Fastercialmah

This article is written by Adv. Kunal Sinha. He holds eight years of experience in litigation and dispute resolution and represents clients before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, NCLT, NCDRC, and other forums. He is a panel counsel for leading institutes and handles high-stakes commercial, civil and arbitration matters across sectors, including real estate, pharmaceuticals and education. 

Introduction 

In the recent case of Vinod Infra Developers vs. Mahaveer Lunia (2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated an appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The core issue of the case was whether a civil court can decide a case related to ownership rights, which also includes tenancy law governed by the revenue court.

Along with this issue, the jurisdiction of the civil court was also discussed, especially in cases where there are overlapping chances with the revenue courts’ power under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955.           

Lastly, this judgment also elaborated the grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule XI Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a key procedural point for anyone practising civil law.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Land Disputes

Civil Courts have jurisdiction to discuss matters related to title, inheritance, partition, declaration concerning immovable property, including agricultural land, unless any law says otherwise. 

For example, under Rule 202 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, civil courts are not allowed to deal with matters related to land revenue assessment or collection. 

There are several other factors that lead to jurisdictional challenges. Let’s explore some.   

Jurisdictional Overlap with other forums 

The civil courts’ jurisdiction is more often contested, especially in revenue-related matters. That is because the revenue courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters. For instance, Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, explicitly bars the civil courts from entertaining any suit involving tenancy rights. In case a party approaches the civil court for declaratory relief over the property without following the mandatory requirement of declaration of tenancy rights, then other parties may contest such a suit on lack of jurisdiction. 

In this context, placing reliance on Pyare Lal vs Subhendra Piliania and Others (2019), emphasis is placed on the jurisdictional bar imposed by the statute. The dispute involved the appellant seeking cancellation of the gift deed without obtaining khatedari rights from the appropriate revenue authority. Therefore, the Apex Court observed, the appellant could not seek a declaration without obtaining khatedari rights from the competent revenue authority.

Lack of jurisdiction demarcation 

At times, the legislature fails to demarcate between civil and other jurisdictions, particularly in cases where mixed questions of judicial and administrative relief are involved, resulting in jurisdictional challenges between civil and other forums with similar jurisdiction.               

Formulation of special laws 

Generally, the concern regarding formulation of special laws are based on lack of specific attention to the distinct nature of dispute and subject matters, which requires establishment of a specialized forum, as before enactment of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, disputes concerning flat allotment of flats were addressed by consumer forums, placing flatbuyers alongside ordinary consumers seeking refunds for defective goods. This led to disproportionate and inefficient adjudication of issues.

For instance, special laws often establish specialised forums dedicated to adjudicate issues exclusively falling within their domain, thereby ensuring subject matter expertise and procedural efficiency, such as the Debt Recovery Tribunal under The Recovery Of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 illustrates a specialised forum, thereby matters exclusively triable by the Debt Recovery Tribunal fall outside the purview of civil courts.

What happened in Vinod Infra Developers vs. Mahaveer Lunia, 2025

Background 

In this case, the Vinod Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership rights over agricultural land. The land in controversy had been transferred through a sale deed executed by Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent no. 1) in his own favour and in favour of other respondents. The execution of the sale deed was based on an unregistered Power of Attorney and an agreement to sell, forming the most contentious aspect of the dispute. 

Meanwhile, respondents moved an application under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the Plaint on the various grounds, including Non-disclosure of cause of action, no mortgage existed, incorrect valuation and insufficient court fees. The Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, dismissed the application in limine (at the outset). However, the High Court, in a revision petition, reversed the order passed by the Additional District Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. (appellant) brought a civil appeal before the Apex Court.  

Findings of the Apex Court 

The Apex Court in the civil appeal examined the interplay between the jurisdiction of Civil courts to confer title and the jurisdiction of revenue authorities to determine khatedari Rights under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The respondent’s grievance was primarily directed at the procedural irregularity committed by the appellant in initiating civil proceedings. The contention was confined to the procedural lapse in instituting suit without first obtaining khatedari rights.  

Consequently, the Apex Court negated the pleadings concerning such procedural lapse and allowed the civil appeal. Additionally, the Apex Court by referring to Section 17 & 49 of Registration Act, 1908, which require mandatory registration of non-testamentary instruments executed to assign rights, outrightly held that the unregistered power of attorney and the agreement to sell were inadmissible before the court of law, as the said documents were mandatorily required to be registered for the purpose of effectuating the valid transfer of the property. 

Additionally, the Apex Court also relied upon Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which stipulates that a mere contract of sale, even if accompanied by possession, does not, by itself, create any interest over such property. The court also referred to Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates that documents requiring compulsory registration must be registered within 4 months from the date of execution. Lastly, the Apex Court, while examining Order VII Rule XI of the CPC, 1908, observed that if even a single triable issue is disclosed in the plaint, it cannot be rejected summarily. 

Key Findings 

Applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 

The Supreme Court made it very clear that only in limited circumstances a plaint under Order VII Rule XI can be rejected. Basically, if the plaint fails to disclose the cause of action or is barred by any law or is undervalued or is not stamped properly, it can be rejected. It was also observed that when there is any triable issue that seems on the face of the records, the plaint should not be rejected, and the matter must be allowed to move forward for trial.

Uphold the jurisdiction of the civil court 

The Court reaffirmed that civil courts have the power to discuss cases related to the transfer of title or the grant of declaratory relief over Immovable property. However, the Court overlooked the procedural requirement that before asking for any derogatory relief, one is required to obtain tenancy rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955.   

Affording a fair opportunity to cure the defect 

While looking into the matter of insufficient court fees, the Court relied on its earlier decision in Tajendra Singh Ghambir & Another Vs Gurpreet Singh & Others (2014). It was cleared that the suit cannot be dismissed solely because of insufficient court fees. The law gives a chance to the plaintiff to rectify such procedural mistakes. 

Application of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Apex Court relied upon the pleadings of the appellant concerning the transaction under agreement to sell was a mortgage arrangement, falling within the exception to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (Section 95 Bhartiya shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), thereby it can be testified through oral and extrinsic evidence to elucidate the true nature of the transaction. The proviso (1) to section 92, permits the oral testimony to invalidate any document which was executed to get a decree in his favor on failure of consideration, as in instant case the appellant argued that consideration for ‘sale’ was never truly existed the said documents were not intended to transfer the title, rather the same were in substance of mortgage.  

Inadmissibility of unregistered instruments 

The Apex Court reiterated the well-settled law regarding the mandatory registration of documents under the Registration Act, 1908, to effectuate a sale transaction, holding that an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell is inadmissible in evidence to effectuate such a transaction. 

In this context, reliance is rightly placed on Muruganandam vs Muniyandi (Died) Through LRs (2025), where the Apex Court outrightly held that unregistered documents may be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance. The court also referred to its earlier findings in S Kaladevi vs V.R. Somasundaram (2010), which affirms this well-settled principle.    

Mutation is merely an administrative consequence

The Apex Court rightly held that mutation entries are merely for fiscal purposes and do not confer any title. Particularly in this case, it was an administrative consequence of the execution of the sale deed. 

In this context, the court placed reliance on  Suraj Bhan vs Financial Commissioner, (2007) & Jitendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021), where the Apex Court reiterated the settled principle that Civil courts are well-equipped to confer title of immovable Property, mere mutation of names is not sufficient to establish title. 

Invalidation of the sale deed 

The Apex Court invalidated the execution of the sale deed, as the execution was carried out after the revocation of such power of attorney; such a transaction is deemed non-est in law.

While adjudicating the issue concerning mandatory registration of documents under the Registration Act, 1908, the Apex Court specifically observed that an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell can only be relied upon for a collateral purpose for specific performance.               

What makes this case Stand Out

This judgment is distinguishable from earlier findings, as particularly in this case, the Apex Court failed to classify the procedural lapse concerning the failure of declaration of khatedari rights by the appellant before obtaining declaratory reliefs from the civil court, as the appellant’s own pleadings reflect their status as khatedari tenants. 

Despite this, the Court failed to appreciate the jurisdiction of revenue courts for the declaration of khatedari rights under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. This procedural lapse concerning the failure of declaration of khatedari rights by the appellant is in the violation of procedural integrity of revenue courts, as it is well-established that the party cannot seek declaratory relief from a civil court until the administrative requirements are not accompanied therewith. 

In this context, the Apex Court findings in Pyarelal vs Shubhendra Pilania (2019), under a similar set of facts, the court outrightly held that a plaintiff seeking cancellation of a gift deed must first establish his status as Khatedar, and such declaration is a prerequisite for seeking such relief. This principle was also reaffirmed in Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajeet Singh (2023), where a similar view was taken by the  High Court of Rajasthan, while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Likewise, in Sunil v. Ostwal Phoschem (India) Ltd. (2023), the court demonstrated that civil courts are not entitled to entertain a suit until the valid declaration of Khatedari Rights by the Revenue Court. 

Notwithstanding the fact, the Supreme Court appears to have misapprehended the core arguments, as respondents never disputed the jurisdiction of civil courts to confer title per se, or argued that the revenue court had such jurisdiction. Rather, their arguments were deeply rooted in the mandatory declaration of khatedari rights, before instituting the civil suit. 

The earlier pronouncements of this court were rendered on distinct factual matrices, wherein revenue court proceedings were either pending or actively contested. However, in the instant matter, no such proceeding was pending. Accordingly, the earlier findings are not directly applicable to the present case.  

Critical analysis and some unaddressed contentions

The judgment raises a mix of factual and legal questions. But there are still some common issues that haven’t been answered, such as:

Not recorded the findings of the High Court 

It seems that the Court missed the observation of the High Court regarding the party’s status as a tenant. This is essential when applying Section 207. 

The main issue was related to the procedural lapse. The suit was filed without first obtaining the khatedari rights. But since the findings were made in isolation, it should have been looked at alongside the observations of the High Court.  

Didn’t examine the veracity of the unilateral revocation 

The Court did not question the validity of the appellant’s move to revoke the power of attorney. This revocation was done without providing any notice to the respondent and also without providing them a chance to be heard. Since the document was formulated to make the decision in favour of the respondent, this was an utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Such documents could not have been revoked without them agreeing.

No clarification on the jurisdiction sequence  

The Court did recognise the jurisdiction of the civil court in declaratory relief matters. It also acknowledge the jurisdiction the revenue court for khatedari matters. But there was no discussion on how these two issues are connected. 

It is a set rule that a party is not allowed to pray for declaratory relief from a civil court until the administrative steps are finished. The question was whether the jurisdiction of the civil court would be impacted if the matter involves mandatory declaration of khatedari rights and ownership rights. 

Overlooked documentary evidence on the behest of oral testimony

There were some arguements presented by the respondents. These were related to the execution of the documents within the relevant time frame. This also included the sale agreement and was a strong evidence of the sale transaction. It showed that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale. But these arguments were completey missed. 

It instead chose to rely on the oral testimony to interepret the actual transaction and this wrongly brought Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 into play. 

Balance between Statutory Bar and Legal Right

Moreover, the Apex Court failed to balance the express statutory bar under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 with the enforcement of legal rights, as the Apex Court failed to appreciate the jurisdiction of revenue court in matters concerning khatedari rights vis-a-vis enlarged the scope of civil court jurisdiction, enabling litigants to approach civil courts without obtaining khatedari rights, or without following any procedural requirement (i.e. mutation of names in revenue records). 

Does this decision expand or limit the avenues available to parties in land disputes?  

This decision expands the avenues available to the litigants by broadening the scope of civil court jurisdiction, particularly in matters concerning ownership rights. The court also imposed the restriction on premature rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly where a triable issue is disclosed in the plaint. Additionally, the court reiterated the plaintiff’s right to cure procedural defects –insufficient court fees and stamping, thereby securing civil remedies.               

Impact on small landholders or developers

Furthermore, this precedent may strengthen the legal protection of small landholders, as from now onwards, the registration of documents is compulsory. This judicial recognition of mandatory registration of documents may enhance the standards of legal compliance, which may protect the small landholders from losing property through informal documentation. On the other hand, this judgement may have grave implications for small or large-scale developers, as this judgement effectively mandates the developers to conduct due diligence before executing any relevant documents and also emphasises that mere notarization is not sufficient to effectuate the claim.       

Practical implications for legal practitioners

This precedent carries significant implications for both litigants and real-estate consultants, as this judgment reinforces concerns regarding registration compliance to effectuate the transfer of title, and also reaffirms the jurisdiction of the civil court in transferring the title of the immovable property. The detailed version is as follows – 

No legal sanctity of unregistered documents 

Unregistered documents hold no legal sanctity in transferring title, thereby putting stakeholders, particularly land developers, on alert to ensure strict compliance to statutory provisions. 

Procedural fairness Vs. Legal Rights 

The findings of the Apex Court affirm that the cancellation of a sale deed without obtaining khatedari rights ensures the litigants’ access to civil remedies without following the rigorous process of revenue courts, thereby safeguarding the interest of the small land-holders.  

Limitation on the scope of Order VII Rule XI

The court narrows down the scope of Order VII Rule XI, provides procedural ventilation to litigants, by reaffirming that even if a single triable issue is disclosed in the plaint, then such a lawsuit is sustainable, thereby enlarging the operational scope of civil court jurisdiction. 

Mutation entries are not sufficient to confer the title 

The court also clarified that merely the mutation of names is not sufficient to confer any title, as it is merely an administrative consequence. Consequently, the burden is now on the claimants to substantiate their title over immovable property through proper legal instruments, instead of relying on revenue entries

Nonetheless, the lack of clarity on the interplay between the grant of declaratory relief and the declaration of khatedari rights leaves litigants in a state of procedural uncertainty. This judicial silence warrants legislative clarification to harmonise the functions of the civil and revenue courts.  

Pre-contractual instrument 

Now, litigants must be more cautious in terms of unilateral execution and revocation of documents, as in this case, the court vehemently relied upon the revoked Power of Attorney while rejecting the sale deed.    

Expert Review: Striking a balance between judicial innovation and legislative silence

The Vinod Infra Developers judgment gives clarity on how the civil courts and revenue authorities work together in land disputes. It was made clear by the Court that it is the Tenancy Act that can deal with the disputes related to tenancy. But, yes, in the matter of the title and ownership, the civil court can decide the issue.

What do I see as the key takeaway from the decision? It is that this judgment stood strong against the usage of informal and unregistered documents for property transfer. The Court focused on the importance of proper registration and took a step to prevent misuse of ensure certainty in property transactions.

However, there are still some unresolved issues. There is still no proper legislative clarity on how those cases will be dealt with in which both tenancy and ownership issues are involved. Now, because of this gap, out of confusion, the litigants choose the best option that suits their interest, hence, forum shopping and procedural delays.

Well! Critics may argue that this judgment could weaken the revenue courts’ authority or may lead to premature title claims. Even so, by affirming the power of the civil courts, this judgment helps avoid prolonged litigation, especially in those cases where the parties’ status is unclear or disputed.          

Conclusion and Recommendation    

In this case, the Apex Court revisited the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to effect transfer of title, emphasised the statutory requirement of registration of documents, and also clarified the grounds for rejection of the plaint. Nevertheless, the court failed to address the core issue concerning the declaration of khatedari rights before invoking civil jurisdiction. Notably, this omission reveals the jurisdictional ambiguity and warrants a revisit of the application of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955. Moreover, legislative intervention is necessary to expel such ambiguity by limiting the jurisdiction of civil courts to preserve the functional relevance and exclusivity; otherwise, the formulation of revenue courts would become nugatory. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

1. Under what conditions will the application under Order VII Rule XI be allowed? 

An application under O.7 R.11 can be allowed on certain grounds, which are as follows:

• Non-Disclouser of Cause of Action 
• Non-payment of court fees, despite the specific directions from the court. 
• Suit barred by law 
• Plaint not properly stamped
• Plaint no filed in duplicate 
• Non-compliance with Order VII Rule 9.

2. What is the cause of action in reference to Order 7 Rule 11(a) 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs Poniamman Educational Trust, (2012) elucidated that, ‘Cause of Action’ is a bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff the right to sue. It includes a set of facts that are instrumental to obtaining a decree from the court must be set out in very clear terms.   

3. Whether the civil court is entitled to confer the title of the disputed land? 

Section 9, read with Explanation 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers a civil court to try all suits of a civil nature, particularly those involving property rights, unless expressly or impliedly barred by a statute.

4. What is the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955?

This Act intends to consolidate and alter the previous laws relating to agricultural land in the State of Rajasthan, and also provides certain land reforms and matters connected therewith.   

References

Section 9 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd vs Mahaveer Lunia, 2025

Order 7, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 

Section 207 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 

Pyarelal vs Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through …, 2019

Section 17 Registration Act, 1908 

Section 49 Registration Act, 1908 

Section 54 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 

Section 23 Registration Act, 1908 

Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir & Anr vs Sardar Gurpreet Singh & Ors on 12 September, 2014

Muruganandam vs Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs, 2025

S.Kaladevi vs V.R.Somasundaram & Ors on 12 April, 2010

Suraj Bhan & Ors vs Financial Commissioner & Ors on 16 April, 2007

Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 

Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar … vs Ajeet Singh, 2023

Sunil vs Ostwal Phoschem (India) Ltd … on 6 January, 2025

Section 92 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 

Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Edu vs M/S. Ponniamman Educational Trust Rep., 2012

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack

The blog is written by Adv. Niyati Sharma. She holds over six years of experience in high-stakes litigation, corporate advisory, and regulatory compliance. She is a senior panel counsel for the Union of India in the Delhi High Court and represents government departments and clients in the Supreme Court of India. Her expertise spans POSH compliance, corporate and employment law and complex regulatory issues. With her passion for policy reforms and women’s empowerment in governance, she contributes legal writing, panel discussions and mentoring future legal professionals.  

Let’s begin

Don’t you think that our educational institutes aren’t just meant to be a centre for getting knowledge, but also a protector of it’s talent? Educational institutions are meant to nurture and protect the minds. But these days, protection has turned into exploitation in various places. Why do you think colleges have turned into an uncomfortable and scary place? Educational Institutions have become a place where students face sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can take place by way of touch, comments, and sometimes even by inhumane acts like rape. Mostly, many students stay quiet. They are afraid of what society might say or think. Those who don’t want to stay quiet are made silent.

We can talk about the recent case at one of the reputed Medical Colleges in India. A trainee doctor was killed in the case of RG Kar Medical College. After that terrible case of sexual assault and murder, we saw protests across the nation. Most of us also started thinking that those who save our lives are also not safe. People started thinking whether the colleges are actually safe. The questions were raised regarding the rules and regulations formulated for protection against sexual harassment. 

Well! Most of us said that Laws must work and not just exist. We have a special law for sexual harassment of women at their place of work. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, deals with these kinds of cases. Basically, every workplace has to create an ICC, i.e. Internal Complaints Committee. This ICC at the workplace is meant to help anyone facing sexual harassment. But the thing is that many places treat it as a formality.

Recently, many colleges have started building better and safer places for everyone. But do you think it is enough? Who do you think is responsible for this? What do you think should be done by the victim? And most importantly, what can these institutions do to tackle sexual harassment? 

Myth vs reality

Talking about Myths, there are many surrounding sexual harassment. Don’t you think myths hide realities about sexual harassment in learning institutions? These wrong ideas end up protecting wrongdoers and make it harder for victims to get justice.

Myth 1 

These incidents take place only in isolated areas. 

But actually, the truth is, it can happen anywhere. For instance, sexual harassment can be in the form of irrelevant remarks in group discussions. Assuming that there is a woman engaged in debate, and she is arguing for the motion. Seeing this, the opponents are so pissed that they called her a ‘Slut’ and made remarks like ‘Shut up!’. This is not something that is to be taken normally.

Moreover, it includes gender-centric vulgar jokes during class interactions, unrequited staring in the library, etc.

Myth 2

Most of the harassers are strangers. 

This is a common belief. But the reality is different. Most of the attackers are someone who is known to the victims. Now, when I say known then this includes classmates and even faculty members. 

There have been some incidents, like a PhD scholar reported a sexual harassment case against a professor who attacked her, in Sambalpur University, in 2024.

Another incident is, there was a professor in Delhi University who was ordered to take mandatory retirement by the Delhi High Court in 2023.

Why? 

It is because an M.Phil. student was subjected to sexual intimidation by him. He was sending inappropriate messages to her. The disciplinary action against him was considered correct by the Court. 

Myth 3

Blaming the victim. 

People blame the victim instead of the harasser. For example, it is often the clothes worn and the way they act that result in these activities. 

Myth 4

These assaults happen with only women. 

But it is not only women but also all underprivileged groups. It includes male, transgender, and non-binary students.

The educational institutes need to recognise these facts to break the myths.

Understanding the fear of speaking out

Why do students fear confronting institutions in sexual harassment cases? What stops their voices from being heard? 

There was a review published by the Asian Review of Social Sciences. There were reasons listed, which were communication challenges and breakdowns on the part of institutions. It also combined reasons with social stigma, suppressed reporting, and prolonged campus-based violence. Students fear campus-based isolation, academic/personal revenge, losing reputation, and friendships. 

In  2018, 15 IIT Bombay students accused a senior-cum-mentor of sexual harassment and assault. However, delayed actions on the part of the redressal channels by the institution triggered a sense of suspicion and sent across a clear message, i.e. collective action can also be ignored. 

These incidents highlight the challenges encountered by victims because of a lack of institutional accountability, fear of retribution, and the communal cost. 

Role played by the institutions

It needs to be realised that encouraging silence and facts suppression empowers culprits. It can also pave the way for more serious crimes. So, it can be said that the prompt implementation of rules and policies strengthens the voices. 

There are several steps that institutions can take to strengthen the victim’s voice. 

Clear policies and procedures establishment

Comprehensive anti-harassment policies are required that mention all unacceptable behaviour and consequences. 

Safe and supportive reporting mechanisms

A confidential and simple reporting channel is required to be created. This must have multiple reporting options, like online reporting or offline reporting and be available for everyone. 

Fair and transparent investigation

A proper, impartial committee must be formed, and the staff must be trained to take complaints with empathy. The victim must be updated about every process and progress. While balancing the need for accountability, confidentiality must be maintained.

Strengthening the victim’s voice

Victim-centred support is required. It must consist of mandatory medical care, academic support and proper counselling sessions for victims. An anonymous setup must be prepared for victims that would allow them to present their story without any hesitation. Proper legal guidance must be provided.

A proper system helps students in building their confidence, as much as this increases their belief in the administration to the same level, this deters the wrongdoers. 

Justice for other genders

For the protection of female students, the cornerstone is the POSH Act, which is gender specific and has created a rights-based safety net in the universities. This protection is further strengthened under the UGC Regulation 2015. 

But do we have anything for male students? 

Well! The question should also include the LGBTQI+ students and the students who fall outside this community umbrella. What about them?

Thanks to the constitutional frameworks like Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty), along with the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions 2009, which includes rules related to no harassment and no discrimination.   

But again, what happens when these act takes a criminal turn? 

Like stalking, or sexual assault, or intimidation? 

Here is when the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 plays its role, it criminalises the acts under different Sections. Sections 74, 75, and 76 for assault, Section 351 for criminal intimidation, and Section 78 for stalking.  

Recent judicial and policy developments

As usual, Indian legal machinery is evolving and has resorted to resilient measures while encountering challenges against gender-oriented crimes. Different judgments by the Apex Court outline that a safe educational environment is a constitutional right. 

You know, in early 2025, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reinforced the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) guidelines driven by consent. The Court directed trauma training for campus administrators to promote victim-centric solutions. This ruling of the Supreme Court promotes the interest of the victim and confirms that it shall be ranked over the reputation of the institution.

The 2024-2025 UGC circulars, that was emphasized under the 2025 ruling by the Supreme Court, include several things. Now it is also required to have a training program of ten hours for new students to raise awareness. The colleges are required to show information about POSH law, ICC and UGC regulations, etc, along with helpline numbers such as 181 and 112 across campus and on the website. Besides that, colleges have to share the compliance reports on the portals such as SAKSHAM and the University Activity Monitoring Portal (UAMP) to promote transparency and accountability. We can say that this case promotes the interest of victims and directs that it is important than the reputation of colleges. But the colleges should work honestly to help the students or else these compliances are just another formality.

Thus, the foundation and the execution of these reforms together will lead to the resolution and reduction of gender-based violence. 

Towards a safer future

Our institutions are plagued by sexual harassment incidents. This is further fuelled by ignoring and creating an unhealthy learning environment. We do have existing laws, but why are institutions still not able to implement them properly? What is lacking? 

Nothing but a strict system that supports the victim and not the myths, which often protect the offenders. 

So where should they start?

It should start with implementing a non-negotiable safety measure, bringing a strict zero-tolerance policy, setting up proper internal complaint committees and training committee staff to handle delicate cases. A proper complaint system, which is available for all and unbiased, is also required.    

A combined effort of students and faculty is required for upholding respect and supporting victims. The institution must focus on accountability and victim dignity over reputation.

At the same time, just setups won’t work; proper functioning of these setups is also essential, because true change would only come when awareness turns into concrete action.   

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

1. How can institutions tackle online sexual harassment cases?

Along with a proper functioning complaint channel, proper digital safety training is required. Proper monitoring on online platforms can be done. Students can be trained about online boundaries through peer ambassador programs.    

2. How effective is the witness mediation training?

Witness Mediation training programs are mostly effective when they help participants with intervention skills, build their confidence to safely act and create a culture where everyone feels responsible for addressing and avoiding any harassment acts. 

3. What is the role of parents in strengthening safety on campuses?

The very first step parents should take is to make their relationship with their kids comfortable so that they are able to share what they face. Being aware of the campus policies is also essential, and standing with the victim and holding the institution accountable when required. 

4. How can teachers help prevent sexual harassment?

Many students see the teachers as role models, so the teachers should play that role wisely by becoming a protector. For example,  Ashoka University has a Committee Against Sexual Harassment (CASH) that is its Internal Complaints Committee, and professors actively take sessions with new students to raise awareness against sexual harassment. When teachers are there to guide, there’s a huge difference in the confidence level of students. These kinds of sessions make students feel safe and comfortable in college.

References

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack

This blog is written by Sidhartha Das, a seasoned Advocate, specialised in Intellectual Property Law and Senior Partner at Auromaa Associates. With extensive experience in Trademarks, Patents, Copyrights and Industrial Designs, he has represented clients in high-stakes cases before the Supreme Court of India and IP forums. His work blends legal expertise with business acumen to deliver strategic, precedent-setting solutions.     

Introduction

A lot of headlines have been made in recent days about the registration of a trademark application of the name Operation Sindoor, which has raised concerns about the registration of a trademark for the same name. The fact that the operation itself was a great initiative of the armed forces of our country, but it was also an opportunity to be witnessed by some people. And you will be amazed to know that there were about 23 applications made to obtain a trademark on the name and commercially use it, in India, the USA and the UK.  

Where others saw it as a business opportunity and lacked sensitivity, others claimed that this would water down the value and the purpose of the operation. It has now become a big legal and moral question, and there is a lot of opposition from the general populace and legal observers.

This posed a question whether any government or military activity is permitted to have a treatment as any other name with regard to trademarks? 

In order to comprehend and analyse this in a more efficient manner, we are going to break down the legal part of this, and we will know about additional guidelines that can assist us in examining whether a national military operation can be turned into a commercial brand.

What is a Trademark? Meaning and scope 

To comprehend the legal boundary of this concept in India, our discussion should start with understanding ‘Trademark’.

Section 2 (1) (zb) of the  Trademarks Act, 1999 defines a ‘Trademark’ as a sign that can be expressed graphically and is able to differentiate the goods or services of an individual over those of other people and may also include the shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colour. The logos, symbols or names that we see on any product or service tend to represent this idea. 

Nevertheless, the commercial connotation in it is much deeper. A trademark is a personification of the company in the market. Each trademark contributes a lot more than any tangible asset to the financial worth of a business. As such, it needs an equivalent degree of protection, and this protection is achieved by the rights of a trademark. 

When it comes to anything like an idea, a product or a war, there is always a name to be given to it, and there is always a race to win the name. When one possesses such a name then that person gains a competitive advantage over it. A trademark facilitates the prevention of the use of a similar name by others,  which may mislead people. For instance, you cannot use a brand name like Adidas, the half-eaten Apple logo, or the brand image like the Amul Girl because it belongs to another business. 

In case an individual makes an attempt, the actual owner may initiate an infringement case under Section 28  of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This is even more sensitive in cases where the name has national or emotional attachment, such as the name of a government operation.

What can be identified as ‘Government Operation’?

The actions, which are taken by the government and, in fact, by the military, are often referred to as the ‘Government Operations’, and are considered as the ones that are important. The names may have missions that bear names of the code, peacekeeping assignments or rescuing ones. The names of Operation Khukri, Operation Sindoor, Operation Meghdoot and Operation Bluestar are all such operations that are very important with reference to national importance. 

India lacks a strict legal framework that can prevent any person from trademarking the name of a government operation. However, in case the Defence Ministry is interested in registering any such name, then it can forbid other individuals from obtaining a trademark on such names.

So, the question that arises is, why are such trademark applications rejected? The response to this is that the usage of the name of any government operation by one individual can easily deceive people, and they may begin to believe that such an individual with the trademark may have some official support or even government backing. They may as well hurt religious or public feelings, in many cases. These are the reasons that are stated in Section 9 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, that grant the government the right to deny such registrations.

Whenever a company records any trademark that is also profound nationally, the likelihood is that it might gain an unfair advantage or profits in the marketplace. In the majority of cases, individuals have a rather natural tendency toward the names that once had some emotional content and above all, when they are linked with some government activities or any other events within the country. Thus, when these names are registered as a trademark, it do not only get the brand name but also identify and acquire the sentiments and trust of the masses. 

Operation Khukri vs. Operation Sindoor 

If we look at the very few precedents that are available on this concept, we come across the trademark registration of ‘Operation Khukri’ by Abundantia Entertainment Private Limited. 

The question here arises that in case of a Government Operation name that has already been registered as a trademark, then why is the same being criticised under a new and recent occurrence? It is also striking to note that despite falling under the same class, i.e Class 41 of the Nice Classification System dealing with services related to media, entertainment, education, culture, etc., we see different outcomes in the two cases. 

The potential responses to these questions are moving around the factual situation of the cases in terms of their magnitude, timing, social reaction and legal strategies. Operation Khukri was one of the major military activities conducted by the Indian forces in a UN Peacekeeping Mission. The contrast is that it was not a situation of moment trademarking as a display of opportunism since it was registered 23 years later than the mission, and that too by only one applicant. On the contrary, the trademark application of Operation Sindoor, which is a government operation, has merely proved to be a time of self-interested business fulfilment. In the current conflict between the two countries, many persons indicated their interest in trademarking it immediately, whereas in the Operation Khukri, the case was not similar. 

Operation Sindoor trademarking can be interpreted as the act of desperate commercialisation of an operation that has national sentiments. On the other hand, decades-old Operation Khukri is associated with an entire UN operation and war valour, whereas Operation Sindoor is a symbolic and cultural story. Operation Khukri may be recalled as military heritage, and Operation Sindoor is associated with national mourning..

What are the limitations on trademarking the name of Government Operations?

To determine the legal requirement to file the trademark registration of a Government Operation name, we must consider the varying grounds of rejection of a trademark registration application.

Trademarks Act, 1999

There are two grounds of rejection under the Trademarks Act, 1999, which are absolute and relative.  The absolute grounds are associated with the lack of such attributes which are inherent in the trademark as such, and the lack of which causes the application for registration to be stopped. There is a lack of uniqueness, having a mark that defines its value (be it geographic, qualitative, quantitative, etc.) in any manner, using common language words or tarnished as being against any law or concepts of morality. Furthermore, the Act u/S 9(2)(d) prohibits the registration of any trademark that may lead to any confusion amongst the public, deception of the public or is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act,1950.

For example, words like sweet, laptop and rasoi cannot be used as trademarks because they indicate the nature of the product, as held in the case of M/s Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks [AIR 1955 Cal. 519]. Such absolute grounds of disqualification are to be found in Section 9 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This is to avoid fraudulent activities that might mislead the general populace by causing them confusion about a certain product.

Trademark Co-existence and Implications for a Government Operation Name 

The relative grounds of refusal are supposed to consider the trademark with those ones that are in existence. This means that a trademark may be rejected when it is protected under the Copyright Law, or it has already got a large consumer base, either in the number of customers it has or through its channels of distribution or when it has been protected under any other law. 

Let’s see the case of Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnatak Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Limited (AIR 2018 SC 3516). This was a mark infringement case on the registration of the names Nandhini and Nandini. The Apex Court ruled that co-existence of both marks may be permitted even in the face of similarities. 

Alright, but can any other party come and make a slight alteration to the names of Government Operations and have the trademark registered? 

We must see the background of the above judgment. The goods in question were associated with restaurant services and dairy products, and the parties had no common goods since the nature of the goods provided by them was different, and the co-existence was approved. But the case of a Government Operation name is not the same. In case the changes, which have been done in the name of the operation, are of such a nature that it is impossible to draw an inter-relation between the same very easily, then there is a possibility of co-existence. Also, it would depend on the purpose of using such a name, but the existing law might not be able to justify it in the scenario of living alongside such a trademark that has the emotional load of a national tragedy, which can elicit thousands of feelings in people.

Well, what if a trademark is being used not to make a profit? Then we would normally assume that it can be granted as a trademark because there is no intention to make a profit out of it. This question was settled in Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International & Anr, I.A. NO. 9089/2010 in CS (OS). Here, Greenpeace was an NGO that took the logo and trademark of TATA and argued that it was a fair comment, followed by criticism through a parody of the logo and trademark. The aim was to raise awareness for non-commercial use.

They claimed that it would come under freedom of speech and expression and denied the allegations of TATA that it infringed their registered trademark u/S 29(4) of the Act. In this case, the injunction was denied, regarding some of the main arguments, such as the fact that the work of parody might be distinguished from the original one, and it was unlikely to cause confusion between customers. 

But when we are discussing the trademarking of a government operation, then it is possible that it might not pass the distinctiveness test u/S 9 of the Act. When the changes effected in the name of the operation are of such a character that it could not be easily supposed that there was any inter-relation between the same, then co-existence may be admitted. 

Public Sentiment and Religious Considerations in Trademark Registration

Other than the above reasons, which evaluate the trademarks on technical grounds, we have to also consider the wider societal and religious reasons why the names of government operations are not registered. It is important to know how the trademarking of the word Operation Sindoor can offend the religious sentiments of individuals. 

This operation is the outcome of the recent misfortune of tourists in Pahalgam. It gets its name from a sense of unity and nationality among the people of India. In India, the word Sindoor has a religious connotation as well. Thus, it is possible to say that the commercial benefits of such usage of a name may damage the overall mood of the population.

State, Sentiment and Section 9

The Trademark Act, u/S 9(2)(b), does not allow registration of any trademark that may offend religious susceptibilities. Some people can also see in this as trying to commercialise national tragedy and collective mourning in order to make money. In May 2025, there was a PIL before the Supreme Court on similar grounds. The petition emphasised the feelings of citizens and the sacrifices behind this operation.

Reliance Industries was also on the list of people running after the trademark of Operation Sindoor a few days before the aforementioned PIL. However, shortly after they were met with a Public backlash, they pulled their application back and published a statement, which attributed it to a mistake made by a junior employee. 

The foundation of PIL is in Section 9, which is mainly concerned with the absolute grounds of refusal to register a trademark. In addition to that, in India, there exists a facilitatory organisation called the ‘Trademark Registry’ that governs the rules and regulations regarding trademark registration in India. When it comes to the application, in case the Registry feels the necessity to ask any query regarding the application, it may also call the applicants to and fro. 

The registry would also highlight Section 9(2)(b) in the application of a case such as Operation Sindoor to establish that the application is damaging the religious feelings of the people of India. In case there is space for the same, then it might be rejected by the registry after verification, as long as the concerns are not addressed. The grounds of refusal would be difficult because it is frequently influenced by the current state of affairs at the time of filing.

Preventing False Government Affiliation in Trademark Registration

No name capable of bearing the relevance or bearing of the Government of India or bearing a relevance to that of a state government can be registered as a trademark as stipulated in Section 3 Clause 7 Emblems and Names (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 1950. It may also be stated that in case of any government operation, any attempt by any private company to or wanting to register any name as trademark then the registration of the trademark is denied on the basis that it may give a false impression to the people that it may be a government supported or approved trademark. 

The other major basis of denying trademark registration is when the mark suggests that it is linked to the national defence; in that case, the registry will reject it. This is not an expressly given ground, but can be an implied ground of rejection. In case a company or a business begins to use a Government Operation name, there is a possibility that the general population may come to believe that the products or services being marketed are in some way associated with or a part of the national defence of India. 

Accordingly, rejection of a trademark registration of the name of a government operation is exhaustive as per both legal and public interest.

Balancing national significance and private trademark claims

People have profit-making interests, and hence the whole talk about the trademark of Government Operation names. The fame of the operation rendered its name tempting to economic interests. Nevertheless, due to the sheer amount of condemnation and the fact that the applicants were not able to demonstrate that they wanted to use the specific Operation Sindoor as a trademark, the applications were turned down. 

That is not the real issue to be decided, as the position of the law is uncertain on two aspects: 

• First, whether the government can trademark the names and 
• Second, whether there should be permission given to the private parties to trademark the name of a government operation. 

Preferably, rights to a Government Operation name should be vested in the Government, as is the case with Emblems, Flag, etc. No privately owned entity should be permitted to trademark such a name of national significance unless a considerable lapse of time has taken place and the trademark applicant can demonstrate that it has a good faith intent of use.

Conclusion

The whole discussion that we carried out provided us with the outcome that no strict laws exist that can be applied to trademark the name of government operations. India must do something to control these things and may prevent the people from using the incidents of national concern. The recent incident of trademarking the name of Operation Sindoor is an instance of moment trademark, and that too with a motive to trademark on a very significant moment in the history of India. 

It is not a new piece of news; in the era of COVID-19, several companies have developed an interest and filed trademarks on the term COVID-19. These situations provide impetus to the development of a solid legal framework and to prevent the distortion of the name, which is associated with the memory of the population.  A regulatory body would assist in defining the boundary between respect and commercial profit.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

1. Is the trademarking of the unclaimed names, like Government Operations is granted based on ‘first come, first served’?

No, it is not given on a first-come, first-served basis. It perceives the mood of the people, their unique nature, as well as the probability of misleading the minds of the people. Hence, the earliest filer on a trademark registration is not automatically approved.

2. Are Military Operation names the Intellectual Property of the Government?

This question has an answer which rests on the fact, i.e. whether it has been registered as a trademark by the government. When the answer is yes, then it turns out to be an intellectual property of the Government. Yet, trademarking of names of military actions is not a common government move. In this case, the names of the military operation are not automatically covered by the intellectual property law just because they were state projects. Hence, the doors are left open to allow the attempts of the private parties to trademark the names.

3. What does ‘Moment Trademarking’ mean, and how is this related to ‘Operation Sindoor’?

Moment Trademarking refers to the process of applying the trademark to the marks, names and symbols that are linked with the events of public interest that are prevailing at that particular time. The most iconic example of moment trademarking is the trademark race of the matter concerning Operation Sindoor. It was considered an ideal occasion to acquire exclusive rights to the name that has a buzz around it.

References 

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack