16 May 2025 Legal Updates

SUPREME COURT IMPOSES FINE UP TO RS. 25,000 PER TREE FOR ILLEGAL FELLING IN TAJ TRAPEZIUM ZONE

(a) Case Title:

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 13, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

This judgment relates to ongoing environmental protection measures within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), focusing particularly on illegal tree felling and its impact on the preservation of the Taj Mahal and other ancient monuments in the area.

Key Issues Addressed:

1. Illegal Tree Felling Regulations:

The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to implement punitive measures against illegal tree felling in the TTZ area. The order established a graduated penalty system based on the Central Empowered Committee's (CEC) recommendations:

• Rs. 5,000 per tree for farmers illegally felling private trees of exempted species
• Rs. 10,000 per tree for illegal felling of restricted species or exempted species by non-farmers
• Rs. 25,000 per tree for violations under the Indian Forest Act, 1927

2. Tree Census Implementation:

The Court directed the Forest Research Institute (FRI) to submit representations to Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan for phase-wise release of funds for the tree census. Both the states have been instructed to "immediately release the necessary funds."

3. Significance:

This case demonstrates the Supreme Court's continuing supervision in environmental PILs through mechanisms like the Central Empowered Committee. It also illustrates the Court's use of Article 142 powers to "do complete justice" when addressing environmental concerns, especially for protecting heritage sites.

CONTROLLER OF PATENTS MUST SPECIFY KNOWN SUBSTANCE AGAINST WHICH CLAIMED INVENTION IS BEING ASSESSED IN HEARING NOTICE: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. The Controller of Patents

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 15, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Background

Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Japan) filed an Indian patent application claiming priority from a Japanese application dated August 27, 2012. The patent application was for compounds with Aurora-A-selective inhibitory activity useful as anti-cancer agents.

The Controller rejected the application on two grounds:

• Lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act
• Non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the Controller properly identified the "known substance" while raising objection under Section 3(d)?
• Whether the appellant was given fair opportunity to demonstrate enhanced therapeutic efficacy?

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Court found that the Controller failed to:

• Properly identify the specific "known substance" in the prior art document.
• Provide clear explanation of how the claimed substance was a derivative of the known substance
• Allow for objective comparison of therapeutic efficacy

The Court relied on the precedent set in DS Biopharma Ltd. v. Controller of Patents & Designs (2022), which establishes that for Section 3(d) objections, the Controller must identify:

• The specific "known substance" with "known efficacy"
• Clear explanation of why the claimed substance is a derivative/new form of a known substance
• An objective comparison between therapeutic efficacies

Decision

• The Court set aside the Controller's order and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration
• Directed the Controller to afford a fresh opportunity of hearing after giving proper notice
• Instructed that the Controller's new order should address valid submissions by the appellant

ARBITRAL AWARD CANNOT BE SET ASIDE SOLELY FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION IF NO TIMELY OBJECTION RAISED BEFORE TRIBUNAL: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• M/S Gayatri Project Limited vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• 15th May 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan 

Background:

The dispute arose from a works contract between the parties, with arbitration under the 1996 Act. The respondent later challenged the award under Section 34, claiming the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (State Act) applied, rendering the tribunal jurisdictionally incompetent. 

The respondent had not raised this objection during arbitration or in its initial Section 34 petition but introduced it later based on L.G. Chaudhary (II), which held the State Act prevails over the Central Act for works contracts in MP. 

Issues:

1. Whether an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act) can be annulled for lack of jurisdiction if no plea was raised before the arbitral tribunal under Section 16(2)? 

2. Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in L.G. Chaudhary (II) (2018) conflicts with Lion Engineering Consultants (2018) regarding raising jurisdictional pleas under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. 

Court’s Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Plea Timing: 

Lion Engineering allowed jurisdictional objections under Section 34 even if not raised under Section 16, as it is a "pure question of law." 

L.G. Chaudhary (II) carved an exception: if no jurisdictional plea was raised before the tribunal, the award cannot be annulled solely on this ground. 

The Court harmonized both decisions, clarifying that L.G. Chaudhary (II)’s exception was conscious of Lion Engineering and aimed to prevent misuse in cases like this, where the respondent belatedly raised the plea post-award. 

2. Waiver Principle: 

The Court emphasized that failure to raise jurisdictional objections before the tribunal generally amounts to waiver unless a "strong reason" exists. 

3. Final Ruling: 

The High Court erred in annulling the award solely for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court restored the award and remanded the case to the Commercial Court to decide other Section 34 challenges (if any). 

KEY TAKEAWAY

Jurisdictional Challenges must be raised at the earliest, or else it could be considered as a waiver of your right to object.