List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Amit Bansal refused to grant injunction against social media influencers on the ground of alleged defamation, disparagement and trademark infringement.   

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal and others (2025). 

What was the Background of San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal and Others (2025) Case?   

• The plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of selling and marketing various nutraceutical and healthcare supplement products including protein powders and other supplements. 
• The plaintiff began marketing and selling dietary and nutritional supplement products in 2018 under the trade marks DC DOCTOR'S CHOICE and other related marks. 
• The plaintiff claims to be a market leader in the dietary and nutritional supplements industry with products designed by international researchers and approved by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). 
• The plaintiff has registered the trademark with effect from 16th November 2018, and has applied for registration of several other DC DOCTOR'S CHOICE formative marks. 
• The plaintiff sells its products through various channels including its website, mobile app, offline retailers, and e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart. 
• The plaintiff's sales reached Rs. 18,85,00,000/- in 2023-24, with advertising and promotional expenses of Rs. 1,71,00,000/- in the same year. 
• Defendants 1 to 4 are YouTubers/influencers who create and upload content about health supplements and related products on platforms like YouTube and Instagram. 
• The plaintiff noticed a sharp decline in sales after September 2022, which they attribute to disparaging videos uploaded by the defendants about their product DC DOCTOR'S CHOICE ISO PRO. 
• Between December 2023 and February 2024, the plaintiff analyzed these videos and found they contained baseless and incorrect information about their product. 
• The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are taking advantage of their brand reputation to gain views and popularity and are possibly sponsored by competitors. 
• The plaintiff lodged complaints with Google on 28th March 2024, requesting removal of the videos, but Google refused on 29th March 2024, stating they cannot adjudicate the veracity of posts and do not remove videos based on defamation allegations. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that the plaintiff was responsible for any false claims in their products, including nutritional information on labels, even if manufacturing is done by a third party, especially when sold under the plaintiff's marks. 
• The defendant in this case appears entitled to the defense of fair comment because their videos aim to educate consumers about discrepancies in protein content claims. 
• The Court viewed the defendant's comments as honest opinions based on sufficient factual evidence from accredited laboratory test reports. 
• The Court further observed that the subject matter (fitness and nutrition products) is considered a matter of public interest as it affects consumers' health and well-being. 
• The court disagreed that using the term "ghatiya" (meaning sub-standard/inferior) constitutes unparliamentary or defamatory language, viewing it as permissible exaggeration or hyperbole. 
• Satirical references like "DOCTOR HAS NO CHOICE" for the plaintiff's mark "DOCTOR'S CHOICE" are protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression. 
• The court found the plaintiff's reliance on ASCI Guidelines for Health Influencers misplaced, as the defendant based opinions on factual laboratory test results. 
• The Court reiterated that commercial speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as established in the case of Tata Press v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (1995) case. 
• For disparagement to be established, three elements must be proven: untrue/misleading statements, malice, and special damage to the plaintiff. 
• The Court found that the defendant established defenses of "truth" and "fair comment," while the plaintiff failed to establish malice or that sales decline was attributable to the videos. 
• Trademark infringement under Section 29(4) applies only when another commercial entity exploits the plaintiff's trademark, which was not the case here. 
• Section 29(8) regarding trademark infringement in advertising was found inapplicable as the defendants were not using the plaintiff's marks as part of an advertisement. 
• Thus, the Court refused to grant relief in favor of the plaintiffs in the facts of the present case. 

What is Defamation? 

• Defamation is when someone makes a statement that damages another person's reputation. 
• Defamation can take the form of spoken words, written statements, or even videos. 
• A statement is considered defamatory if it lowers someone's reputation in the eyes of other people. 
• Not all defamatory statements can lead to legal action, as there are certain defenses available. 
• The first defense is truth or justification, which means if the statement can be proven true, it is not actionable defamation. 
• The second defense is fair comment, which protects honest opinions on matters of public interest that are based on true facts. 
  • In the case of Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy (2006), the Court has observed that in order to succeed in a plea of fair comment, the defendant has to establish the following: 
    • The statement was a comment based on facts, which are sufficiently true. 
    • The subject matter of the comment was in public interest. 
    • The comment was one which an honest person could form. 
  • Unlike the defence of justification or truth, malice would be a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with the defence of fair comment. 
  • Therefore, in a given case, if the court is of the view that the statements made by the defendant are such that he believed them to be correct on the basis of facts available to him, the defendant would be entitled to invoke the defence of fair comment 
  • The defendant should clearly differentiate between a factual statement and a comment in a manner that the listener/ viewer/ reader is able to know that the statement is the personal opinion of the defendant 
  • If the defendant knows that his comments are based on untrue facts or are made without any attempt to determine the truth, it would be assumed that the comments were made with malice. 
• The third defense is privilege, which protects statements made in certain situations such as in court testimony, parliamentary speeches, or other contexts where public policy encourages open communication. 

What is Disparagement? 

• Disparagement is a type of malicious falsehood that protects a person's economic interests rather than their reputation. 
• Disparagement occurs when someone makes untrue or misleading statements about a plaintiff's goods or services that influence the public not to buy those goods or use those services. 
• In disparagement cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant's statements were false, unlike in defamation cases. 
• This difference in burden of proof exists because defamation protects personal reputation while disparagement protects economic interests. 
• Malice is an inherent element in disparagement suits because the cause of action is based on making false statements to damage the plaintiff's goods or services. 
• A statement made with a genuine belief in its truth would negate the claim of malice in a disparagement case. 
• For malice to be actionable, it must involve dishonesty or improper motive, including a subjective state of mind with ill will or an intention to injure. 
• A person defending their own lawful business interests may not be accused of malice, even if they know their actions might cause damage to others. 
• A trader's desire to promote their business at the expense of rivals is considered a proper exercise of discretion and not malicious.

What is Trademark Infringement in Context of this Case? 

• Section 29 (8) of the Trademark Act, 1999 (TMA) must be considered in the facts of the present case. 
• This provision provides for the following: 
  • A registered trade mark is infringed when advertising of that trade mark takes unfair advantage and contradicts honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. 
  • Infringement also occurs when advertising is detrimental to the distinctive character of the registered trade mark. 
  • Advertising that damages the reputation of the registered trade mark constitutes infringement as well. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that once a suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) , the appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited to examining the validity of the rejection order and does not extend to directing production of additional documents or evaluating the merits of the case. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sri Shrikanth Ns & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Sri Shrikanth Ns & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr. (2025) Case ? 

• The dispute concerns a parcel of land bearing Survey No. 11/2 measuring 3 acres 39 guntas situated at Honnakalasapura village, Anekal Taluk, originally granted by the Government of Mysore to one Kurubettappa (father of respondent no. 1/plaintiff) on 19.11.1926. 
• Smt. Marakka, grandmother of the appellants, allegedly purchased the said property through a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1939, with mutation carried out in her name in 1939-40. 
• Respondent no. 1 and his mother initiated multiple proceedings challenging the transaction, including suits for declaration and injunction, applications under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and criminal complaints alleging document fabrication. 
• The respondent's earlier suits (O.S. No. 181 of 1975, O.S. No. 320 of 1989, O.S. No. 91 of 2010) were dismissed on various grounds including limitation, with appeals and second appeals also being rejected by higher forums. 
• In the present matter, respondent no. 1 filed O.S. No. 434 of 2011 seeking a declaration that the order dated 06.09.2010 passed by respondent no. 2/Tehsildar in RRT No. 87 of 2010 was illegal. 
• The appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the respondent could not seek relief without first seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 11.10.1939. 
• The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint vide order dated 28.10.2013. 
• Respondent no. 1 then preferred Regular Appeal No. 271 of 2020 against the rejection order and filed I.A. No. 2 under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC seeking direction to the Tehsildar to produce Mutation Register extract No. 5/1939-40. 
• The First Appellate Court allowed the application, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC enables the Court to seek production of documents only during the pendency of a suit, whereas in the present case, the suit had already been dismissed consequent upon the rejection of the plaint. 
• The Court held that the First Appellate Court was not enjoined to decide the merits of the controversy but only to examine the validity of the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 
• The Apex Court noted that for examining the validity of plaint rejection, the Appellate Court should confine itself to the contents of the plaint and not venture beyond, as no other documents can be seen without first examining the issue concerning rejection of the plaint. 
• The Court observed that the First Appellate Court was unnecessarily influenced by observations made by the Supreme Court while dismissing a Criminal Special Leave Petition, which merely indicated that civil proceedings should be determined on their own merits. 
• The Supreme Court concluded that the order allowing production of the Mutation Register was "totally misconceived and suffers from an error of exercise of jurisdiction" and was beyond the scope of Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC. 
• While setting aside the direction for document production, the Court affirmed the order allowing the respondent to raise additional grounds in the Regular Appeal, finding no illegality therein. 

What is Order XI Rule 14 of CPC ? 

• Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers upon the Court the discretionary power to direct production of documents by any party to the proceedings. 
• The temporal jurisdiction for exercising this power is expressly limited to "during the pendency of any suit," signifying that such direction can only be issued while the suit is actively subsisting before the Court. 
• The documents sought to be produced must satisfy the relevancy criterion by "relating to any matter in question in such suit," establishing a nexus between the document and the justiciable issues. 
• The Court possesses the authority to demand production under oath, thereby ensuring authenticity and veracity of the documents produced pursuant to its direction. 
• The rule vests the Court with further discretion to "deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just," empowering judicial determination regarding admissibility, evidentiary value, and procedural treatment of the produced documents. 
• The provision operates as a procedural mechanism for discovery, aimed at ensuring that all material evidence is brought before the Court for proper adjudication, subject to judicial oversight regarding relevance and propriety. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that vesting pecuniary jurisdiction in consumer commissions based on the value of consideration paid for goods or services is constitutionally valid, non-arbitrary, and does not violate Article 14. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Rutu Mihir Panchal and others v. Union of India and others.(2025). 

What was the Background of Rutu Mihir Panchal and others v. Union of India and others. (2025) Case? 

• The petitioners in this case challenged the constitutionality of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i), and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer forums based on the value of goods or services paid as consideration rather than compensation claimed. 
• Under the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the pecuniary jurisdiction was determined based on the value of goods or services and compensation claimed, whereas the 2019 Act shifted this basis to the value of consideration paid. 
• The writ petition involved a case where the petitioner's husband died when his Ford Endeavour car caught fire due to an alleged manufacturing defect, and the petitioner sought compensation of Rs. 51.49 crores. 
• Due to the new provisions under the 2019 Act, the petitioner was required to approach the District Commission as the value of the car (Rs. 31.19 lakhs) was less than Rs. 1 crore, whereas under the 1986 Act, she could have directly approached the National Commission based on the compensation claimed. 
• The civil appeal involved a similar issue where the appellant's claim for Rs. 14.94 crore in insurance compensation was rejected by the National Commission on the ground that the consideration for the insurance policy did not exceed Rs. 10 crores. 
• The petitioners contended that the new criteria created an anomalous situation where consumers claiming identical compensation but having paid different considerations are treated differently, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. 
• The petitioners argued that the new provisions were discriminatory, arbitrary, and not rationally connected to the purpose of providing a hierarchical judicial system for consumer protection, constituting an offence against constitutional principles.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court held that Parliament has legislative competence to prescribe jurisdiction and powers of courts and tribunals, including pecuniary limits of jurisdiction, under Entry 95 of List I read with Entries 11-A and 46 of List III of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that classification of claims based on the value of consideration paid for goods or services is neither illegal nor discriminatory, as consideration is an integral part of forming any contract and is essential to the definition of a "consumer" under Section 2(7) of the 2019 Act. 
• The Court determined that this classification has a rational nexus to the object of creating a hierarchical structure of judicial remedies, as the value of consideration is more easily relatable to compensation than a self-assessed claim for damages. 
• The Court noted that there is no unrestricted right to raise unlimited claims of compensation to choose a forum, and courts always have jurisdiction to assess or reassess overvalued claims. 
• While upholding the constitutional validity of the provisions, the Court directed the Central Consumer Protection Council and the Central Consumer Protection Authority to exercise their statutory duties to survey, review, and advise the government on measures necessary for effective functioning of the statute. 
• The Court emphasized that these statutory bodies must work effectively and efficiently to protect consumers against unfair practices and prevent any offence against consumer rights, with their functioning being subject to judicial review. 

What is Pecuniary Jurisdiction? 

• Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and determine cases based on the monetary value or amount involved in the dispute, establishing limits on which courts can entertain suits of particular monetary values. 
• Under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, every suit must be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it, meaning a case must be filed in the lowest court having jurisdiction over that monetary value. 
• The plaintiff's valuation in the plaint determines which court has pecuniary jurisdiction, though courts can examine whether a suit has been deliberately undervalued or overvalued to choose a particular forum. 
• The pecuniary jurisdiction system creates a hierarchical structure where courts of higher grades are not overburdened with suits that could be handled by lower courts, affording convenience to parties and witnesses while ensuring efficient administration of justice. 

What are the Legal Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019? 

• Section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribes that the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees. 
• Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the 2019 Act establishes that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds one crore rupees but does not exceed ten crore rupees. 
• Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the 2019 Act confers jurisdiction on the National Commission to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ten crore rupees. 
• Under the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11(1) granted jurisdiction to the District Forum for complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation claimed did not exceed twenty lakhs rupees. 
• Section 17(a)(i) of the 1986 Act provided the State Commission with jurisdiction for complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceeded twenty lakhs rupees but did not exceed one crore rupees. 
• Section 21(a)(i) of the 1986 Act granted the National Commission jurisdiction for complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceeded one crore rupees. 
• Section 2(7) of the 2019 Act defines a "consumer" as any person who buys goods or hires or avails any service for a consideration which is fully paid or promised, partly paid or promised, under a system of deferred payment, and includes a user of such goods or services. 
• Sections 3 and 10 of the 2019 Act establish the Central Consumer Protection Council and the Central Consumer Protection Authority respectively, with statutory duties to protect consumer interests and ensure effective functioning of the consumer protection regime.