Reported judgments, summarised for study

Question before the court

What interest is payable when a buyer seeks refund for delayed possession, and from when?

Held

The buyer was entitled to refund of the amount paid with interest, and the Court applied a uniform rate so that both sides bore an even burden, running from the dates of payment.

Takeaways

• Interest ordinarily runs from the date each instalment was paid.
• A low contractual interest rate for the developer's default is not decisive.
• Keep a dated schedule of every payment made.

Question before the court

How should Sections 29 and 30 of the Trade Marks Act be read where marks and services are identical?

Held

Where the mark and the services are identical, confusion is presumed and the statute must be read as a whole; the honest-use defence under Section 30 cannot be applied by picking one sub-clause in isolation.

Takeaways

• Identical mark plus identical services makes confusion presumed.
• Statutory defences must satisfy every condition, not one clause.
• Adopting a well-known hospitality name invites an adverse inference.

Question before the court

Whether buyers can claim refund where possession is delayed beyond the contractual date under a one-sided agreement.

Held

Incorporation of one-sided, unreasonable clauses is an unfair trade practice; buyers who did not wish to continue were granted refund with interest, while others could take possession with compensation.

Takeaways

• Delay beyond the committed date opens a choice: exit with refund, or continue with compensation.
• Force-majeure style clauses drafted only in the developer's favour are read strictly.
• Compute delay from the date stated in the agreement, not from an oral assurance.

Question before the court

Does RERA apply to projects already ongoing when the Act came into force, and what are the respective powers of the Authority and the Adjudicating Officer?

Held

The Act applies retroactively to ongoing projects that were not complete on the commencement date. Refund and interest under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 fall to the Authority; adjudication of compensation falls to the Adjudicating Officer.

Takeaways

• Ongoing projects are not outside RERA merely because they began earlier.
• File refund and interest claims before the Authority; compensation claims before the Adjudicating Officer.
• Filing before the wrong authority delays relief — check the relief you actually want.

Question before the court

Whether the RERA Act, 2016 bars a homebuyer from approaching consumer fora.

Held

RERA remedies are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the remedies under consumer law. A buyer may elect the consumer forum.

Takeaways

• RERA and consumer remedies coexist — the buyer chooses the forum.
• Registration of the project under RERA does not oust consumer jurisdiction.
• Choose one forum for the same relief; do not run parallel claims.

Question before the court

Are buyers who accept possession after a long delay barred from claiming compensation?

Held

Taking possession, or signing a deed containing a waiver, does not extinguish the claim for delay. Compensation was awarded to buyers for the period of delay despite the developer's clauses.

Takeaways

• Accepting possession does not by itself waive a delay claim.
• A waiver signed in a one-sided form contract carries little weight.
• Record the actual date of offer of possession and of handover.

Question before the court

Whether a buyer must accept a one-sided apartment buyer's agreement and wait indefinitely for possession.

Held

One-sided clauses drafted by a developer amount to an unfair trade practice. The buyer was not bound to wait beyond a reasonable period and was entitled to refund with interest.

Takeaways

• A grossly one-sided builder agreement can be disregarded as unfair.
• A buyer facing indefinite delay can seek refund rather than possession.
• Keep the agreement, payment receipts and the promised possession date on record.

Question before the court

What relief is available to thousands of buyers where project funds were diverted by the developer?

Held

The Court cancelled the developer's RERA registration, appointed a court receiver, directed forensic audit, and put the completion of projects under court-monitored supervision to protect homebuyers.

Takeaways

• Diversion of buyer funds attracts strong supervisory intervention.
• Collective, documented buyer action carries weight in large project failures.
• Preserve proof of every payment made to the developer.

Question before the court

Whether a proprietor of a mark for dairy products can prevent a restaurant business from registering a similar mark.

Held

Registration does not give a proprietor a monopoly over an entire class. Where the goods and the trade channels differ and the marks are visually distinguishable, coexistence was permitted.

Takeaways

• Rights are tied to actual goods and services, not to a whole class.
• Differences in trade channels and get-up can defeat a confusion claim.
• File in the classes you actually trade in, and support the claim with use.

Question before the court

When does an e-commerce platform lose the safe-harbour protection of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act in a trademark dispute?

Held

A platform that actively curates, promotes, authenticates or otherwise adds value to listings goes beyond a passive intermediary and cannot rely on safe harbour.

Takeaways

• Safe harbour depends on how passive the platform actually is.
• Seller verification and takedown processes matter in litigation.
• Brand owners should document the platform's active role.

Question before the court

Does an arbitration clause in a builder-buyer agreement oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora?

Held

Consumer disputes are non-arbitrable. An arbitration clause does not bar a complaint before consumer fora, which exercise a special statutory jurisdiction.

Takeaways

• An arbitration clause in a builder agreement does not block a consumer complaint.
• The consumer may still choose arbitration if preferred.
• Objections based on such a clause are routinely rejected.

Question before the court

Is the criminalisation of consensual same-sex relations between adults constitutional?

Held

Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalised consensual sexual acts between adults in private, was held unconstitutional as violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.

Takeaways

• Constitutional morality prevails over majoritarian sentiment.
• Dignity and autonomy are enforceable components of Article 21.
• Sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.

Question before the court

Whether global reputation alone establishes goodwill in India for a passing-off action.

Held

The Court applied the territoriality principle: the claimant must prove goodwill and reputation among Indian consumers at the relevant date. Worldwide fame, without proof of Indian goodwill, is not sufficient.

Takeaways

• Prove reputation within India, with evidence tied to the relevant date.
• Global recognition is not automatically Indian goodwill.
• Documentary proof of Indian advertising, sales or media presence is decisive.

Question before the court

Does a steep rise in input cost amount to force majeure or frustration of a power purchase agreement?

Held

An unexpected rise in fuel price does not frustrate the contract or trigger force majeure where the clause does not cover it. Alternative performance remaining possible defeats the plea.

Takeaways

• Force majeure is governed first by the words of the clause.
• Commercial hardship is not impossibility.
• Draft force-majeure clauses to name the events actually feared.

Question before the court

Is privacy a fundamental right under the Constitution?

Held

A nine-judge Bench unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and to the freedoms in Part III. Any intrusion must satisfy legality, necessity and proportionality.

Takeaways

• State intrusion into privacy needs a law, a legitimate aim and proportionate means.
• Informational privacy covers personal data held by the State and by private parties.
• The judgment underlies India's data-protection framework.

Question before the court

Is the practice of instantaneous triple talaq constitutionally valid?

Held

By majority, the practice of talaq-e-biddat was set aside as arbitrary and not protected as an essential religious practice.

Takeaways

• Arbitrariness is a ground of constitutional challenge in itself.
• Not every practice claimed as religious is constitutionally protected.
• Personal law can be tested against fundamental rights.

Question before the court

Is compensation under Section 74 payable where no loss at all has been suffered?

Held

Section 74 requires reasonable compensation for a legal injury. Where damage or loss is not shown and is capable of proof, no compensation is payable merely because a sum is named in the contract.

Takeaways

• Forfeiture without proof of loss can be set aside.
• Plead and prove loss wherever it is capable of proof.
• Read this alongside Saw Pipes — the two mark the boundaries of Section 74.

Question before the court

Is Section 66A of the Information Technology Act a valid restriction on online speech?

Held

Section 66A was struck down as vague and overbroad, going beyond the reasonable restrictions permitted by Article 19(2). Intermediary takedown obligations were read down to require a court or government order.

Takeaways

• Vague speech offences fail constitutional scrutiny.
• Restrictions must fit within the grounds in Article 19(2).
• Intermediaries act on court or authorised government orders.

Question before the court

Is a company a 'person' able to complain, and is supply of electricity a service?

Held

A company falls within 'person' under consumer law, and supply of electricity is a service; failure to supply after accepting payment is a deficiency.

Takeaways

• A company can be a complainant before consumer fora.
• Utility supply is a service, not merely a sale of goods.
• Deficiency includes failure to act within a reasonable time.

Question before the court

Whether a party that used a mark first in the world market can restrain later Indian use of the same mark for a medicinal product.

Held

Ordinarily the first user in the world market should be protected, particularly for medicinal products, unless the foreign proprietor has no intention of coming to India.

Takeaways

• Priority of use can be assessed internationally in the pharmaceutical field.
• Intention to enter the Indian market is a relevant consideration.
• Adopting an identical foreign medicinal mark invites an adverse inference.

Question before the court

Does delay in filing defeat an injunction where the adoption of the mark is dishonest?

Held

In cases of infringement or dishonest adoption, an injunction should normally follow, and mere delay is not a sufficient answer to the plaintiff's claim.

Takeaways

• Delay is not fatal where the defendant's adoption was dishonest.
• Still file promptly — delay affects costs and credibility.
• Document when the infringement first came to notice.

Question before the court

Can liquidated damages be awarded under Section 74 where actual loss is difficult to prove?

Held

Where loss cannot be precisely proved, a genuine pre-estimate stipulated in the contract may be awarded as reasonable compensation, subject to the ceiling of the stipulated sum.

Takeaways

• A liquidated damages clause should read as a genuine pre-estimate, not a penalty.
• The stipulated sum is a ceiling, never an automatic entitlement.
• Record the basis of the estimate at the drafting stage.

Question before the court

What factors decide deceptive similarity between two medicinal marks ('Falcitab' and 'Falcigo')?

Held

The Court set out the factors for deceptive similarity — nature of the marks, degree of resemblance, nature of the goods, class of purchasers, mode of purchase and surrounding circumstances — and applied a stricter standard to medicines, where confusion can harm health.

Takeaways

• For pharmaceutical marks, a higher standard of caution applies.
• Purchaser profile and how the product is bought matter as much as the marks themselves.
• Public interest can justify an injunction even where confusion is only possible.

Question before the court

Should an interim injunction issue in a passing-off action over a business name where the plaintiff has goodwill?

Held

Where a defendant adopts a deceptively similar trading name, an injunction ordinarily follows; proof of actual damage is not required, since the likelihood of injury to goodwill suffices.

Takeaways

• Likelihood of confusion, not proved loss, supports an injunction.
• Act quickly; delay weakens an interim application.
• Evidence of goodwill can be built from invoices, advertising and reviews.

Question before the court

Whether a domain name can be protected against a confusingly similar domain under passing off.

Held

A domain name serves the same identifying function as a trademark; use of 'yahooindia.com' was restrained as likely to deceive internet users.

Takeaways

• Domain names can attract passing-off protection.
• A disclaimer on the website does not cure initial confusion.
• Secure domains that match your mark early.

Question before the court

Can parents who paid for a child's treatment claim in their own right as beneficiaries of the service?

Held

Both the person who hires the service and the beneficiary are consumers; compensation was upheld for the child's injury and for the parents' resulting suffering.

Takeaways

• A beneficiary of a paid service is a consumer, not only the payer.
• Compensation can cover future care needs.
• Negligence by support staff can bind the institution.

Question before the court

What protection exists against sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of legislation?

Held

The Court laid down binding guidelines for prevention and redress of sexual harassment at the workplace, to operate until Parliament legislated, drawing on Articles 14, 19 and 21 and international obligations.

Takeaways

• Employers carry a positive duty of prevention and redress.
• Internal complaints machinery is now a statutory requirement.
• International conventions can inform constitutional interpretation.

Question before the court

Whether a proprietor with no registration in India, but with reputation reaching India, can restrain a registered user from using the mark.

Held

Passing off is an independent, actionable wrong. Reputation spilling over into India through advertising and circulation can support an injunction even without Indian registration.

Takeaways

• Registration is not the only source of trademark rights — goodwill is protectable on its own.
• Evidence of reputation (advertising, media, circulation in India) is central to such a claim.
• A registration obtained by a later user does not defeat a prior reputation.

Question before the court

Are medical services covered by the Consumer Protection Act?

Held

Medical services rendered for payment fall within 'service'. Services rendered free of charge to everyone are outside the Act, but a patient treated free at a hospital that charges others is still a consumer.

Takeaways

• Paid medical treatment is a service under consumer law.
• Wholly free services stand outside the Act.
• Records of payment and treatment determine standing.

Question before the court

When does a purchase for 'commercial purpose' take a buyer outside the definition of consumer?

Held

Goods bought to run a profit-making activity on a large scale are for a commercial purpose. Goods used by the buyer for self-employment to earn a livelihood remain within the definition.

Takeaways

• Scale and purpose of use decide consumer status, not the nature of the goods.
• Self-employment for livelihood is protected.
• Plead the purpose of purchase clearly in the complaint.

Question before the court

Is a proclamation under Article 356 dismissing a State government open to judicial review?

Held

Presidential proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review; the floor of the House is the proper test of majority, and secularism and federalism are part of the basic structure.

Takeaways

• Majority is tested on the floor of the House, not by a report.
• Article 356 proclamations can be reviewed and set aside.
• Secularism and federalism are constitutional essentials.

Question before the court

Whether housing construction by a statutory development authority is a 'service' under consumer law.

Held

Housing construction is a service; a statutory body is not immune. Deficiency can attract compensation, including for harassment caused by public functionaries.

Takeaways

• Government and statutory bodies can be answerable before consumer fora.
• Delay and defective construction are treated as deficiency in service.
• Compensation can extend beyond refund to the harassment suffered.

Question before the court

What are the constitutional limits on reservation in public employment?

Held

Reservation was upheld for socially and educationally backward classes, subject to exclusion of the creamy layer and, ordinarily, a ceiling of fifty per cent.

Takeaways

• Backwardness is assessed socially and educationally, not by caste alone.
• The creamy layer is excluded from the benefit.
• The fifty per cent limit applies save in extraordinary situations.

Question before the court

Can a court strike down an unconscionable clause in a contract between parties of unequal bargaining power?

Held

An unfair and unreasonable clause imposed on a weaker party in a standard-form contract can be struck down as opposed to public policy under Section 23.

Takeaways

• Unequal bargaining power is a ground to test a standard-form clause.
• Public policy under Section 23 is a live control on contract terms.
• Document how the clause was imposed and whether it was negotiable.

Question before the court

What liability attaches to an enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity when harm results?

Held

The Court laid down absolute liability: an enterprise carrying on a hazardous activity is liable for resulting harm without the exceptions available in the older rule of strict liability.

Takeaways

• Hazardous industry carries liability without fault-based excuses.
• Compensation may be scaled to the capacity of the enterprise.
• Public interest litigation can shape remedial standards.

Question before the court

Does the right to life include the right to livelihood of pavement dwellers facing eviction?

Held

The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood; eviction had to follow a fair procedure, though the Court did not bar removal from public footpaths altogether.

Takeaways

• Article 21 extends to the means of living, not mere existence.
• Eviction requires notice and a fair hearing.
• Procedural fairness applies to administrative action affecting the poor.

Question before the court

Must a law depriving personal liberty under Article 21 also be fair, just and reasonable?

Held

Articles 14, 19 and 21 are to be read together. A procedure established by law must be fair, just and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive.

Takeaways

• A law affecting liberty must be reasonable in substance, not only enacted.
• Administrative action must ordinarily be preceded by a hearing.
• Rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 are read as a connected whole.

Question before the court

Is Parliament's power to amend the Constitution unlimited, or are there implied limits?

Held

Parliament may amend any provision but cannot damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The amending power is wide, not unlimited.

Takeaways

• An amendment can be struck down for violating the basic structure.
• The doctrine is applied case by case; there is no closed list of features.
• It underpins later rulings on judicial review, federalism and elections.

Question before the court

Whether the mark 'Lakshmandhara' was deceptively similar to the registered mark 'Amritdhara' for a medicinal preparation.

Held

Similarity is judged by the overall impression the marks leave on an average purchaser of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection — not by placing the two marks side by side and dissecting them.

Takeaways

• Compare marks as a whole; do not split them into parts to find differences.
• The test is the memory of an ordinary buyer, not a careful side-by-side comparison.
• A shared, distinctive suffix or idea can be enough to cause confusion.

Question before the court

Can a party forfeit a stipulated sum on breach without showing the loss actually suffered?

Held

Section 74 entitles a party only to reasonable compensation, not to the whole named sum. Forfeiture beyond earnest money must be justified as reasonable compensation for the loss proved.

Takeaways

• A named figure in the contract does not become payable automatically.
• Earnest money and a penalty stand on different footings.
• Keep evidence of the loss actually caused by the breach.

Question before the court

Does a change in commercial conditions entitle a party to be paid outside the agreed rates?

Held

A contract is not discharged merely because performance has become more expensive or less profitable. Parties are bound by the rates they agreed unless the contract itself provides otherwise.

Takeaways

• Rising costs alone do not justify departing from agreed rates.
• Provide expressly for escalation if the risk is real.
• Claims outside the contract need a contractual or statutory basis.

Question before the court

When is a contract frustrated under Section 56 of the Contract Act?

Held

Frustration applies where performance becomes impossible or the fundamental basis of the contract is destroyed — not merely because performance has become onerous or delayed.

Takeaways

• Hardship or delay alone does not frustrate a contract.
• Section 56 turns on the foundation of the bargain being destroyed.
• An express clause covering the event displaces the doctrine.