Filing Of Suits For Protection Of Statutory Rights Conferred Cannot Be Termed As Intimidatory Or Vexatious: Supreme Court On PepsiCo's Suit Against Farmers
The Supreme Court was considering a matter involving suits alleging infringement against individual farmers.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the filing of suits for the protection of rights conferred under the Statute cannot be held to be intimidatory or vexatious.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the allegation was raised merely with reference to various suits filed by the PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Company, alleging infringement against individual farmers.
The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “The High Court has clearly found that the allegation was raised merely with reference to various suits filed by the first respondent, alleging infringement against individual farmers. The High Court, according to us, rightly found that there was nothing to establish that these suits were vexatious or that they had been instituted as a predatory tactic of the first respondent. Filing of suits for the protection of rights conferred under the statute, per se cannot be held to be intimidatory or vexatious.”
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The first respondent applied for registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, describing FL 2027 as a new variety seed with the date of first commercial sale indicated to be December 17, 2009, based on an Assignment Deed by the original breeder, to a company in the United States of America, which was an affiliate of the first respondent. The petitioner canvassing the rights of individual farmers, approached the authority for a revocation under Section 34 of the Act. The revocation order passed was challenged by the first respondent before the High Court in an appeal, as provided under the Act.
The Single Judge held in favour of the first respondent in certain aspects and sustained the revocation order on some other aspects. Both the petitioner and the first respondent filed appeals before the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the High Court had dealt with Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act and the allegation of public interest leading to a revocation under Section 34(h).
The Bench was of the view that the High Court rightly found that there was nothing to establish that these suits were vexatious or that they had been instituted as a predatory tactic of the first respondent. The Bench concurred with the view of the High Court that if there was any allegation of a vexatious suit, then the same would have to be raised and proved at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum.
Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was not agitating a personal cause and was attempting to protect the interest of the farmers, the Bench clarified, “...any individual farmer who claims protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act, would be entitled to do so in any proceeding initiated by the first respondent and prove that they come under its cover. However, we make it clear that we cannot restrain the first respondent from taking legal remedies, if their rights are infringed.”
The Bench thus disposed of the Special Leave Petitions holding that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment in appeal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Cause Title: Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 811)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, Advocates Hetvi Patel, Umesh Kumar, Bhanu Pathania, AOR Puja Sharma
Respondent: Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, Advocates Anjali Anchayil, Vibhor Jain, Simarpreet Kaur Matharoo, AOR Dheeraj Nair, Palak Arora