List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad Court  

Why in News? 

The recent implementation of new criminal laws in India, which replace the earlier colonial statutes, has led to legal confusion about their applicability. Questions have arisen regarding whether these new laws apply to offences committed before their effective date of July 1, 2024, and how they impact ongoing proceedings. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 will govern new offences from this date, while prior cases will remain under the old IPC and CrPC. 

• Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held in the matter of Deepu and Anr. v. State Of U.P . 

What was the Background of Deepu and Anr. v. State Of U.P ? 

• The case involves a writ petition filed by Deepu and 4 others seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR). 
• The FIR in question was registered on 3rd July, 2024, as Case Crime No. 0271 of 2024. 
• The FIR was filed under Sections 376(2)(n), 354, 147, 452, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 
• The case was registered at Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur. 
• The alleged incidents occurred between 2nd April, 2024, and 28th June, 2024. 
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into force on 1st July, 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 respectively. 
• The FIR was registered under the provisions of the IPC despite being filed after the new laws came into effect. 
• This discrepancy led to questions about the appropriate legal provisions to be applied in cases where the offense occurred before the new laws came into effect, but the FIR was registered after. 
• The case raises important legal questions about the application of new criminal laws and their effect on ongoing and new investigations. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court observed that if an FIR is registered on or after 1st July, 2024, for an offense committed prior to that date, it should be registered under the provisions of the IPC, but the investigation will proceed as per the BNSS. 
• For investigations pending on 1st July, 2024, the court held that these should continue as per the CrPC until cognizance is taken on the police report. 
• The court clarified that cognizance of pending investigations on or after 1st July, 2024, should be taken as per the BNSS. 
• All subsequent proceedings, including enquiry, trial, or appeal, are to be conducted as per the procedure under the BNSS. 
• The court interpreted Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS as saving only pending investigations, trials, appeals, applications, and enquiries. 
• Any trial, appeal, revision, or application commenced after 1st July, 2024, is to be proceeded with as per the BNSS procedure. 
• For trials pending on 1st July, 2024, but concluded thereafter, any appeal or revision against the judgment will be as per the BNSS. 
• The court noted that if an application is filed in an appeal that was pending on 1st July, 2024, the CrPC procedure will apply. 
• Criminal proceedings or chargesheets challenged before the High Court on or after 1st July, 2024, where the investigation was conducted under CrPC, should be filed under Section 528 of BNSS, not Section 482 CrPC. 
• The court affirmed the correctness of the circular issued by the Police Technical Services Headquarters, UP, regarding the procedure for FIR registration and investigation. 
• The court emphasized that despite the repeal of IPC and CrPC, liabilities and punishments under the IPC will continue, but procedural aspects will be governed by the BNSS. 

What are Landmark Cases on Applicability of New Criminal Laws? 

• Krishna Joshi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2024)  
  • Rajasthan High Court: The court held that the law applicable on the date of FIR registration will govern the trial, even if it commences after July 1, 2024. 
• XXX v. State of UT, Chandigarh (2024)  
  • Punjab & Haryana High Court: The court ruled that for FIRs lodged under IPC, but where applications or petitions are filed after July 1, 2024, provisions of BNSS will apply. 
• Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala (2024)  
  • Kerala High Court: The court held that appeals filed on or after July 1, 2024, will be governed by BNSS, regardless of whether the trial was conducted under CrPC. 
• Shri S. Rabban Alam v. CBI Though Its Director (2024)  
  • Delhi High Court: The court suggested that Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS could be interpreted to mean that only appeals pending before BNSS came into force would continue under CrPC. 
• Prince v. State of Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors (2024)  
  • Delhi High Court: The court held that anticipatory bail applications for offenses registered before July 1, 2024, should be filed under BNSS. 
• Hiralal Nansa Bhavsar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (1974)  
  • Gujarat High Court: The court held that only "pending proceedings" are saved under the repealing provision, and new proceedings initiated after the new law's commencement would be governed by the new law. 
• Ramesh Chander and Ors. v. Chandigarh Administration (1976)  
  • Punjab & Haryana High Court: The court affirmed that if a proceeding is initiated after the commencement of the new Code for an act committed prior to it, it would be governed by the new Code. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale held that mere non performance of agreement to sell does not amount to the offence of cheating and breach of trust.         
• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Radheyshyam & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.  

What is the Background of Radheyshyam & Ors v. State of Rajasthan Case? 

• The Respondent and the Appellant entered into an agreement to sell with respect to the sale of a property. 
• An advance of Rs. 11 Lakhs was made at the time of agreement to sell by the respondent and he further agreed to make the payment of Rs. 1 crore by 30th September 2020. 
• The entire amount was to be paid within 18 months from the date of execution of Agreement to sell. 
• It appears that the sale was not executed and the Respondent filed a First Information Report (FIR) stated that the Appellants refused to execute the registry and have duped him of Rs. 1 crore. 
• It is to be noted that a civil suit in this regard is pending. 
• The Appellants thereafter filed an application for quashing the FIR filed under Section 420 and Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) before the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The High Court of Rajasthan refused to quash the FIR. 
• Against the above order the Appellant came to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that mere non performance of agreement to sell does not by itself amount to cheating and criminal breach of trust. 
• It was observed that the act of filing the FIR appeared to be an act of arm twisting to get the deed executed by the Respondents. 
• The Court held that a bare perusal of FIR will show that a commercial transaction took place between the parties and the merely because the agreement to sell was not executed it would not mean that the offence of cheating or breach of trust was committed. 
• It was observed that this was not a case where the Respondents were duped or deceived rather this is a civil dispute where redressal can happen by way of a civil suit for non performance of Agreement to sell. 
• Thus, the Court concluded that the High Court committed an error by not quashing the FIR.

What is Agreement to Sell under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA)? 

• An agreement to Sell is the transfer of property that can take place in a future date. 
•  Section 54 of TPA defines “sale”. This Section also defines “Contract for Sale”. 
• A “Contract for Sale” (Agreement to sell) is a contract that sale of immovable property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. 
  • Section 54 further provides that it does not of itself create any interest in or charge on such property.

What is the Difference between Sale and Agreement to Sell under TPA?

What is the Status of Agreement to Sell with Respect to an Immovable Property? 

• Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi (2023) 
  • The agreement to sell is not a document of title and may not confer absolute title upon a party by virtue of Section 54 of TPA. 
  • However, the agreement to sell, payment of entire sale consideration corroborated by the receipt of payment and the fact that a person was put in the possession of the property will result in the party having possessory rights over the suit property. 
  • This possessory right is not liable to be disturbed. 
  • Thus, the agreement to sell combined with conditions under Section 53A of TPA results in the remedy of part performance that protects the possessory rights of a person.    
• Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd v. State of Haryana (2012) 
  • As per Section 54 of TPA sale of an immovable property can only happen by way of a registered instrument and an agreement to sell does not create any right title or interest in the subject matter. 
  • According to TPA the Agreement to sell with or without possession is not conveyance. 

What is the Evidentiary Value of Unregistered Agreement to Sell? 

• Section 17 of the Registration act, 1908 (RA) provides for the documents that are compulsorily registrable. 
•  Section 17 (1A) added in 2001 by way of amendment provides that the documents containing contracts for transfer of any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 A of TPA shall be registered and if it is not registered then after the commencement of the amendment such a document will have no effect for the purpose of Section 53 A of TPA.  
• Thus, as a result of this Amendment relief for part performance under Section 53 A can only be claimed when the agreement to sell is registered. 
• R. Hemlatha v. Kashthuri (2023) 
  • The Court here discussed the applicability of Section 49 of RA in a suit for specific performance. 
  • Section 49 of RA provides for the effect of non-registration of documents that are required to be registered. 
    • The proviso provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by TPA to be registered may be received  
      • as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of Specific Relief Act (SRA), or 
      • As evidence of collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 
  • The Court therefore, held in this case that the unregistered Agreement to Sell shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance as the proviso is exception to Section 49 of RA.   

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kushalraj Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.  has held that to determine the applicability of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA) the intent of the parties to be determined on case-to-case basis. 

What was the Background of the Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kushalraj Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case? 

• In the present case, the respondent is a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate development. 
• The respondent booked a flat for the residential use of one of its directors and his family members with the appellant in the project ‘Omkar 1973 Worli’ by paying a booking amount of Rs. 51,00,000/-. 
• Subsequently, the respondent paid a part of the consideration, i.e., Rs. 6,79,971/-, to the appellant. 
• The respondent was issued an allotment letter, which specified that the date of possession would be no later than 31st December 2018. 
• The respondent was asked to take early possession of the flat by paying the remaining amount within 30 days. 
• The respondent attempted to arrange the amount but later discovered that the allotted flat had already been booked for someone else, namely Mr. Nakul Arya. 
• As a result, the respondent refused to pay the remaining amount and declined to take possession. 
• The appellant then issued a termination letter on 31st August 2017. 
• The respondent requested a refund of the amount paid along with interest, while the appellant forfeited the amount. 
• The respondent then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), complaining about the deficiency in services and alleging the adoption of unfair trade practices. 
• The respondent also sought a refund of the entire amount deposited, with 18% interest, along with litigation expenses and compensation for mental harassment and torture. 
• The appellant argued that the respondent is not a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, as the respondent was in the real estate business and purchased the flat for commercial purposes. 
• The appellant further argued that there was no deficiency in service, as he would have allotted the flat to the respondent if the full amount had been paid. 
• The NCDRC held that there was a deficiency in service by the appellant, as the appellant was not justified in canceling the respondent's allotment and forfeiting the amount deposited before resolving the issue of double allotment. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the NCDRC, the appellant filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that, through various precedents, it is clear that to determine whether a person is a consumer or not, the purpose of the purchase must be considered. 
• The Supreme Court placed the burden of proof on the appellant to demonstrate that the respondent's purpose in purchasing the flat was commercial, which the appellant failed to do. 
• The Supreme Court held that the flat purchased by the respondent was for residential purposes, as it was bought for the director and his family. 
• The Supreme Court further observed that the appellant, without resolving the dispute of double allotment, denied the allotment and forfeited the amount paid by the respondent. 
• The Supreme Court deemed this to be a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant. 
• The Supreme Court, therefore, confirmed the NCDRC's order and rejected the appeal. 

What is Consumer Protection Act, 2019?  

• This act helps to protect consumers against the ill practices of service providers or suppliers. 
• The act provides a framework through which a consumer can file cases before the Consumer Forums. 
• The Forum after necessary considerations provides reliefs to the consumer. 

Who is a Consumer? 

About 

• Any person who is the end user of a product is a consumer. 
• A consumer is the one who buys any goods or service for his own use and not for any commercial purpose. 
• As per Section 2 (7) of the CPA Consumer is defined as: 
  • any person who—  
    • 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. 
    • 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. 

Rights of Consumer 

• As per Section 2 (9) of CPA consumer rights includes — 
  • The right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property. 
  • The right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices. 
  • The right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods, products or services at competitive prices. 
  • The right to be heard and to be assured that consumer's interests will receive due consideration at appropriate for. 
  • The right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers. 
  • The right to consumer awareness. 

What is Deficiency of Service? 

• The concept of "deficiency of services" encompasses any failure, lack, or shortfall in the expected standard of services provided to consumers. 
• It covers instances where the service rendered falls short of the legal requirements, contractual obligations, or reasonable expectations of the consumer. 
• Deficiency can arise due to negligence, intentional acts, or omissions by the service provider, leading to consumer dissatisfaction, inconvenience, or harm. 
• Section 2(11) of CPA defines "deficiency" as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance required to be maintained under any law or undertaken to be performed by a person under a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. It includes: 
  • Any act of negligence or omission or commission by the service provider, which causes loss or injury to the consumer. 
  • Deliberate withholding of relevant information by the service provider from the consumer. 

Landmark Cases 

• Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and Others (2019): In this case the houses purchased by the Medical Trust for the nurses were not held as commercial transactions and the trust was considered Consumer under the CPA. 
• Crompton Greaves Limited and Others v. Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited (2016): in this case the director availed certain services for his personal use, so he was considered as consumer under CPA.