. 
  • Broader in scope than invalidity challenges in infringement proceedings. 
  • Can challenge the entire patent rather than specific claims. 
• Burden of Proof: 
  • The petitioner must establish at least one ground for revocation under Section 64. 
  • The standard of proof is on balance of probabilities. 
  • Technical evidence may be required to support the grounds of revocation. 

What is Section 64 of the Act? 

• Fundamental Purpose: 
  • Section 64 provides grounds for revocation of patents, applicable to patents granted both before and after the Act's commencement. 
• Who Can File: 
  • Revocation petitions can be filed by:  
    • Any person interested 
    • The Central Government 
    • As a counter-claim in a patent infringement suit before the High Court 
• Main Grounds for Revocation:  
  • Prior Claims and Entitlement: 
    • The invention was already claimed in another Indian patent with earlier priority date. 
    • The patent was granted to a person not entitled to apply. 
    • The patent was obtained wrongfully, violating others' rights. 
  • Technical Validity: 
    • The subject matter is not an invention under the Act. 
    • The invention lacks novelty (not new). 
    • The invention is obvious or lacks inventive step. 
    • The invention is not useful. 
  • Disclosure Issues: 
    • Insufficient or unfair description of the invention and its method. 
    • Unclear or inadequately defined claim scope. 
    • Failure to disclose the best known method of performing the invention. 
  • Procedural Violations: 
    • Patent obtained through false suggestion or representation. 
    • Failure to disclose required information to Controller. 
    • Violation of secrecy directions. 
    • Amendment of specification obtained by fraud. 
• Special Considerations: 
  • For novelty and obviousness assessment, personal documents or secret trials/use are not considered. 
  • Imported products made by patented processes constitute knowledge/use in India from the date of importation. 
• Government Rights: 
  • The Central Government can petition for revocation if the patentee fails to comply with government requests to use the invention for public purposes. 
• Procedural Requirement: 
  • Notice of revocation petition must be served to all registered patent proprietors and those with registered interests in the patent. 
• Additional Grounds: 
  • Non-disclosure or wrong mention of biological material's source/origin. 
  • Anticipation based on knowledge available in local/indigenous communities. 

What is Section 107 of Patent Act,1970? 

• Fundamental Purpose: 
  • Section 107 provides the available defenses in patent infringement suits. 
  • It provides two distinct categories of defenses available to defendants. 
• Primary Defense - Revocation Grounds: 
  • Every ground that could be used for patent revocation under Section 64 can be used as a defense. 
  • This includes grounds like lack of novelty, obviousness, insufficiency of disclosure, etc. 
  • The defendant can challenge patent validity without filing a separate revocation petition. 
• Secondary Defense - Permitted Uses: 
  • Relates to activities permitted under Section 47 of the Patents Act. 
  • Applies to making, using, or importing machines/apparatus. 
  • Extends to using processes or importing/using/distributing medicines or drugs. 
  • Activities conducted in accordance with Section 47 conditions serve as valid defense. 
• Legal Effect: 
  • Success on Section 107(1) defense may invalidate specific patent claims. 
  • Unlike revocation, does not remove patent from register. 
  • Finding of invalidity operates in persona (between parties only). 
• Jurisdictional Aspect: 
  • Can be raised before any court having jurisdiction over patent infringement suits. 
  • Unlike revocation petitions, not restricted to High Courts. 
  • District Courts can adjudicate these defenses. 
• Procedural Distinction: 
  • Does not require separate petition or counter-claim. 
  • Can be raised in written statement/defense pleadings. 
  • No requirement to serve notice on all patent proprietors. 
• Scope Limitation: 
  • Finding of invalidity under Section 107 requires additional steps for register rectification. 
  • Does not automatically result in patent revocation. 
  • Valid claims can still be enforced against third parties. 

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Amit Dhama v. Smt Pooja and 2 Others. held that merely because the daughter had been in the father's custody for some time was not sufficient reason to deny custody to the mother.   

What was the Background of the Amit Dhama v. Smt Pooja and 2 Others   Case? 

• The marriage between Amit Dhama (Appellant-husband) and Smt Pooja (Respondent-wife) was solemnized on 23rd May 2010. 
• Two children were born of the wedlock: 
  • A son was born on 2^nd April 2013. 
  • A daughter was born on 29^th September 2020. 
• Marital differences arose between the parties, leading to their separation and living apart. 
• The husband (Appellant) has instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA), which remains pending. 
• The son is currently enrolled in a boarding school in Faridabad, with all educational expenses being borne by the father. 
• The minor daughter, aged 4 years and 3 months was in the custody of the father. 
• The wife (Respondent) filed a petition for custody of the minor daughter under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. (G & W). 
• The Family Court passed an ex parte order on 31st August 2024, granting custody of the minor daughter to the mother. 
• The husband filed First Appeal before the Allahabad High Court challenging the Family Court's order stating that: 
  • They directed the custody of the minor daughter to be given to the mother. 
  • The court provided for fortnightly visitation rights to both parents. 
• The wife is a graduate by qualification and currently resides with her parents. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court made the following observations: 
  • The court attempted multiple times to explore the possibility of amicable resolution between parties, but it failed. 
  • The court directly interacted with the children as part of the proceedings. 
  • Key legal observations:  
    • Mother is legally recognized as the natural guardian of minor children below 5 years of age. 
    • The primary concern in child custody matters is the welfare and well-being of the child. 
    • The psychological stress of custody transfer, while relevant, must be balanced against other interests. 
  • Specific observations regarding the case:  
    • The mother, being a graduate and living with her parents, was viewed favorably. 
    • No allegations were made against the mother that would indicate the daughter's welfare would be compromised in her custody. 
    • The fact that both children were away from the mother was considered. 
    • The court found that various physical, emotional, and psychological needs of the four-year-old daughter would be better protected under the mother's care. 
    • The court dismissed the father's argument that the daughter would be traumatized if custody was transferred to the mother. 
    • The court noted that merely because the daughter had been in the father's custody for some time was not sufficient reason to deny custody to the mother. 
• The High Court upheld the Family Court's order regarding fortnightly visitation rights and allowed parties to seek modification of visitation terms if needed. 

What is the Law Regarding Interim Custody of a Child? 

Section 12 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: 

• This section deals with the power to make interlocutory orders for production of minor and interim protection of person and property.  
• Sub-section(1) of this Section provides the Court may direct that the person, if any, having the custody of the minor, shall produce him or cause him to be produced at such place and time and before such person as it appoints, and may make such order for the temporary custody and protection of the person or property of the minor as it thinks proper.   
• Sub-section (2) of this Section provides that if the minor is a female who ought not to be compelled to appear in public, the direction under sub-section (1) for her production shall require her to be produced in accordance with the customs and manners of the country.  
• Sub-section (3) provides that nothing in this section shall authorize-  
  • The Court to place a female minor in the temporary custody of a person claiming to be her guardian on the ground of his being her husband, unless she is already in his custody with the consent of her parents, if any, or  
  • Any person to whom the temporary custody and protection of the property of a minor is entrusted to dispossess otherwise than by due course of law any person in possession of any of the property.  

What is the Principle of Welfare of Child?  

• Section 13 of Hindu Minorities and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA): 
  • This Section provides that the in the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. 
• Section 17 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890: 
  • This Section provides matters to be considered while appointing a guardian.  
  • Section 17 (1) provides that in appointing or declaring the guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor.  
  • Section 17 (2) provides that In considering what will be for the welfare of the minor, the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his property.  
  • Section 17 (3) provides that if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the Court may consider that preference.  
  • Section 17 (5) provides that the Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his will.    

What are the Case Laws Relating to Custody of Child?  

• Shazia Aman Khan and Another v. The State of Orissa (2024):  
  • Stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for full development of a child’s talent and personality.  
  • Another principle of law which is settled with reference to custody of the child is the wish of the child, if she is capable of.  
  • The Court held that the welfare of the child has to be seen and not the rights of the parties.
• Ashish Ranjan v. Anupam Tandon (2010):  
  • It is a well settled principle that while determining the question of custody the welfare of the child should be given paramount importance and not the rights of the parents under the statute.   
  • While considering the welfare of the child, the "moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as his physical well- being"  
  • The child cannot be treated as a property or a commodity and, therefore, such issues have to be handled by the court with care and caution with love, affection and sentiments applying human touch to the problem.
• Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal (2024):  
  • The Court held that the matter of custody should be decided by taking into consideration the following factors:  
    • The socioeconomic and educational opportunities which may be made available to the Minor Children;  
    • Healthcare and overall well being of the children  
    • The ability to provide physical surroundings conducive to growing adolescents but also take into consideration the preference of the Minor Children.