##PAGE1##

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2026 [@ SLP [C] NO.22380/2026]

CRYSTAL CROP PROTECTION LTD Appellant(s)

VERSUS DHANUKA AGRITECH LTD & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgement dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 215/2023, whereby, the decisions rendered by the statutory authorities under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, the “1968 Act”) granting Registration Certificate to the appellant under Section 9(3) of the 1968 Act, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court were set aside. Consequently, vide the impugned judgement, the decision taken by the respondent No. 4 – Registration Committee in the 430^th Meeting dated 23.07.2021 was also set aside.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL the present appeal are stated hereunder:

Date: 2026.10.31 Reason:

i. The appellant – Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. had filed an application for grant of registration for indigenous manufacture of Halosulfuron methyl, as well as its import before the respondent No. 4- the Registration Committee under the 1968 Act. Accordingly, a Registration Certificate was granted to the appellant under Section 9(3) of the 1968 Act by the respondent No. 4 in the 430^th Meeting dated 23.07.2021 (amended in the 431^st meeting held on 27.08.2021) for the import of Halosulfuron methyl technical 98% min. and for indigenous manufacture of formulation of Halosulfuron methyl 75% WG, after thoroughly verifying records and credentials of the appellant, in various meetings.

ii. Respondent No. 1 – Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. which is a commercial competitor of the appellant, preferred an Appeal-cum-Revision Petition against the said grant of registration certificate by seeking recourse to Sections 10 and 11 of the 1968 Act. The appeal/revision was dismissed by the Appellate/Revisionist Authority vide order dated

10.09.2021.

iii. Aggrieved, the respondent no. 1 preferred Writ Petition (C.) 10776/2021 against the order dated 10.09.2021 before the High Court of Delhi which met the same fate, as the learned Single Judge confirmed the orders passed by the statutory authorities in favour of the appellant while dismissing the writ petition vide judgement dated

24.01.2023.

iv. The judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge was then assailed by the respondent No. 1 before the learned Division Bench wherein, the findings of the learned Single Judge were set aside and subsequently the registration certificate granted in favour of the appellant was quashed. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant is before this Court.

4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent/respondent No.1 and the learned Additional Solicitor General (‘ASG’)

appearing for the respondent(s)- Union of India.

5. During the course of hearing before the Division Bench, the views of the Union of India were sought for. From a perusal of the records placed before this Court, we gather that not only the Compliance Affidavit, but written notes and arguments were also placed before the learned Division Bench. However, with the finding that the order facilitating the said compliance was not given effect to by the Union of India, despite the fact that it was duly carried on, the decision was rendered by exercising the power of judicial review.

6. Though arguments have been made on merits by both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-company and the private respondent-company, respectively, we are inclined to take into consideration the Compliance Affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2-4, Union of India in purported compliance of the orders dated 02.07.2026 and 21.09.2026 passed by this Court. We deem it appropriate to note the following relevan