UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Apple Not Bound to Act as Law Enforcement Agency in Tracing Stolen iPhone: Supreme Court Obliterates State Commission’s Direction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, has set aside a contentious directive of the State Commission which mandated Apple India Private Ltd. To function akin to a law enforcement agency for tracing a stolen iPhone.

Legal Point of the Judgment: The core legal issue revolved around a directive issued by the State Commission on November 26, 2020, which was contested in the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18343 of 2021 by Apple India. The directive in question, found in Paragraph 14 of the State Commission’s order, essentially required the company to trace a stolen iPhone using its unique identity number, thereby imposing law enforcement responsibilities on a private entity.

Facts and Issues: The petitioner, Apple India, had already compensated the respondent, Harish Chandra Mohanty, as per the District Forum’s order, addressing the primary grievance concerning a stolen iPhone. However, the company challenged the specific direction in the State Commission’s order which went beyond compensation and delved into recovery of the stolen product.

Court’s Assessment: The Supreme Court carefully examined the submissions and the impugned paragraph from the State Commission’s order. The Court observed, “The said observations were not warranted,” acknowledging the inappropriateness of requiring a private company to undertake responsibilities akin to those of law enforcement agencies. Consequently, the Court directed the deletion of Paragraph 14 from the State Commission’s order, thus relieving Apple India of the duty to trace stolen products.

Decision of Judgment: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with this modification in the State Commission’s order. The Court also disposed of any pending applications related to this matter.

Date of Decision: February 16, 2024

Apple India Private Ltd. Vs Harish Chandra Mohanty & Anr.

Latest Legal News