List of Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh

Why in News?

Recently the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in matter of Mohd. Sadeeq v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. has held that mere filing of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless an action has been taken on those representations.

• An order passed in compliance with court directions neither revives a stale claim nor initiates a fresh cause of action for the petitioner.

What was the Background of Mohd. Sadeeq v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. Case?

• The petitioner, a former Sentry/Field Assistant at Government Resin and Turpentine Factory Fatehpur, claims to have informed the police about militants, resulting in receiving life threats and his subsequent relocation to Jammu City for safety.
• After 10 years, upon returning, he found the factory closed and sought retirement benefits, which were denied. The respondents argue for dismissal citing delay and continuous absence from duty since 2002, indicating abandonment of service.
• The Petitioner thus made representations before the respondents in 2015 asking for his retiral benefits. However, the representations of the Petitioner were rejected. Thus, the Petitioner filed the writ petition.
• The writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's representations passed by this Court in SWP No. 2113/2017, has been rejected.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Sanjay Dhar observe that observed that the petitioner left his posting in 2002 and filed his first representation before the respondents in 2017. Thus, for almost 15 years, the petitioner did not make any effort to know the status of his service or resume his duties. Further, the petitioner has not placed any material on record to substantiate his claim that he faced life threats which disturbed him mentally while he was working in the Resin Factory in 2002.
• The Court also held that mere filing of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless an action has been taken on those representations. Even when an order is passed rejecting and considering the claim of the petitioner in compliance to the directions of the court, such an order does not revive the stale claim nor does it give rise to a fresh cause of action.
• The Court even referred the case of C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another (2008):
  • In this case, it was held that if a representation on the face of it is stale or it does not contain particulars showing that it is regarding a live claim, then courts should desist from directing consideration of such claims.

What is the Limitation Act?

About:

• The ‘Law of Limitation’ provides an aggrieved party with the time limit for different suits within which the party can approach the court for relief.
• The suit is dismissed by the competent court where the time limit provided by the limitation act expires. A situation may exist where, due to his physical or mental condition, the person cannot file a suit or application.
• In such cases, the law may not be the same and additional rights and benefits may be accorded to individuals with disabilities.

Period of Limitation:

• Section 2(j) of Limitation Act ,1963 deals with period of limitation.
• Period of limitation means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule, and prescribed period means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

When Period of Limitation Starts:

• The time from which the period of limitation begins depends on the case's subject matter, and a specific starting point of such period is provided extensively by the Schedule in the Act.
• It generally starts from the date when the summons or notice is served, or the date on which the decree or judgment is passed, or the date on which the event that forms the basis of the suit takes place.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court held that the Medical Board, in forming its opinion on the termination of pregnancies must not restrict itself to the criteria under Section 3(2-B) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) but must also evaluate the physical and emotional well-being of the pregnant person in terms of the judgment.

What was the Background of A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Another Case?

• X is 14-year-old girl (minor) and is alleged to have been subjected to sexual assault in September 2023.
• X revealed about the incident in March 2024 when she was 25 weeks pregnant.
• X was not aware that she was pregnant. X, it has been averred, always had irregular periods and could not have assessed her pregnancy earlier.
• An FIR was registered in Turbhe MIDC Police Station against the alleged perpetrator for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.
• X was taken to a hospital for medical examination and then transferred to the JJ Group of Hospitals, Mumbai for termination of her pregnancy.
• The Medical Board was formed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971.
• As per the reports of the Medical Board, X was physically and mentally fit for termination of her pregnancy subject to the permission of the High Court.
• The appellant moved the High Court. The Medical Board issued a clarificatory opinion without any re-examination of X.
• The report denied the termination of pregnancy on the ground that the gestational age of the fetus was twenty-seven to twenty-eight weeks and that there were no congenital abnormalities in the fetus.
• The High Court denied permission to terminate her pregnancy.
• The Appellant moved the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the report of the Medical Board which is considered by the High Court had not dealt with the impact of the pregnancy on the physical and emotional well-being of X.
• A fresh Medical Board was directed to be constituted.
• The Court observed that this medical report does not contain an evaluation of the physical and mental status of the minor who is barely fourteen years old, particularly having regard to the background leading up to the pregnancy, including the alleged sexual assault.
• After that the minor was examined by a team of six doctors constituted by the Dean (new Medical Board).
• After examining X, the Medical Board opined that the gestational age of the fetus was 29.6 weeks and continuation of pregnancy will negatively impact the physical and mental well-being of X.
• The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed X to terminate her pregnancy.
• The opinion of the pregnant person must be given primacy in evaluating the foreseeable environment of the person under Section 3(3) of the MTP Act.
• The Court also stated that the right to choose and reproductive freedom is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the COI.

What are the Landmark Judgments Cited in this Case?

• X v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023):
  • The opinion of the Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) is decisive in matters of termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act.
  • The purpose of the opinion of the RMP borrows from the legislative intent of the MTP Act which is to protect the health of a pregnant person and facilitate safe, hygienic, and legal abortion.
  • The right to abortion is a concomitant right of dignity, autonomy and reproductive choice. This right is guaranteed under Article 21 of the COI.
• XYZ v. State of Gujarat (2023):
  • The Court held that the medical board or the High Court cannot refuse abortion merely on the ground that the gestational age of the pregnancy is above the statutory prescription.

What is the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971?

• The Government of India set up the Shah Committee under Mr. Shantilal Shah to propose certain law regarding the termination of pregnancy.
• The Shah Committee recommended that abortion should be legalized.
• The MTP Act was passed in August 1971 and came into operation on 1^st April 1972.
• The Act was enacted to provide lawful termination of pregnancies by a registered medical practitioner in the circumstances provided under the Act.
• The MTP Act provides rights of the woman who wishes to undergo the termination and is surrounded and premised her consent, well-being and health.
• Section 3 of the MTP Act states the conditions under which pregnancy can be terminated.
• As per Section 3 of the MTP Act a pregnancy can be terminated only by one RMP.
• If the pregnancy is of 12 weeks, it may be terminated on the basis of the opinion of one RMP. And if the duration is between 12 weeks -20 weeks, then the opinion of two registered medical practitioners is required to terminate the pregnancy.
• If the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks, then the pregnant woman has to approach the High Court or Supreme Court through a writ petition.
• The Court can give directions for the formation of a medical board and based on the report of the medical board the court can allow or disallow the abortion.
• Further, since the MTP Act only allows abortion beyond twenty-four weeks if the fetus is diagnosed with substantial abnormalities.
• Section 3(2-B) of the Act stipulates that no limit shall apply on the length of the pregnancy for terminating a fetus with substantial abnormalities.
• Section 5 of the MTP Act prescribes that a pregnancy may be terminated, regardless of the gestational age, if the medical practitioner is of the opinion formed in good faith that the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant person.
• The upper gestation limit from 20 to 24 weeks of pregnancy was raised for special categories of women, including survivors of rape, victims of incest and other vulnerable women (differently abled women, minors, among others) by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021.
• The Amendment Act, 2021 allows unmarried women to also terminate a pregnancy.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Chander Bhan (D) Through Lr. Sher Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors., has held that the non-applicability of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) wouldn't bar the applicability of doctrine of lis-pendens.

What was the Background of Chander Bhan (D) Through Lr. Sher Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. Case?

• In this case the appellant and respondent no. 3 entered an agreement to sell for a total consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs, where Rs. 2.50 lakhs were paid at the time of the agreement and the remaining was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed.
• The appellant, having received the knowledge that respondent no. 3 was likely to alienate the suit property, files a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent no.3.
• The appellant then files a suit for specific performance before the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, i.e. respondent No.3 did not come forward even on the last day to execute the sale deed.
• The Trial Court, nevertheless, decreed the suit of the appellant with costs and directed respondent no. 3 to accept balance sale consideration and execute the agreement to sell.
• Thereafter, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
• The appellant filed a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• The impugned Judgement of the High Court has reversed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court and has consequently dismissed the suit of specific performance filed by the appellant, although a partial relief was granted to the appellant by return of the earnest money to the appellant, with interest.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale observed that there can be no doubt that even if Section 52 of TPA is not applicable in its strict sense in the present case then too the doctrine of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience, would certainly be applicable.
• The Court even referred to the judgment given in the case of Shivshankara and Another v. H.P. Vedavyasa (2023).
• In this case, the Supreme Court held that it is a well- nigh settled position that wherever the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable, such principle in the said provision of the said Act, which is based on justice, equity and good conscience is applicable in a given similar circumstance, like Court sale etc.

What is the Doctrine of Lis Pendens?

About:

• Lis pendens is a Latin word that means “pending litigation”.
  • It is based on a legal maxim “pendente lite nihil innoveture” which means nothing new should be introduced during pendency of a litigation.
• The doctrine of lis pendens is enshrined under Section 52 of the TPA in India.
  • This section deals with the effect of transfer of property pending a suit or proceeding.
• It is based on justice, equity, good conscience and public policy.

Section 52 of TPA:

• This Section deals with the transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.
• It states that during the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India or established beyond such limits by the Central Government, any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.
• For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.

Essential Elements of Lis Pendens:

• The suit or proceeding must be pending.
• Suit must not be collusive.
• Right related to immovable property must be contended.
• The right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question.

Objectives of Lis Pendens:

• The underlying principle behind the doctrine of lis pendens is to protect the rights of parties involved in a legal action and prevent parties from transferring the subject matter of a dispute during the pendency of a suit in a way that might frustrate the final outcome of the litigation.
• The doctrine is based on the idea that a third party acquiring an interest in the property during the pendency of a suit should be bound by the outcome of that suit.

Exceptions of Lis Pendens:

• The Section does not affect the enforcement of a judgment or decree or order in a suit or proceeding in which such transfer is not contested.
• The doctrine does not apply to suit where property is unidentifiable.
• The doctrine does not apply to collusive suits.

Case Laws

• In Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors (1973), the Supreme Court cited that Lis pendens literally means a pending suit, and the doctrine of lis pendens has been defined as the jurisdiction, power, or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment therein.
• In Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Ors. (2010), the suit property was exempted by the Supreme Court from application of doctrine of lis pendens on furnishing security of Rs. 3,00,000.