Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 gives a commercial rival no right to appeal against a grant of insecticide registration, the Supreme Court has held, restoring Crystal Crop Protection Ltd’s registration certificate for Halosulfuron methyl that the Delhi High Court had quashed.
New Delhi: Crystal Crop Protection Ltd’s registration to import Halosulfuron methyl technical 98% min. and to manufacture its 75% WG formulation in India stands restored after the Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment that had quashed it at the instance of the company’s competitor, Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. The Court ruled that the appeal remedy under Section 10 of the Insecticides Act is available only against a refusal or cancellation of registration, and that a business rival is not a “person aggrieved” who can invoke it against a grant [Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v. Dhanuka Agritech Ltd & Others].
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed the order on October 14, 2026, granting leave in SLP (C) No. 22380 of 2026 and allowing the appeal.
Who is a “person aggrieved” under Section 10
Section 10 provides that any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registration Committee under Section 9 may appeal to the Central Government within 30 days from the date the decision is communicated to him. Dhanuka’s counsel relied on the words “any person aggrieved”. The Court rejected that reading:
“Though, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has placed reliance upon the expression ‘any person aggrieved’ provided under Section 10 of the 1968 Act, the same can be applicable only to a case of non-registration or cancellation of registration of insecticides… Certainly, the private respondent before us cannot be termed as ‘a person aggrieved’ to invoke the remedy of an appeal, as provided under Section 10 of the 1968 Act.”
The Bench pointed out that Section 10 requires the decision of non-registration or cancellation to be communicated to the person entitled to appeal, which shows who the remedy is meant for. Holding that the High Court’s judgment could not be sustained “both on merits and also on the principle of law”, it set aside the May 29, 2026 judgment and allowed the appeal, restoring the registration certificate.
A High Court sitting as an appellate authority
On the High Court’s approach, the Bench held that judicial review over such decisions is narrow:
“Certainly, the power of judicial review over an Executive decision, especially one that involves challenge to grant of a license of a commercial competitor or a business rival, is rather limited.”
The Division Bench, it found, “took the role of an Appellate Authority” by reversing the views of the statutory authorities that the Single Judge had confirmed.
From the Registration Committee to the Division Bench
The Registration Committee under the 1968 Act, at its 430th meeting on July 23, 2021 (amended at the 431st meeting on August 27, 2021), granted Crystal Crop Protection a registration certificate under Section 9(3) to import Halosulfuron methyl technical 98% min. and to manufacture its 75% WG formulation in India.
Dhanuka Agritech, a commercial competitor, filed an appeal-cum-revision under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act, which the Appellate/Revisional Authority dismissed on September 10, 2021. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed its writ petition, W.P.(C) 10776/2021, on January 24, 2023. In LPA No. 215/2023, however, a Division Bench reversed the Single Judge on May 29, 2026, setting aside the Registration Committee’s decision and quashing Crystal Crop’s certificate.
What the Union’s affidavit said
The Supreme Court relied on a compliance affidavit filed by the Union of India and the Registration Committee. According to the affidavit, the sample was tested at the Central Insecticide Laboratory, which reported on October 27, 2016 that the technical was 98.53% pure, and the application went through chemistry, bio-efficacy, toxicology and packaging scrutiny.
Dhanuka had objected that the source of import differed from the source of the trial sample. The affidavit said Crystal Crop made a presentation at the 430th meeting and filed an affidavit with an agreement dated December 8, 2010 between Jiangsu Agrochem Laboratory Co. Ltd and Fertiagro Pte Ltd, showing that the sample originated from Jiangsu Agrochem as the original manufacturer. It described Dhanuka’s contentions as “mere surmises and conjectures” and stated that mandatory source verification was found satisfactory.
What the order means for rivals
Rival agrochemical companies often litigate against each other’s product approvals. This order closes the statutory appeal route under Section 10 to competitors objecting to a grant, which reduces the scope for business rivalry to stall registrations once technical scrutiny is complete.
It also reminds High Courts that writ review of licensing decisions by expert bodies is limited, and that a court cannot substitute its own view for that of statutory authorities as if it were hearing an appeal.
Case Title: Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v. Dhanuka Agritech Ltd & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 22380 of 2026
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 14, 2026
Appearance: Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta with AoR Sarvesh Singh for the Appellant; Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, ASG Aishwarya Bhati and others for the Respondents