CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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