List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar has observed and stressed the need for listing bail applications pertaining to the same First Information Report (FIR) before one single bench in order to avoid conflicting decisions, especially in cases where parity becomes the grounds for which bail is sought.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan.

What is the Background of Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan?

• The SC expressed concern at the High Courts not listing bail applications arising out of the same FIR before the same bench, despite repeated orders.
  • A similar situation was observed by a three-judge bench of the court on 31^st July 2023 with regards to listing bail matters relating to the same FIR before different judges in the Allahabad High Court, wherein the bench considered it appropriate to ask the HC to avoid anomaly in such listings.
• The learned judges in the order grant bail and some other judges refuse to grant bail, even when the role attributed to the applicants is almost similar.
• Addressing the recurring pattern across other HCs, the court directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Registry of the SC to communicate, the matter briefly pertained to the petitioner who had been arrayed in an FIR wherein the co-accused was granted bail by a ‘Coordinate Bench of Rajasthan HC’, while the bench at Jaipur had rejected his bail, even though the petitioner claimed grounds of parity.
• While the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was permitted to be withdrawn, the same was dismissed in terms of the signed order.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The SC reiterate the concern of lethargy in following the earlier orders in the matter of dealing with bail applications arising out of the same FIR was to avoid conflicting decisions.
• It is not to be construed that parity be given in all circumstances to all co-accused and that ‘such entitlement is certainly dependent on various relevant facts and factors.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries Ltd.& Anr. v. M/S Ashok Paper Mill Ltd. & Anr., has held that an appeal must be filed within a reasonable time when no limitation period has been prescribed for filing an appeal.

What is the Background of M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries Ltd.& Anr. v. M/S Ashok Paper Mill Ltd. & Anr. Case?

• The Appellant (M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries Ltd.& Anr.) had received orders to supply certain goods to the Respondents (M/S Ashok Paper Mill Ltd. & Anr.)
  • After doing so, they raised certain bills which were only partly paid by the Respondents.
  • Subsequently, the Respondent was declared a sick company.
• The Appellant filed its claim under Section 16 of Jogighopa Act, 1990 for Rs. 1,58,375/- along with interest.
• The Commissioner of Payments awarded the principle sum but no interest to the Appellant.
• Aggrieved by the non-payment of such interest claimed, a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court was filed seeking direction to the Commissioner to consider an award interest on the principal amount due along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) for condonation of delay.
• The Commissioner, upon consideration of the request for a grant of interest on delayed payment, amounting to 6,83,688/- 8 granted the same.
  • Still aggrieved thereby, the appellants once again knocked on the doors of the High Court.
• The High Court directed that any additional interest, if found payable, should be paid within 60 days of the order.
• Against the said order, the respondents filed Review Application before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that in the absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to file an appeal, the same would be governed by the principle of reasonable time, for which, by virtue of its very nature, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be determined as per the facts and circumstances of each case.
• The Court held that when no limitation stands prescribed it would be inappropriate for a Court to supplant the legislature' s wisdom by its own and provide a limitation, more so in accordance with what it believes to be the appropriate period.

What is Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

About:

• Section 5 of the LA deals with the concept of condonation of delay. It deals with extension of prescribed period in certain cases and states that -

Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation. — The fact that the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.

• The provision of Section 5 of LA does not necessarily imply that the power of the court to condone the delay is circumscribed by an application being filed.
• The power to condone delay can be exercised if the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed.
• If an appeal is presented out of time in an explainable circumstance without a formal or written application, then the Courts should afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to amend the matter to avoid miscarriage of justice.
• A written application for claiming relief under Section 5 is not essential and it is open to the Court to give relief without written application under this section if the interest of justice so requires.

Case Laws:

• In Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962), the Supreme Court held that there are two important considerations which must be kept in mind while considering the condonation of delay:
  • The expiration of the period of limitation gives rise to the legal rights in favor of the decree-holder to treat the decree passed in their favor as binding between the parties. The legal right which is accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be lightly disturbed.
  • If sufficient cause for the execution of delay is shown, then the discretion is given to the Court to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
• In Ram Kali Kuer v. Indradeo Chaudhary (1985), the Patna High Court held that section 5 does not provide that an application in writing must be filed before relief under the said provision can be granted.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Shreem Electric Limited v. Transformers and Rectifiers India Ltd. and Ors., has held that the trial court cannot return a plaint merely on the ground that the defendant's suit is pending in another court.

What is the Background of Shreem Electric Limited v. Transformers and Rectifiers India Ltd. and Ors. Case?

• The plaintiff has instituted Commercial Suit before the District Court, Kolhapur, seeking specific performance of purchase orders on the part of the defendant by way of restoration of services, guarantees, warranties, supply of necessary spare parts, removal of defects and keeping of power transformers in working condition during guarantee and warranty period.
  • The plaintiff has also sought monetary compensation along with interest.
• The District Court heard defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of plaint.
• The District Court, while refusing to reject the plaint, had instead returned it under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Bombay High Court. Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the order of the District Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Sandeep V Marne observed that the trial court cannot return a plaint merely on the ground that the defendant's suit is pending in another court, and it would be desirable to try both suits together.
• The Court further held that the District Court has not recorded any specific finding that it lacked jurisdiction to try or entertain Plaintiff's suit and has proceeded to return the plaint.
  • This is yet another glaring error committed by the District Court.
  • The order passed by the District Court directing return of the plaint is thus clearly unsustainable and the course of action adopted by the learned District Judge appears to be unusual and alien to law.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

• Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC
  • Rule 10 deals with the return of plaint. It states that -

(1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.

Explanation. — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule.

(2) Procedure on returning plaint —On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.

• Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC
  • Rule 11 deals with the rejection of plaint. It states that -

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: —

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action.

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate.

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.