Category: Supreme Court

Image from here The heated battle between the incumbent Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks and the All India Patent Officers’ Welfare Association (AIPOWA) reached the doorsteps of the Supreme Court this summer in the form of a special leave petition. The petition stems from the Delhi High Court’s refusal (pdf) to entertain AIPOWA’s

Reinforcing the Standard of Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Revenue Inspector in Corruption Case Due to Insufficient Evidence Introduction In a landmark decision dated May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana [SLP(Criminal) No. 6066 of 2024] acquitted the Appellant, Paritala Sudhakar, a former Revenue Inspector, of bribery charges under the

A CURSORY VIEW INSUFFICIENT IN DETERMINING THE GUILT UNDER 498A AND DOWRY ACT: SUPREME COURT The Apex Court on May 13, 2025, while deciding an appeal titled “Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (Crl) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019”, arising out of a wife’s complaint against husband and in-laws alleging harassment on pretext of

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MUST REMAIN OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND LEGITIMATE CRITIQUE; SUB JUDICE MATTERS MAY ALSO BE SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION BY THE PRESS AND PUBLIC On Friday, May 9, The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently overturned a Delhi High Court order that had directed the removal of a Wikipedia page concerning defamation proceedings initiated by the

Reinforcing Accountability: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction for Facilitating Concealment of Disproportionate Assets Introduction In a landmark ruling on corruption and abetment, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in the case of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State [SLP(Criminal) No. 3472 of 2018]. The Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant, P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi, for

Supreme Court Emphasizes Caution in Granting Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offences: SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda The Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) vs. Aditya Sarda, decided on April 9, 2025, addressed the issue of granting

Highlighting the missed opportunity to interpret Section 52(1)(w) of the Copyright Act in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others, SpicyIP intern Advika Singh Malik writes on whether the provision could have been roped in by the parties in the present case or not. Advika is a third-year law student at Symbiosis

Image generated via ChatGPT [This post is authored by Kartik Sharma. Kartik is a fourth-year student at the National Law School of India University and was the third prize winner in the 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on IP law.]  To all the interested readers, there is another intriguing update in the Azure-PPL litigation story. Last week,

Continuing the discussion on the Supreme Court’s decision in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others, Aditya Bhargava writes on the question of “functional utility” and how it informs the two pronged test by the Court. Aditya is a third-year law student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. His

Breaking down the key parts of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others, Aditya Bhargava discusses the jurisprudence on the difference between copyright and industrial designs and the two-pronged test to distinguish between the two intellectual properties adopted by the Court in this case. In Part II