List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma laid down principles to be followed by court while deciding an appeal from acquittal.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the matter of Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka.

What was the Background of Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka Case?

• The prosecution's case revolves around Nagamma, the wife of Accused No. 5, who allegedly had an affair with the deceased, Marthandappa.
• Tensions brewed between Marthandappa and Accused No. 1 to 8 due to this alleged affair.
• On 28^th June 1997, while Marthandappa, along with Prosecution witness 3 and PW4, traveled from Aidbhavi to Nagaral, they were ambushed by Accused No. 1 to 8 near Balwantappa Channur's land.
  • Armed with various weapons, the accused assaulted Marthandappa and PW4, inflicting severe injuries.
  • PW3, an eyewitness, hid during the attack. After the assault, believing Marthandappa to be dead, the accused fled.
  • PW3 later confirmed Marthandappa's death and informed the authorities.
• Medical examinations and investigations led to the arrest of several accused individuals.
• Despite the trial court's acquittal, the High Court convicted Accused No. 3 to 5.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• After thorough consideration, SC found the HC's reversal of the acquittal decision unjustified, lacking any determination of illegality or error in the Trial Court's reasoning.
• Even upon reevaluation of evidence, SC did not support the HC's findings.
• Hence, the challenged order was overturned, affirming the Trial Court's decision.
  • The appellants were acquitted of all charges and to be released immediately if in custody.
• The appellants were acquitted by SC from all the charges levelled upon them. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith.

What were the Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court for Appeals from Acquittal?

• Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial, and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
• Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
• If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
• If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
• If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
• In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.

What is the Procedure for Appeal from Acquittal and Reversal of Order of Acquittal?

• Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  • Direction by District Magistrate and State Government
    • The District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
    • The State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the HC from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a HC not being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
  • Appeal in Cases Investigated by Special Agencies
    • If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may, subject to the provisions of Sub-Section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session or to the HC as specified.
  • Leave of High Court for Appeal
    • No appeal under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the HC.
  • Special Leave to Appeal
    • If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the HC, on an application made to it by the complainant, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
    • No application under Sub-Section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the HC after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.
  • Consequences of Refusal of Special Leave
    • If, in any case, the application under Sub-Section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under Sub-Section (1) or under Sub-Section (2).
• Section 379 of CrPC:
  • Where the HC has, on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, he may appeal to the SC.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund & Ors. has held that the rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) will not operate as res judicata on deciding issue of limitation raised at the time of final hearing.

What was the Background of Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the Respondent No.1 - Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund is the assignee of the original Lendor IDBI.
• IDBI granted financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 7.60 crores to Respondent No.2 – Gilt Pack Ltd. Company during the year 1994 -1996.
• In 2016, Respondent No.1 filed an original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur seeking payment of Rs. 394,41,00,970/- towards the loan as on 1st July 2016 together with further interest thereon on contractual rates w.e.f. 1St July 2016 from the defendants therein.
• The Petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on grounds that original application was filed after a lapse of 19 years from the date of execution of Deed of Guarantee executed by the petitioner
• This application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was rejected.
• Thereafter, a petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court which was later disposed of by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Manish Kumar Nigam observed that the rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC will not operate as res judicata on deciding issue of limitation raised at the time of final hearing.
• The Court held that the issue of limitation being generally a mixed issue of fact and law is subject to the evidence led by the parties. The findings recorded by the Court/Tribunal while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC will not operate as res judicata.
• The Court further restated that in deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the averments made in the plaint are to be seen. If the averments so made are barred by any law, including the law of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC

About:

• Rule 11 of Order VII 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 the rule.

Case Law

• In K. Akbar Ali v. Umar Khan (2021), the Supreme Court held that the grounds mentioned under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are not exhaustive i.e., the court can reject the plaint even on other grounds if it thinks fit to do so.

Principle of Res Judicata

About:

• Section 11 of CPC contains the principle of Res Judicata. It states that -
  • No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
  • Explanation I - The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
  • Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
  • Explanation III - The matter referred to above must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
  • Explanation IV - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
  • Explanation V - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
  • Explanation VI - Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
  • Explanation VII - The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
  • Explanation VIII - An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

Case Laws

• In Mathura Prasad v. Dossabhoi N B Jeejeebhoy (1970), the Supreme Court held that previous proceedings would operate as res judicata only in respect of issues of facts and not on issues of pure questions of law.
• In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat (2021), the Supreme Court held that res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Moti Dinshaw Irani and Anr. v. Phiroze Aspandiar Irani and Ors., has held that if the earlier suit itself was pending and no decree therein had been passed, there would be no question of the provisions of Rule 3A of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

What was the Background of Moti Dinshaw Irani and Anr. v. Phiroze Aspandiar Irani and Ors. Case?

• A special civil suit was filed Firoz Aspandiar Irani as plaintiff no.1 and Dinshaw Khikhushroo Irani as plaintiff no.2.
• The plaintiffs claim to be owners of the suit property by virtue of various sale deeds executed in their favor.
• They sought possession of the suit lands from defendant nos.1 and 2.
• Thereafter, an application for partition and compromise were made in the suit.
• During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff Dinshaw Khikhushroo Irani passed away.
• His legal heirs were added to the suit, and they filed an application challenging the compromise recorded in the suit, alleging it to be illegal and void, which was later rejected.
• The legal heirs of Dinshaw Irani filed another special civil suit seeking to declare the alleged partition recorded in the first suit as illegal and void.
• The Trial Court held that the suit was not maintainable as per Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC.
• Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed before the Bombay High Court which was allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain observed that if the earlier suit itself was pending and no decree therein had been passed, there would be no question of the provisions of Rule 3A of Order XXIII of the CPC being attracted.
• The Court also clarified that Rule 3A bars suits to set aside a decree on the ground of compromise being unlawful. Since the suit was still pending and no decree had been drawn based on the compromise, Rule 3A was not applicable.

What is Rule 3A of Order XXIII of CPC?

About:

• Order XXIII of CPC deals with the withdrawal and adjustment of suits.
• Rule 3A of Order XXIII of CPC deals with the bar to suit.
• This rule was inserted in the year 1976.
• It states that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.
• This provision indicates that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on the basis of which the decree is passed was not lawful.
• A plain reading of this provision indicates that the earlier suit should have been disposed of by passing a decree in view of a compromise entered into between the parties. In such a contingency, a subsequent suit raising a challenge that the compromise recorded in the earlier suit was not lawful would not lie.

Case Law

• In Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh (2020), the Supreme Court held that the suit for a declaration which was filed before the civil court was not maintainable in the light of Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC. The bar also applies to strangers to compromise proceeding.