List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Saleem Ahmad v. State of UP and Ors., has held that the proceedings before the Magistrate relating to reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,2005 (DV Act) are of a civil nature.

What was the Background of Saleem Ahmad v. State of UP and Ors. Case?

• In this case, the respondent who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act.
• The application seeking amendment sought deletion of a part of the relief clause, stating that due to an inadvertent typographical error, maintenance had been sought for the minor son, whereas the applicant did not have any minor son.
• The petitioner raised objections to the amendment application by contending that no such amendment was permissible in a criminal proceeding.
• The Learned Magistrate allowed the application seeking amendment and observed that the said application be read along with the main application.
• Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which has been rejected, wherein the revisional court has held that proceedings under the DV Act are quasi civil in nature, and accordingly, amendments to pleadings were permissible.
• Thereafter, a petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court.
• Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that the order passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the amendment application, and the subsequent order of affirmation by the revisional court, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that the proceedings before the Magistrate relating to reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the DV Act, having been held essentially to be of a civil nature, the power to amend the complaint/application would have to be read in relevant statutory provisions, as a necessary concomitant.
• The High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunapareddy Alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr. (2016), wherein it was held the power to allow amendment to applications filed under the DV Act provided, no prejudice was caused to the other side. It was held that amendments could be allowed in circumstances where such amendment was necessary in light of subsequent events or to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

What is Chapter IV of DV Act?

DV Act:

• It is a social beneficial legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds.
• It provides for effective protection of the rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family.
• The preamble of this Act makes it clear that the reach of the Act is that violence, whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic, is all to be redressed by the statute.
• This Act was brought into force by the Central Government and Ministry of Women and Child Development on 26^th October 2006.

Purpose of DV Act:

• The very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of the civil rights of the complainant i.e. aggrieved person.
• It provides a remedy in the civil law for the protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society.

Chapter IV of DV Act:

• Procedure for obtaining order of reliefs is stipulated in Chapter IV of the DV Act which comprises Sections 12 to 29.
• Under Section 12, an application can be made to the Magistrate by the aggrieved person or Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person.
• Section 19 of the DV Act authorizes the Magistrate to pass residence order which may include restraining the respondent from dispossessing or disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person or directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household or even restraining the respondent or his relatives from entering the portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides, etc.
• Monetary reliefs which can be granted by the Magistrate under Section 20 of the DV Act includes giving of the relief in respect of the loss of earnings, the medical expenses, the loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person and the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any.
• Custody can be decided by the Magistrate which was granted under Section 21 of the DV Act.
• Section 22 empowers the Magistrate to grant compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the domestic violence committed by the appellant.
• Section 23 vests the Magistrate with the power to grant interim ex parte orders. It is, thus, clear that various kinds of reliefs which can be obtained by the aggrieved person are of civil nature.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, Supreme Court in the matter of Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors, Court addressed an individual, who has been granted monetary compensation but hasn't received it, could pursue an appeal for increased compensation as an indigent.

• An indigent person lacks the financial resources to cover court fees and proceed with the filed suit.

What was the Background of Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors?

• Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya (Appellant) suffered injuries in an accident and sought compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, initially claiming Rs. 10 Lakhs for permanent disablement.
• The Tribunal awarded her approximately Rs. 2 Lakhs, which the appellant contested as insufficient.
• She filed an appeal in the High Court.
• Alongside her appeal, the appellant applied for permission to proceed as an indigent person, given her financial constraints, despite being awarded compensation.
• The High Court declined her request, noting the awarded compensation, although it acknowledged that she had not received any funds yet.
• She filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court intervened, allowing the appellant to pursue her appeal as an indigent person, recognizing the delay in compensation and her ongoing financial hardship.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol referred to Order XXXIII (Suits by indigent persons) and Order XLIV (appeals by indigent persons) of the CPC, 1908.
• It is observed that the above-mentioned provisions “exemplify the cherished principle that lack of monetary capability does not preclude a person from knocking on the doors of the Court to seek vindication of his rights.
• Court State that the appellant's indigent status persisted since, despite being awarded compensation, she did not receive any funds, thus failing to alleviate her financial hardship.
• The Bench opined that the High Court was incorrect in dismissing the above-mentioned application even after recording that she had not received the compensation.
• “So even though she had been awarded a sum, her indigency was not extinguished thereby. Any which way, in our considered view, the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the Misc. Application.,” the Court said.
• The Court also noted the absence of an inquiry as mandated by Order XLIV Rule 3(2) to ascertain the indigent status of the applicant.
• Despite not initially approaching the tribunal as an indigent person, the claimant had not received the awarded money, potentially rendering her indigent at the time of filing the appeal.
• Consequently, the Court concluded that both factors warranted setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
• The court ordered the High Court that due to the significant delay; the Court permitted the appellant to pursue the appeal as an indigent person and urged the High Court to adjudicate on the matter within six months.

Who is an Indigent Person?

About

• An indigent person refers to an individual who demonstrates insufficient financial resources to meet the expenses associated with legal proceedings, including court fees and legal representation costs.
• Under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), an indigent person lacks the financial resources to pay court fees and is entitled to certain privileges such as fee exemptions or reductions as provided for in the Code.
• To ensure access to justice for such individuals, provisions were introduced under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Legal Provision

• The Court Fees Act, 1870 mandates plaintiffs to submit requisite court fees when filing a civil suit.
• Order XXXIII of the CPC provides relief to indigent persons by exempting them from paying court fees, enabling them to institute suits in forma pauperis.
• Indigent individuals seeking this exemption must meet conditions outlined in Rule 1 of Order XXXIII of CPC, allowing them access to legal recourse without the financial burden of court fees.

What is the Procedure to File a Suit as an Indigent Person?

• Rule 2 of Order XXXIII requires that before filing a suit as an indigent person, the application seeking permission must contain details akin to those in the plaint, including a comprehensive list of the applicant's assets and their estimated values.
• As per Rule 3 of Order XXXIII the indigent person must personally present the application to the court, or if exempted from appearing, may have an authorized agent do so. In cases with multiple plaintiffs, any one of them can present the application.
• As per Rule 4 of Order XXXIII the suit commences upon the presentation of the application to sue as an indigent person. The court then examines the applicant, either directly or via commission if represented by an agent.

What are the Grounds on Which the Application can be Rejected under Order XXXIII?

Rule 5 of Order XXXIII of the CPC outlines grounds for prima facie rejection of an application to sue as an indigent person:

• Failure to adhere to prescribed procedures outlined in Rule 2 and Rule 3, regarding the contents and presentation of the application.
• Applicant not meeting the criteria of indigency.
• Applicant's fraudulent disposal of property or dishonest motive in seeking permission to sue as an indigent person.
• Absence of a cause of action.
• Applicant entering agreements affecting the subject matter of the suit with third parties. Suit being barred by law.
• Financial assistance received from another party for litigation. Provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 regarding discovery of documents being applicable to proceedings under Order XXXIII.
• Precedents indicating similarity between rejection under Order XXXIII Rule 5 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• Procedures under Rules 6 to 9 for examination of evidence and admission of the application, followed by subsequent treatment of the application as a plaint in a suit.

What is Order XLIV Rule 3(2)?

• Order XLIV deals with appeal by Indigent Person.
• Order XLIV Rule 3 deals with 3. Inquiry as to whether applicant is an indigent person.
• Order XLIV Rule 3 (2) state that Where the applicant, referred to in rule 11, is alleged to have become an indigent person since the date of the decree appealed from, the inquiry into the question whether or not he is an indigent person shall be made by the Appellate Court or, under the orders of the Appellate Court, by an officer of that Court unless the Appellate Court considers it necessary in the circumstances of the case that the inquiry should be held by the Court from whose decision the appeal is preferred.

Which is a Relevant Case dealing with Order XXXIII?

• Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction & Ors., (2001) Court held that if the suit is decreed for the plaintiff, the court fee would be calculated as if the plaintiff had not originally filed the suit as an indigent person.
  • So, there is only a provision for the deferred payment of the court fees and this benevolent provision is intended to help the poor litigants who are unable to pay the requisite court fee to file a suit because of their poverty.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

The case adjudged by the bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh relates to Sections 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

• The Delhi High Court gave this observation in the case of M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd v. M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd.

What was the Background of M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd v. M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd?

• The petitioner, M/s. Power Mech Projects Ltd., and the respondent entered an agreement titled “Subcontract for Boiler Works of Unit 1,2,3 of BARH STPP-1 (3x660 MW) Balance Work of Main Plant Package” on 12^th May 2016.
• Disputes arose between the parties regarding the works under the agreement, and the petitioner invoked arbitration proceedings by way of a 'Request for Arbitration' dated 10^th May 2022, under the aegis of the Indian Council of Arbitration.
• A three-member Arbitral Tribunal entered reference on 6^th July 2022.
• Since the arbitral proceedings did not complete within one year as per Section 29A of the A&C Act, both parties consented to a six-month extension on 10th October 2023.
• The mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal expired on 4^th February 2024, while the proceedings were at the stage of cross-examination.
• The Arbitral Tribunal stated that its mandate had expired and that it would resume proceedings after receiving appropriate orders.
• Later, the petitioner filed the present petition before the Delhi High Court under Sections 29A (4) & (5) of the A&C Act, seeking a 12-month extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court considered various judgments from other High Courts on whether the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal can be extended under Section 29A (5) even after its expiry.
• The court held that it is empowered to extend the mandate even after its expiry, given the expression "prior to or after expiry of the period so specified" used in Section 29A (4).
• Accordingly, the court extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till December 2024, to enable the completion of the arbitral proceedings.

What is Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

• Time Limit for Domestic and International Commercial Arbitration Awards (Sub-section 1)
  • The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.
  • International Commercial Arbitration: The award in international commercial arbitration should be made as expeditiously as possible, and an effort may be made to dispose of the matter within twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.
• Additional Fees for Timely Awards (Sub-section 2)
  • If the award is made within six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive additional fees as agreed upon by the parties.
• Extension of Time by Consent (Sub-section 3)
  • The parties may, by consent, extend the period for making the award for a further period not exceeding six months.
• Termination of Mandate and Court Extensions (Sub-section 4)
  • If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court extends the period, either prior to or after the expiry of the specified period.
  • Fee Reduction:
    • The Court may order a reduction of the arbitrators' fees by up to five percent for each month of delay if the delay is attributable to the arbitral tribunal.
  • Pending Applications:
    • If an application under sub-section (5) is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue until the disposal of the application.
  • Opportunity for Arbitrators:
    • Arbitrators shall be given an opportunity to be heard before any reduction of fees.
• Extension of Period by Court (Sub-section 5)
  • The Court may extend the period referred to in sub-section (4) upon application by any party for sufficient cause and may impose terms and conditions.
• Substitution of Arbitrators (Sub-section 6)
  • While extending the period, the Court may substitute one or all of the arbitrators. The arbitral proceedings shall continue from the current stage, and the new arbitrator(s) shall consider the evidence and material already on record.
• Continuity of Arbitral Tribunal (Sub-section 7)
  • An arbitral tribunal reconstituted under this section shall be deemed to continue from the previously appointed tribunal.
• Imposition of Costs (Sub-section 8)
  • The Court may impose actual or exemplary costs upon any of the parties under this section.
• Expeditious Disposal of Applications (Sub-section 9)
  • Applications filed under sub-section (5) shall be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible, with an endeavor to dispose of the matter within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party.