List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta heard a case where allegations of fraud were made to prove breach of contract.

• The Supreme Court observed this in the case of Jay Shri v. The State of Rajasthan.

What was the Background of Jay Shri v. The State of Rajasthan?

• The accused approached the SC against a decision of Rajasthan High Court where the HC denied anticipatory bail to accused.
• The accused entered into a contract with the complainant where the complainant filed an FIR against the accused for fraud and criminal conspiracy due to breach of contract.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The SC reiterated that “Mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) unless the fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction”.

What is the Difference Between Civil Dispute and Criminal Dispute?

What were the Landmark Judgments Cited in the Case?

• Indian Oil Corp. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006):
  • The SC held that “Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged”.
• Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another (2023):
  • The SC held that breach of contract does not attract criminal charges.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit heard the matter related to existence of locus standi in the case of petitioner in original writ petition.

• The Karnataka High Court heard the case of Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt v. State of Karnataka & Others.

What was the Background of Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt v. State of Karnataka & Others?

• These two intra-court appeals challenge a common order by a learned Single Judge. The order set aside the grant of a site, favoring the private respondents and directing the refund of allotment value to the appellant-Mutt.
• The appellant argued that Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, allowing site allotment as an exception, was not considered properly by the Single Judge.
• The appellant contends that the private respondents lacked locus standi to question the grant orders, a point not adequately addressed by the Single Judge.
• The respondent argues that the Single Judge's order, made under Article 227, is ordinarily not appealable.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Karnataka High Court reiterated that “In matters concerning illegal grant of State Largess, the Rule of locus standi is always liberally construed and that would serve the public interest.”
• The court held that respondent had locus standi and hence dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

What is the Concept of Locus Standi?

• Locus standi, a Latin term, refers to the legal standing or the right to bring a particular lawsuit or legal action.
• It is a concept in law that determines whether a person has sufficient interest in a case to justify bringing it to court.
  • In other words, it deals with whether a person or entity has a direct and personal stake in the outcome of a legal dispute, allowing them to be a party in the case.
• To have locus standi, a party typically needs to demonstrate that they have suffered a specific injury, harm, or have a direct interest in the matter at hand.
  • The idea is to ensure that only those with a genuine connection to the legal issue are allowed to participate in the legal process.
• Without locus standi, a person or entity may not have the right to initiate legal proceedings or participate in a lawsuit.