List of Current Affairs

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court in the matter of Tapash Choudhary & Ors v. DG, CRPF & Ors., has held that an Inquiry Officer cannot act as Presenting Officer and cross-examine witnesses as it is against the principles of natural justice.

What was the Background of Tapash Choudhary & Ors vs DG, CRPF & Ors. Case?

• The petitioners Tapas Choudhary and Mohammad Matiur Rahman were enrolled members of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on the post of Constable in the year 2000 and 2003 respectively.
• On 23^rd September 2009, a group of CRPF members acted violently and sabotaged the regimental property in Shivpur.
• Thereafter, the Petitioners were issued a charge sheet in respect of the aforesaid incident.
• Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioners, and they were removed from service by the Commandant.
• Appeals were preferred against the order of removal of service before Inspector General, Combat Battalions for Resolute Action, CRPF which were also dismissed.
• Thereafter, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the order of removal from service and the order for dismissal of appeal.
• The petition was allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Rajani Dubey observed that an Inquiry Officer cannot act as a Presenting Officer and cross-examine witnesses as it is against the principles of natural justice. And an Inquiry Officer cannot act as both prosecutor and judge.
• The Court relied upon the judgment of Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018).
  • In this case the Supreme Court had clearly held that an Inquiry Officer who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor. The Supreme Court had further held that if the Inquiry Officer cross-examines the defence witnesses, then he acts as a prosecutor and thereby vitiates the inquiry.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Cross Examination

• An examination is simply the process of asking relevant questions relating to the fact in issue to a witness.
• Section 137 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) deals with the ways in which a witness can be examined. It states the following three ways:
  • Examination-in-Chief - The examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.
  • Cross-Examination – The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
  • Re-Examination - The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.
• Section 138 of IEA deals with the order of examinations:
• It states that witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
• The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
• IEA has laid down the following set of guidelines for cross-examination:
  • As per Section 139, a person summoned to produce a document cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.
  • As per Section 140, witnesses to character may be cross-examined and re-examined.
  • According to Section 143, leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.
  • As per Section 145, a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing.
  • Section 146 talks about questions lawful in cross-examination. It states that when a witness is cross-examined, he may ask any questions which tend––
    • To test his veracity.
    • To discover who he is and what is his position in life.
    • To shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.

Principles of Natural Justice

• About:
  • Natural Justice is a common law concept which emphasis on fair, equal and impartial delivery of justice.
  • It has been derived from the words ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’ which emphasize the principles of natural justice, natural law and equity.
• Rules of Natural Justice:
  • Nemo Judex In Causa Sua – It means that no one should be a judge in his own case because it leads to the rule of biases.
  • Audi Alteram Partem – It means that no person can be condemned or punished by the court without having a fair opportunity of being heard.
• Case Laws:
  • In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977), the Supreme Court held that the concept of natural justice should be in every action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and or quasi-administrative work which involve civil consequences to the parties.
  • In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Principles of Natural Justice are considered as fundamental and are therefore implicit in every decision-making functions.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the matter of M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries has held that Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award.

What was the Background of M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries Case?

• The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 19^th March 2022 passed in Execution Case by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary wherein an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 47 of the CPC was dismissed.
• The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present petition are that the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an Agreement dated 26^th June 2013 for supply of Kapital Era Bus Shelters at Ballari.
• Alleging various violations in compliance of the terms of the said Agreement, the Respondent filed a petition before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,48,445/-.
• The Council allowed the petition and directed the Petitioner to pay 30,73,037/- along with interest.
• The Petitioner challenged the award, however, the challenge petition as well as the appeal was dismissed and thereafter the petitioner approached the High Court.
• The High Court dismissed the review petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice C.M. Poonacha observed that Section 47 of CPC, which provides for determination of question by the executing court in relation to the validity of the decree, does not apply to execution of arbitral awards.
• It was further held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however, this deeming fiction is limited to its enforcement only.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 47 of CPC

About:

• This Section deals with the questions to be determined by the Court executing decree. It states that-

(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

(2) Omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act, 1976)

(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such a question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.

Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

Explanation II.- (a) for the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and (b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.

Case Law:

• In the case of Bharat Pumps and Compressors V. Chopra Fabricators (2022), the Supreme Court held that an arbitration award is not included under the definition and meaning of decree in CPC and so no questions can be raised in the execution of such an award.

Section 115 of CPC:

• Section 115 of CPC empowers the High Court to entertain a revision in any case decided by any subordinate court in certain circumstances.
• Revision means the action of revising, especially critical or careful examination or perusal with a view of correcting or improving.

Section 34 of the A & C Act:

• This Section deals with the application for setting aside arbitral awards.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The legal dispute between the State of Kerala and the Union of India revolves around constitutional provisions governing state borrowing, with significant implications for fiscal federalism and economic governance. At the heart of the matter lies the interpretation of Article 293 and its intersection with the Union's authority to regulate state finances.

• The Supreme Court heard this in the case State of Kerala v. Union of India.

What is the Background of State of Kerala v. Union of India Case?

• The State of Kerala initiated an Original Suit under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution against the Union of India, contesting several actions.
• These included Amendment Act No. 13 of 2018, a letter imposing a ‘Net Borrowing Ceiling’, and another letter granting consent for open market borrowing.
• The suit contended that these actions exceeded the Union's power under Article 293 of the Constitution, which regulates State borrowing.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Ultimately, the Court noted substantial questions regarding constitutional interpretation, particularly regarding Article 293's scope and the principles of federalism.
• As these questions were significant and lacked precedent, the Court decided to refer them to a larger bench for consideration.

What is Article 293 of the Constitution?

• Borrowing by States:
  • Subject to the provisions of this article, the executive power of a State extends to borrowing within the territory of India upon the security of the Consolidated Fund of the State within such limits, if any, as may from time to time be fixed by the Legislature of such State by law and to the giving of guarantees within such limits, if any, as may be so fixed.
  • The Government of India may, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by or under any law made by Parliament, make loans to any State or, so long as any limits fixed under Article 292 are not exceeded, give guarantees in respect of loans raised by any State, and any sums required for the purpose of making such loans shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
  • A State may not without the consent of the Government of India raise any loan if there is still outstanding any part of a loan which has been made to the State by the Government of India or by its predecessor Government, or in respect of which a guarantee has been given by the Government of India or by its predecessor Government.
  • A consent under clause (3) may be granted subject to such conditions, if any, as the Government of India may think fit to impose.