List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice P.B. Varale held that a second suit for arrears of rent and damages would not be barred under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).  
  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 

What is the Background of Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Case? 

• The Appellant in this case was a licensee in respect of a warehouse that belonged to the Respondent. 
• There were total four suits and both the sides had preferred two suits against each other. One suit was withdrawn so total three suits were pending. 
• The two suits in dispute were as follows. 
• The Respondent instituted a suit for permanent injunction and here he specifically pleaded that he reserves the right to claim arrears of rent and also damages due to illegal use and occupation of the property. 
  • This Suit was filed because there was default in payment of storage charges. 
• The Respondent filed another Suit No. 323 of 2016 for recovery of arrears of storage, warehouse charges and damages. 
• The Appellant here filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 of CPC for rejection of plaint.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that there was no relinquishment of claim at any stage and also no omission to claim relief. 
• The Court observed that both the causes of action are separate, and the second suit was clearly maintainable. 
• The Court observed that the Appellant is unnecessarily trying to delay the progress in the suit. 

What is Order II Rule 2? 

• The object of Order II Rule 2 of CPC is based on cardinal principle of law that the defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause. 
• The principle is meant to counteract two evils, namely, (i) splitting up of claims and (ii) splitting up of remedies.   
• Order II Rule 2 of CPC provides that the suit should include the whole claim. 
• Order II Rule 2(1) provides that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish and portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. 
• Order II Rule 2(2) provides for relinquishment of part of claim. 
  • Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. 
• Order II Rule 2 (3) provides for omission to sue for one of several reliefs. 
  • A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. 
  • Explanation: For the purposes of this rule an obligation and collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action. 

What are the Conditions for Applicability of Order II Rule 2 of CPC?  

• The three conditions that must be satisfied are: 
  • The second suit must be in respect of the same cause of action as that on which previous suit was based. 
  • In respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief. 
  • Being thus entitled plaintiff without the leave of the Court omitted to sue for the relief for which second suit has been filed.

What is the Difference Between Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 of CPC? 

What are the Principles Governing Order II rule 2 of CPC? 

• The principles governing Order II rule 2 were laid down in the case of Mohd. Khalil v. Mahbub Ali Mian (1949) by the Privy Council: 
  • The correct test here is whether the claim in the new suit is founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation of the former suit. 
  • The cause of action means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to support his right to the judgment. 
  • If evidence to support the two claims is different the cause of action is also different. 
  • The Cause of Action in two suits may be considered to be same if in substance they are identical. 
  •  The Cause of Action has no relation with the defense that may be set up nor does it depend on the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. 
  • The Cause of Action refers to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.  

Are Claim for Mesne Profits and Claim for Possession Different Cause of Action? 

• In the case of Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhad Ahir (1931), a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the cause of action for possession is not necessarily identical with cause of action for recovery of mesne profits. 
• The provisions of Order II Rule 4 indicate that the legislature thought it necessary to provide for joining of claims for mesne profits with one for recovery of possession. 
•  This judgment was cited in the case of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2023) by a 2 judge Bench of Supreme Court. 
• Order II Rule 4 of CPC provides that only certain claims that can be joined for recovery of immovable property. 
  • No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except— 
    • claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof; 
    • claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held; and 
    • claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action 

What are the Important Case Laws? 

• Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (1964) 
  • The Supreme Court laid down that a plea under Order II Rule 2 of CPC should succeed if following is made out: 
    • that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based 
    • that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief 
    • That being thus entitled to more than one relief plaintiff, without leave obtained from the Court omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. 
• Brahma Singh v. Union of India (2020) 
  • The Court held that bar of Order II Rule 2 of CPC may not apply to writ petitions. 
• Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (2022) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case clarified that the provisions of Order II Rule 2 applies only to “subsequent suit”. 
  • The Court hence held that this provision does not apply to amendment of pleadings. 
  • Thus, the plea of amendment being barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC is misconceived and cannot be allowed. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Ors. has invalidated the Bihar Government's 2015 resolution merging the "Tanti-Tantwa" community from the Extremely Backward Castes list into the Scheduled Caste list, citing lack of authority under Article 341.  

• The court criticized the state's action as mala fide and directed that appointments made under the resolution be reverted to the Scheduled Castes quota.  
• It emphasized that any changes to Scheduled Castes lists require parliamentary legislation and not executive orders. 

What was the Background of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Ors.? 

• In 1950, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order listed 'Pan' as a Scheduled Caste in Bihar. 
• In 1956, this was amended to 'Pan or Sawasi'. 
• In 2002, it was further amended to 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr'. 
• The Bihar government listed 'Tanti-Tantwa' as an Extremely Backward Class in 1992. 
• In 2011, Bihar recommended to the central government to include 'Tanti-Tantwa' in the Scheduled Castes list as a synonym of 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr'. 
• The central government did not approve this recommendation in 2013 and asked Bihar for further justification. 
• On 1st July 2015, without central approval, Bihar issued a notification to: 
  • Remove 'Tanti-Tantwa' from the Extremely Backward Classes list 
  • Merge 'Tanti-Tantwa' with 'Pan/Sawasi' in the Scheduled Castes list 
• This notification was challenged in the Patna High Court, which upheld its legality in April 2017. 
• The current appeal was against the High Court's decision arguing that the state government lacks the constitutional authority to modify the Scheduled Castes list without parliamentary approval. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Bihar Government's 2015 resolution merging "Tanti-Tantwa" with the Scheduled Caste list was struck down as unconstitutional. 
  • The Court ruled that state governments have no authority to modify Scheduled Caste lists published under Article 341 of the Constitution. 
  • Only Parliament has the power to amend, add, delete, or modify the Scheduled Castes list through enacted law. 
• The Court deemed the state's action as mala fide and in violation of constitutional provisions. 
• The Court criticized the state for depriving legitimate Scheduled Caste members of their benefits by extending them to an undeserving community. 
• The Court clarified that the State Backward Commission's recommendations are only applicable to Extremely Backward Classes, not Scheduled Castes. 
  • Despite finding the appointments illegal, the Court did not invalidate them to avoid penalizing individual beneficiaries. 
  • The Court directed that Scheduled Caste quota positions filled by "Tanti-Tantwa" community members since 2015 be returned to the Scheduled Castes category. 
  • The Court ordered that affected "Tanti-Tantwa" community members be accommodated in their original Extremely Backward Classes category. 

What is Article 341 of Indian Constitution? 

• About  
  • Article 341 of the Indian Constitution pertains to the specification of Scheduled Castes.   
  • It empowers the President to designate certain castes, races, or tribes as Scheduled Castes for specific states or union territories through public notification. 
  • It authorizes only Parliament to modify (include or exclude) the list of Scheduled Castes specified in the Presidential notification through enacted legislation. 
  • It prohibits any alteration to the Presidential notification by subsequent notifications, ensuring that changes can only be made through parliamentary law. 
  • This article thus establishes a constitutional mechanism for identifying and modifying the list of Scheduled Castes, centralizing this power with the national government to maintain consistency and prevent arbitrary changes. 
• Legal Provision  
  • Article 341 of Constitution of India deals with Scheduled Castes. 
  • It states that the President may with respect to any State or Union territory and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification , specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. 
  • Sub Article(2) parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. 
• The Process:  
  • The state government usually initiates the proposal for inclusion or exclusion of a community in the SC list. 
  • This proposal is then sent to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. 
  • After scrutiny, if found suitable, the proposal is sent to the Registrar General of India for approval. 
  • Once approved, it is sent to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes for their recommendation. 
  • Finally, a bill is introduced in Parliament to amend the list. 

Case Law 

• State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001): The Supreme Court held that only those castes mentioned in the Presidential Order under Article 341 can be deemed Scheduled Castes. State governments cannot expand this list. 
• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004): The Court ruled that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for reservation purposes is unconstitutional, as Article 341 treats all Scheduled Castes as a single homogeneous group. 
• Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board (2018): The Court clarified that a person claiming SC status must belong to the caste specified for that particular state in the Presidential Order under Article 341. 
• State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors, (2024): The Bench contended that sub-classification within SCs would violate the right to equality enshrined in the Constitution. 
  • The bench also observed that in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1992) Supreme Court observed on page 725 that the discussion of creamy layer is confined to other backward classes only and has no relevance in the case of SC and ST. 
  • The court said that by the impugned legislation, the State has sought to re-group the homogeneous group specified in Presidential Notification for the purposes of reservation and appointments. 

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava   has held that the marriage certificate having no mention of Saptapati is not a proof for the solemnization of marriage. 

What was the Background of the Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava Case? 

• In the present case, the appellant was a minor and the defendant was a Guru at Lucknow. 
• The appellant and her family were the followers of Guruji, the defendant except her father. 
• It was alleged by the appellant that one day the defendant gave her and her mother a Prasad and after consuming it they lost consciousness and during that time the defendant made them sign some documents. 
• Right after two days of the incident the defendant called appellant’s father and informed him that the appellant and him are married and have registered marriage. 
• The father of the appellant then filed the First Information report under Section 419, 420, 496 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The appellant filed a suit against the defendant under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) as she never agreed for happening of marriage with the defendant. 
• Defendant filed a suit under Section 9 of HMA, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. 
• The Trial court decreed the marriage in favor of the defendant as there were contradictions in statements of the witnesses also no medical examination was conducted for the daughter and mother if they had Prasad which made them unconscious. 
• Also, that the appellant could not prove that she was not present in Arya Samaj at the time when the alleged marriage was solemnized.   
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court the appellant filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court observed that the appellant never agreed that the marriage was solemnized, and that allegation cannot be held as admission towards marriage. 
• It was further held by the High Court that relying on father’s statements, who was not present when the incident happened, cannot be binding upon appellant and her mother’s statement. 
• In addition to it the High court held that the burden of proof that the marriage was solemnized based on Hindu customs and rites is on the defendant. 
• It was further added by the High Court, that certificate from Arya Samaj is not a sufficient proof that the marriage was solemnized by performing all the Hindu customs and rites of marriage. 
• Hence the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed that the marriage was a fraudulent act and held the marriage null and void. 

What is Arya Samaj? 

• About: 
  • Arya Samaj is a Hindu reform movement founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati. 
  • The aim is to promote Vedas, Dharma and Satya for the Nobel society. 
  • It is the first human organization worked to enhance the civil rights movement. 
• Arya Samaj Marriages: 
  • The marriages are solemnized as per Vedic rituals. 
  • It is an alternate method of marriage to the Hindu rituals. 
  • It holds significance for married couples. 
• Eligibility For an Arya Samaj Mandir: 
  • The girl must be at least 18 years old and the boy at least 21 years old. 
  • To solemnize an Arya Samaj Marriage, the couple must be from Hindu, Sikhism, Buddhism or Jain religion. 
  • An individual belonging to Muslim, Jain, Christian or Parsi religion cannot solemnize an Arya Samaj Marriage. 
  • Inter Caste Marriages and Inter Religion Marriages are also performed in an Arya Samaj, if none of the individuals is Christian, Parsi, Jew or Muslim. 
  • The individuals belonging to Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew religion can also solemnize an Arya Samaj Marriage, if they voluntarily perform a ritual called Shuddhi. 
• Legality of Arya Samaj Marriage Certificate: 
  • Arya Samaj Marriage Certificates are legal. 
  • The marriage cannot be proved based on the certificate. 
  • There must be Hindu rituals and rites attached with the ceremony and with the issuance of certificate to proof the solemnization of valid marriage. 

What are Landmark Judgements on Arya Samaj Marriagess? 

• Ashish Morya v. Anamika Dhiman (2022): In this case, the High Court held that the marriage certificate of Arya Samaj is not proof of valid marriage.  
• Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2024): In this case the Supreme Court held that when there was no Hindu marriage which took place between them, the issuance of the said certificate was of no consequence. 

What are Provisions of HMA, 1955 Referred in the Case of Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava Case? 

• Section 7: Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. — 
  • Clause (1) states that a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.  
  • Clause (2) states that where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. 
• Section 9 : Restitution of conjugal right.— 
  • It states that when either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.  
  • Explanation.—Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society. 
• Section 12: Voidable marriages.— 
  • Clause (1) states that any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:—  
  • that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the imporence of the respondent. 
  • that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of section 5. 
  • that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2 of 1978)], the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstances concerning the respondent.  
  • that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.  
• Clause (2) states that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage—  
  • on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if—  
    • the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered. 
    • the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered. 
  • on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the court is satisfied—  
    • that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged. 
    • that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnised before the commencement of this Act within one year of such commencement and in the case of marriages solemnised after such commencement within one year from the date of the marriage. 
    • that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the said ground.