List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the case of M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2025) dismissed the appeal filed by Poly Medicure Ltd., upholding that a company purchasing software for automating business processes cannot be considered a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the transaction had a direct nexus with profit generation. 

What was the Background of M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant, Poly Medicure Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, was engaged in export and import of medical devices and equipment. 
• The company purchased a product license of "Brillio Opti Suite," a software from the respondent, Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd., to install and implement an export/import documentation system at its plant. 
• After making the requisite payment, the appellant alleged that the software did not function properly, constituting deficiency in service. 
• In 2019, the appellant filed Consumer Complaint No. 515 of 2019 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, seeking refund of the entire amount paid for product license cost and additional development cost, along with 18% interest. 
• The respondent contested the complaint, claiming it was not maintainable as the appellant was not a "consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
• The State Commission, vide order dated 19.08.2019, held that since the software license was purchased for commercial purpose, the complainant did not qualify as a "consumer" and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. 
• The appellant filed First Appeal No. 1977 of 2019 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which was dismissed on 15.06.2020, affirming the State Commission's order. 
• The appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was converted to Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Definition of "Consumer": 

• The Court examined Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines "consumer" as any person who buys goods or avails services for consideration, but excludes persons who obtain goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. 
• The Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) clarifies that "commercial purpose" does not include use of goods or services exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self-employment. 
• The Court noted that the definition of "person" in Section 2(1)(m) is inclusive and not exhaustive, and therefore, an incorporated company could be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d). 

On Commercial Purpose: 

• The Court relied on Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers (2020) to establish that "commercial purpose" ordinarily includes manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities. 

On Nexus with Profit Generation: 

• The Court examined the nature of "Brillio Opti Suite" software, which was used for Export Document Set, Clubbing/Splitting SAP Sales Documents, Letter of Credit Management, Container Indents and Tracking, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Policy Management, and FOREX Forward Cover Management. 
• The Court found that the software was used to create documents necessary for import and export of goods and to track consignments and benefits under Government Schemes, having direct nexus with profit-generating activity. 
• The Court held that automation of business processes is undertaken not just for better management but to reduce costs and maximize profits. 

On Business-to-Business Transactions: 

• The Court noted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is intended to address business-to-consumer disputes and provide simple and speedy redressal of consumer disputes. 
• If business-to-business transactions were allowed under the Act, it would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. 

Final Holding: 

• Since the transaction had a nexus with generation of profits, the appellant could not be considered a "consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
• The Court upheld the decisions of both the State Commission and the National Commission, dismissing the appeal with no order as to costs. 

What is the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 

About: 

• The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide better protection of the interests of consumers and for matters connected therewith. 
• The Act established a three-tier quasi-judicial machinery at the district, state, and national levels for speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes. 
• The Act was subsequently replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which came into force on July 20, 2020. 

Definition of Consumer under Section 2(1)(d): 

• A "consumer" means any person who buys goods for consideration or avails of services for consideration. 
• The definition includes users of goods (other than the buyer) and beneficiaries of services (other than the person who avails services), when such use/benefit is with the approval of the buyer/person availing services. 
• The definition specifically excludes persons who obtain goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, and persons who avail services for any commercial purpose. 

Explanation to Commercial Purpose: 

• The Explanation clarifies that "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him, and services availed by him, exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. 
• This exception protects self-employed individuals who purchase goods or avail services for their livelihood, distinguishing them from commercial entities engaged in business for profit. 

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice K. Murali Shankar in the case of P. Kulanthaisamy v. K. Murugan and Another (2025) upheld the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ruling that a cheque issued to repay money obtained for securing government employment does not discharge a legally enforceable debt. 

What was the Background of P. Kulanthaisamy v. K. Murugan and Another (2025) Case? 

• The accused, working at TNSTC depot Virudhunagar, claimed to have influence in the Transport Corporation Labour Union and promised to arrange a conductor job for the complainant in exchange for Rs. 3 lakhs. 
• The complainant paid Rs. 3 lakhs on 10.02.2016 in the presence of witness Madamuthu, but the accused failed to secure the promised job. 
• When demanded to return the money, the accused first issued a cheque dated 31.12.2016 which was declared old and invalid by the bank. 
• The accused then issued a second cheque dated 28.02.2017 for Rs. 3 lakhs, which bounced due to insufficient funds. 
• After the accused ignored the legal notice dated 14.03.2017, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 
• The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt, which the complainant challenged through this appeal. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that payment for securing government employment constitutes bribery and is opposed to public policy, making the underlying agreement void. 
• The Court applied the legal maxim "in pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis" (in equal fault, the condition of the possessor is better), stating that when both parties are equally at fault in an immoral act, courts will not assist either party. 
• The Court relied on Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) specifically illustration (f), which states: "A promises to obtain for B an employment in the public service and B promises to pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void, as the consideration for it is unlawful." 
• The Court clarified that Section 65 (restitution) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applies only when an agreement is discovered void at a later stage, not when void ab initio (from the beginning). Since this agreement was void from inception, no restitution was available. 
• The Court concluded that since there was no legally enforceable debt or liability, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not applicable, and dismissed the appeal upholding the acquittal. 

What is Section 138 of NIA? 

About: 

• Section 138 creates a statutory offence for dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arranged amount.  
• The essential elements that must be satisfied for constituting an offence under this section are: 
  • Primary Requirement: A cheque drawn by a person on his account with a banker for payment of money to another person must be returned unpaid by the bank due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arranged overdraft limit. 

Three Mandatory Conditions under the Proviso: 

• The cheque must be presented to the bank within six months from the date it was drawn or within its validity period, whichever is earlier. 
• The payee or holder in due course must issue a written demand notice to the drawer within thirty days of receiving information from the bank about the cheque being returned unpaid. 
• The drawer must fail to make payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days of receiving the demand notice. 
• Penalty Provision: Upon satisfaction of these conditions, the drawer commits an offence punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both. 
• Scope Limitation: The debt or liability must be legally enforceable as clarified in the Explanation to the section. 

What is Section 23 of ICA? 

• Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) states that for a contract to be valid, there must be the legality of object and consideration. The object is the purpose for which the parties enter a contract. The fulfillment of the object leads to the transfer of the consideration agreed from one party to the other. 
  • A agrees to sell his house to B for 10,000 rupees. Here, B’s promise to pay the sum of 10,000 rupees is the consideration for A’s promise to sell the house and A’s promise to sell the house is the consideration for B’s promise to pay the 10,000 rupees. These are lawful considerations.

What is Section 65 of ICA? 

Section 65 - Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement or contract that becomes void: 

• This section deals with situations where an agreement is discovered to be void or becomes void. 
• In such cases, a person who has received any advantage under the agreement is bound to restore it or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it.