Courts Supreme Court
Supreme Court bars competitors from challenging rival's insecticide registration
The case concerns a dispute where a commercial competitor challenged the grant of a Registration Certificate for the insecticide Halosulfuron methyl under the Insecticides Act, 1968.
The Supreme Court determined whether a competitor has the legal standing to appeal the registration of a rival's product.
Who it concerns: Petitioner: Crystal Crop Protection Ltd; Respondents: Dhanuka Agritech Ltd & Ors (including Union of India); Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
What the court decided
- The impugned judgment dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 215/2023 is set aside.
- The appeal is allowed.
Also in the document
- The Court held that Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, only facilitates an appeal against non-registration or cancellation, not against the grant of registration.
- The Court found that the private respondent (competitor) cannot be termed as 'a person aggrieved' to invoke the remedy of an appeal under Section 10 of the Act.
- The Court noted that the High Court Division Bench acted as an Appellate Authority and reversed the views of statutory authorities, which the Supreme Court found unsustainable in law.
How this was written
An AI model running on our own computer read the government document and wrote this summary. No person has checked it.
✓ Figures checked. Every number in this summary was found in the document by an automated check.
That check compares numbers only. It cannot confirm that the wording says what the document says — so the original document is always the authority.
The original document
Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments
Court order · 4 Nov 2026
Read it here
Discussion
No one has discussed this document yet.