List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Atamjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., has held that the time-barred nature of an underlying debt in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881(NI Act) is a mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Atamjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Case?

• In this case the complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of NIA on allegations that the respondent had issued a cheque to discharge their liability.
• The cheque was dishonored due to payment stopped by drawer and a summoning order was issued by the Trial Court.
• Thereafter, the Delhi High Court quashed the summoning order.
• Aggrieved by this, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the question regarding the time-barred nature of an underlying debt or liability in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is a mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
• It was further held that once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonored a statutory notice is issued, it is for the accused to dislodge the legal presumption available under the NI Act and could not have been adjudicated in an application filed by the Accused Under Section 482 of the CrPC.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

Section 138 of NI Act

• This Section deals with the dishonor of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. It states that —

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honor the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

Section 482 of CrPC

About:

• Section 482 of CrPC deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court, whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• It states that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.

Case Laws:

• In Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Anr. (1981), the Supreme Court held that the inherent power of the Court could not be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• In Vinod Kumar, IAS. v. Union of India and Ors. (2021), the Supreme Court observed that dismissal of an earlier petition under Section 482 CrPC would not bar filing of a subsequent petition thereunder in case the facts so justify.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Vivek Jain was hearing a petition against the commercial court’s decision.

• Madhya Pradesh High Court gave this judgment in the case of Itarsi Pipes Sales & Anr. v. OMRF Pipes and Products & Ors.

What is the Background of Itarsi Pipes Sales & Anr. v. OMRF Pipes and Products & Ors.?

• The respondents/plaintiffs initiated a commercial suit wherein notices were served to the petitioners/defendants, received on 21^st March 2023.
• The petitioners appeared before the Commercial Court on 10^th April 2023, but their written statement was filed belatedly on 09^th August 2023.
• The issue arose whether the statement, filed beyond 120 days, could be accepted.
• The Commercial Court, referencing the CPC and Supreme Court judgments SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and others (2019) and Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited (2022), concluded that defendants No. 1 & 2 failed to meet the extended 120-day limit, rendering the statement inadmissible.
• Consequently, the Court declined to admit the written statement.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The MP High Court observed that “the Commercial Court has taken a plausible view which is in consonance with law”.

What is the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?

• About:
  • The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 emerged against the backdrop of the growing complexities within India’s commercial landscape.
  • It came into force on 23^rd October 2015 as Act No. 4 of 2016.
  • With the expansion of commerce, disputes inevitably arise, necessitating efficient mechanisms for their resolution.
  • Recognizing the need for expeditious and specialized dispute resolution forums, the Act was conceived to cater specifically to the needs of commercial litigants.
• Key Provisions:
  • Establishment of Commercial Courts:
    • The Act mandates the establishment of commercial courts at the district level, ensuring accessibility and proximity to commercial litigants across the country.
    • These courts are equipped with jurisdiction over specified commercial matters, thereby fostering expertise and efficiency in adjudication.
  • Definition of Commercial Disputes:
    • The Act delineates the scope of commercial disputes, encompassing a wide array of commercial transactions, contracts, and agreements. By providing clarity on the types of disputes falling within its purview, the Act enhances predictability and coherence in commercial litigation.
  • Expedited Proceedings:
    • One of the salient features of the Act is its emphasis on expeditious dispute resolution.
    • Timelines are prescribed for various stages of litigation, ensuring swift disposal of cases and minimizing delays.
    • This expedited process is instrumental in mitigating the costs and uncertainties associated with prolonged litigation.
  • Specialized Adjudication:
    • Commercial courts constituted under the Act are manned by judges with specialized knowledge and experience in commercial matters.
    • This expertise enables courts to render informed decisions promptly, fostering confidence among litigants and stakeholders in the judicial process.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of M/S Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. & Ors., has held that the writ of certiorari is not issued as a matter of course, but rather it is granted at the discretion of the Superior Court.

What was the Background of M/S Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. & Ors.?

• In this case, the petitioner is an authorized dealer of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL).
• On February 17, 2019, the petitioner purchased a consignment under the tax invoices which were issued by SAIL in accordance with the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
• Thereafter, the petitioner obtained the service of a private road carrier for the transportation of its goods. The tax invoices contained the number of the said vehicle.
• The petitioner alleged that during the relevant time, the e-Way Bill portal of the Department was marred by glitches and technical shortcomings and owing to the said fact, e-Way Bills on several occasions could not be generated.
• The penalty order under Section 129 of the CGST Act was passed on the grounds that the goods of the petitioner were not accompanied by the e-way bill. Subsequently, the first appellate authority upheld the penalty order.
• Thereafter the instant petition was filed by the petitioner before the High Court praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the order.
• The High Court allowed the petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the writ of certiorari is not issued as a matter of course, but rather it is granted at the discretion of the superior court to review and quash decisions of lower courts, tribunals, or administrative bodies Generally, certiorari is issued in cases involving errors of law apparent on the face of the record, jurisdictional issues, or procedural irregularities that may have a substantial impact on the fairness and legality of the proceedings.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

Writ of Certiorari

About:

• It is a Latin phrase that means ‘to be fully be informed.’
• It is a command or order issued by the Superior Court to the inferior court.
• It is issued when the inferior courts violate the principles of natural justice.
• The Superior Court can quash the order given by the inferior court, if it finds any error.
• It plays a pivotal role in ensuring the rule of law and judicial oversight over administrative actions, providing a mechanism to correct errors and prevent the abuse of power.

Case Laws:

• In Nagendra Nath Bora and Anr v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeal, Assam and Ors. (1958), the Supreme Court upon examining various Indian and English precents, came to the conclusion that in that case an inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not acted in accordance with the law, a writ of certiorari can be issued.
• In Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr v. Bikartan Das and Ors. (2023), the Supreme Court held that the writ of certiorari can be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction.

CGST Act

• This Act makes provision for levying and collection of tax on intra-State supply of goods or services or both by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith.
• Section 129 of this Act deals with the detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit.