No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

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.

Similar News