List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court has explained the position of the Children’s Court under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

• The aforesaid explanation was made in the matter of Child in Conflict with Law Through His Mother v. The State of Karnataka and Another.

What was the Background of Child in Conflict with Law Through His Mother v. The State of Karnataka and Another Case?

• A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) for several offences.
• After being apprehended on 03rd November 2021, the CCL was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board in Bangalore.
• On 05^th April 2022, the Principal Magistrate of the Board ordered that the CCL should be tried as an adult by the Children's Court based on assessment reports. However, a Member of the Board dissented.
• On 12^th April 2022, two Members of the Board (without the Principal Magistrate) ordered that the CCL should be tried by the Board itself as a juvenile.
• The complainant (victim's mother) filed an application under Section 19 of the JJ Act, 2015 seeking termination of the Board's proceedings and transfer to the Children's Court, which was dismissed by the Board on 10th April 2023.
• The High Court of Karnataka allowed the complainant's revision petition against the 10^th April 2023 order, setting it aside and directing the matter be transferred to the Children's Court for trial of the CCL.
• The CCL appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order transferring the case to the Children's Court for trial as an adult.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The court explained that the words 'Children's Court' and 'Court of Sessions' in the JJ Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules were to be read interchangeably.
  • Primarily, jurisdiction vested in the Children's Court. However, without the constitution of such Children's Court in the district, the power to be exercised under the JJ Act was vested with the Court of Sessions.

What are the Major Provisions Related to Children’s Court in JJ Act?

• Definition:
  • Section 2(20) of the JJ Act, 2015 states that “Children’s Court” means a court established under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 or a Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), wherever existing and where such courts have not been designated, the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction to try offences under the JJ Act.
• Powers under Section 19:
  • Decide whether there is a need to try the child as an adult under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) or conduct an inquiry as a Board and pass orders under Section 18.
  • Ensure the final order includes an individual care plan for the child's rehabilitation and follow-up.
  • Ensure the child found in conflict with law is sent to a place of safety till age 21, and then transferred to jail, with reformative services provided during stay.
  • Ensure periodic follow-up reports on the child's progress and well-being in the place of safety.
• Appeal under Section 101(5):
  • Any person aggrieved by an order of the Children's Court may file an appeal before the High Court in accordance with the CrPC.
• Revision under Section 102:
  • The High Court may, on its own motion or on an application, call for the record of any proceeding in which the Children's Court has passed an order, to satisfy itself about the legality or propriety of such order, and may pass appropriate orders.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court held that it would be necessary to set out the manner in which consumer forums must decide technical pleas raised by service providers to the effect that the services obtained/goods bought was for a commercial purpose and, therefore, the complaint filed on behalf of such persons are not maintainable.

What was the Background of Shriram Chits (India) Pvt. Ltd. earlier known as Shriram chits (k) Pvt. Ltd. v. Raghachand Associates Case?

• The appellant (service provider) was a registered Chit Fund company. The respondent (complainant) subscribed for a certain chits in this company.
• The subscription was made for a value of Rs. 1,00,000/- and it was payable at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month for 40 months.
• The contention of the complainant was that the appellant stopped the business illegally in 1996.
• The complainant requested the appellant to repay the chit amount, but it refused to repay and said there were certain dues owed by the complainant therefore, it adjusted the subscription amount against pending dues.
• A complaint was filed before the District Forum for illegal termination of company and non-refund of subscription amount.
• In the written submission the appellant raised an objection that complainant has not come under the definition of “consumer” as the service obtained was for a commercial purpose. Hence, complainant would stand excluded from availing any remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
• However, the District forum was not satisfied with this contention of appellant that the complaint was not maintainable and ordered for refund of the claimed amount with interest of 18% p.a.
• An appeal was filed before the State Forum and the forum upheld the order of District forum.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC). NCDRC agreed with the order of State forum and District forum.
• The present appeal is filed before the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC stated that we proceed to provide some guidance on how the issues must be framed and the manner in which the evidence must be appreciated.
• The court said that since it is always the service provider who pleads that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose, the onus of proving the same would have to be borne by it.
  • The standard of proof has to be measured against a ‘preponderance of probabilities’.
• Unless the service provider discharges its onus, the onus does not shift back to the complainant to show that the service obtained was exclusively for earning its livelihood through the means of self-employment.
• The court deconstructed Section 2(7)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as a matter of illustration. The third part of this section is an exception to the exclusion clause [The second part is an ‘exclusion clause’ (‘carve out’)] – it relates to Explanation (a) to Section 2(7) which limits the scope of ‘commercial purpose’.
• In this case the appellant pleaded that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose, but no evidence has been led to probabilise. It is now well settled that a plea without proof and proof without plea is no evidence in the eyes of law.
• The SC affirmed the decision of NCDRC, State forum and District forum and held that there is deficiency of service on the part of appellant (service provider), therefore, appeal is dismissed.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in this Case?

• Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Old Act):

"consumer" means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation. —For the purposes of this clause, —

(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

• New Act:
  • The existing provision in the new act, that is the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been renumbered as Section 2 (7)(i).
  • A hereinafter mentioned explanation was also added to the existing provision in the new act.

(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently in the case of Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court held that the omission to separately frame issues as per Order XLI Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) shall not be deemed fatal provided that the appellate court has otherwise addressed and dealt with them appropriately.

What was the Background of Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Supreme Court?

• The Corporation appealed in Gujrat High Court against the judgment and decree passed by a Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The suit, brought by the appellants, sought compensation of ₹1,63,97,673/- with 18% interest per annum or, alternatively, the allotment of 974 sq. mts. of land in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of Ahmedabad and the plaintiffs filed their cross-objection the respondents in the first appeal.
• In the challenged judgment, the High Court ruled in favor of the Corporation, allowing its appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs' cross-objection.
• Despite not separately framing the points for determination as per Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, the High Court examined the contentions of both parties and extensively quoted the issues framed by the Trial Court.
• The High Court concluded that the plaintiffs could not raise a grievance regarding the non-delivery of the remaining 974 sq. mts. of land.
• Thereafter, the appeal was filled in Supreme Court and the Court allowed the first appeal filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (the Corporation) and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the respondents in the first appeal.
  • Aggrieved thereby, the said respondents filed the present appeals.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar observed that even if the first appellate Court does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the first appeal, it would not prove fatal as long as that Court deals with all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal.
  • Substantial compliance with the mandate of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC in that regard is sufficient.
• Justice Sanjay Kumar further observed that if there's substantial compliance with the mandate of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC whereby the First Appellate Court in an appeal against the decision of the trial court examines each and every issue that arises in an appeal after hearing both the parties then the omission to frame points of determination separately by the First Appellate Court wouldn't prove fatal.
• The Court also held that the High Court did set out all the issues framed by the Trial Court in the body of the judgment and was, therefore, fully conscious of all the points that it had to consider in the appeal.
  • Further, the Court did not find that any particular issue that was considered by the Trial Court was left out by the High Court while adjudicating the appeal. In effect, the Court did not find merit in the contention that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on this preliminary ground, warranting reconsideration of the first appeal by the High Court afresh.

What is Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC?

About:

• Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC deals with the requirement to separately frame issues in appeals, ensuring clarity and focusing on the appellate process.

Legal Provision:

• Order XLI Rule 31 refers to contents, date and signature of judgment.
• The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state

(a) the points for determination;

(b) the decision thereon;

(c) the reasons for the decision; and

(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled,

and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.

Case Law:

• In the case of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and others vs. S.P. Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs, (2016), it has been established that the failure to frame points for determination does not invalidate the judgment of the first appellate court, as long as the court provides reasoning based on the evidence presented by both parties.