List of Current Affairs

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church (TAPPC SOCIETY) v. Kilari Anand Paul has held that there couldn't be a valid "deemed service by refusal" unless the notices were sent to the correct address. 

What was the Background of The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church (TAPPC SOCIETY) v. Kilari Anand Paul Case? 

• In the present case, The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church (TAPPC Society), represented by its President, Smt. Kilari Esther Rani, as one of the main parties.  
• The original case was filed in the court of the Principal District Judge at Visakhapatnam under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (APSC). 
• The petitioners sought several reliefs including: 
  • A detailed enquiry under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act. 
  • Handover of properties and bank account operations to deserving office bearers. 
  • A declaration that the 1st respondent and associates fraudulently obtained certified copies of renewals. 
  • An injunction to prevent respondents 1-3 from using these certified copies. 
  • Resolution of matters concerning both GUM Society and TAPP Society. 
• In response to this original petition (O.P.), the respondents (who are now review petitioners) argued that the O.P. was barred under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
• The application was successful, and consequently, O.P was dismissed. 
• A key issue arose regarding the service of notices, where there was confusion about the correct address of the parties. 
• Challenging this dismissal order, the respondents filed two Civil Revision Petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations ? 

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court made the following observations: 
  • That the address mentioned in the Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) was different from the address given in the original petition. The address in the CRPs was incorrect. 
  • That issues with the registered notices sent to the review petitioners also had some errors as: 
    • Some notices showed the number '3' instead of '9'. 
    • One notice to respondent No.2 had an overwriting changing '3' to '9'. 
    • There was unexplained cutting and overwriting on the notice for respondent No.3. 
    • The Court couldn't determine who made these corrections or when. 
  • That merely correcting postal envelopes wasn't sufficient - the address in the CRPs should have been formally corrected and fresh notices should have been issued with the correct address. 
  • The Court questioned why the original registered letters returned weren't submitted to the court along with the memo date. Only the tracking report was submitted. 
  • The Andhra Pradesh Court determined that there couldn't be a valid "deemed service by refusal" unless the notices were sent to the correct address. 
• The High Court also concluded that the review petitioners were denied their right to be heard in the CRPs due to lack of proper service. 
• The Court Cofound that the order passed by the Court violated principles of natural justice as it was passed without giving the review petitioners an opportunity to be heard. 
• The Court emphasized that proper service of notice is fundamental to ensuring fair judicial process and protecting parties' interests. 
• The Andhra Pradesh High Couer set aside the dismissal order and directed the pleas to be listed under the heading of “admission/hearing” before the appropriate bench. 

What is a Notice? 

About: 

• Notice means information or knowledge of a fact.  
• When a person has knowledge about a fact or under the existing circumstances it can be proved that he must have knowledge about a fact, it is said that he has notice of such fact.   

Contents of Notice: 

• The name, description, and residence of the plaintiff 
• The cause of action 
• The relief sought by the plaintiff

Method for Service of Notice: 

• Personal service 
• Registered post acknowledgement due (RPAD) 
• Speed post 
• Courier service approved by the High Court. 
• Other means of transmission of documents (including fax message or electronic mail service) are provided by the rules made by the High Court. 

Section 80 of CPC: 

• Section 80 of CPC deals with the provisions relating to notice which is a condition precedent before filing a suit against the government or against a public servant. 
• It states that - 
  • As per sub section (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suits shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of— 
    • In the case of a suit against the Central Government, except where it relates to a railways, a Secretary to that Government; 
    • In the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway; 
    • In the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. 
  • Subsection (2) states that a suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit. 
  • Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief needs to be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1). 
  • As per subsection  (3) No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice— 
    • The name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and 
    • The cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated. 
  • The object of the notice is to give the government or public servant an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and to make amendments if so, advised by the legal expert. 
    • In Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar (1984), the Supreme Court held that the object of Section 80 of CPC is the advancement of justice. 
  • This Section applies to all suits whether they are suits for injunctions or suits for declarations and suits for damages. 
    • It does not apply to the writs filed before the High Court or the Supreme Court.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that there cannot be any special treatment given to the party because it is a government entity.         

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd v. Kamarajar Port Limited. 

What is the Background of International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd v. Kamarajar Port Limited Case? 

• The Respondent in this case issued a Letter of Award to the Appellant for executing Capital Dredging Phase III at Kamarajar Port for an approximate sum of Rs. 274 crores. 
• The parties entered into a contract for completing certain works on 12th August 2015. 
• The disputes arose between the parties and the Appellant invoked the arbitration clause. 
• The proceedings commenced an award was made on 7th March 2024. 
• The Respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) and moved an application for stay of execution. 
• The High Court granted a stay on execution of award conditional on respondent furnishing a bank guarantee within a period of eight weeks. 
• The above judgment was called in question by the Appellant i.e. the original claimant on the ground that since the award operates as a money decree under Section 36 of A & C Act the High Court was not justified in directing merely the furnishing the bank guarantee in relation to principal amount.  
• It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent ought to have deposited the amount awarded as a condition for grant of stay of execution of award. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that Section 36 (2) of A & C Act provides that where an application has been filed under Section 34 of the Act the filing of such an application shall not by itself render the award unenforceable unless the Court grants stay to the award. 
  • Further, proviso to Section 36 (3) which has been introduced following the Amendment of 2015 provides that the Court shall while considering an application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money have due regard to the provisions contained in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
  • The second proviso provides for a situation where an unconditional stay can be granted.  
• The Court observed that the High Court granted a stay on the operation of the award subject to respondent furnishing a bank guarantee for the principal amount. 
  • Further, the High Court also held that the orders are not issued in relation to the interest and costs awarded to the appellant because the petitioner is not a fly by operator and is a statutory undertaking. 
• The Supreme Court held that the law qua arbitration proceedings cannot be different merely because the respondent is a statutory undertaking.  
• The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have based its decision on the condition for the grant of stay on the status of the respondent as a statutory authority. 
• It was observed that the A & C Act Arbitration Act is a self-contained code – it does not distinguish between governmental and private entities.  
• The form of security required to be furnished should not depend on whether a party is a statutory or other governmental body or a private entity.  
• Governmental entities must be treated in a similar fashion to private parties insofar as proceedings under the Arbitration Act are concerned, except where otherwise indicated by law. 
• Hence, the Court rejected the argument that the High Court was correct in directing the respondent to furnish bank guarantees in relation to the amount awarded because it is a statutory body.

What is a Government Entity? 

• As per Collins Dictionary the term ‘entity’ refers to something that exists separately from other things and has a clear identity of it’s own.  
• Similarly, the term ‘Government’ in Collins Dictionary is defined as a group of people who are responsible for governing the country. 
• Under Goods and Services Tax the term Government Entity has been defined as: 
  • Government Entity means an authority or a board or any other body Including a Society, Trust, Corporation, 
    • Set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; or 
    • Established by Government 
    • With 90% or more participation by way of equity or control to carry out a function entrusted by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or a local authority.

Whether a Government Entity Should be Treated Differently under the A & C Act? 

• Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of West Bengal (2019): 
  • Section 18 of the Act makes it clear that the parties shall be treated with equality. 
  • Once the Act mandates so, there cannot be any special treatment given to the Government as a party. 
  • As such, under the scheme of the Arbitration Act, no distinction is made nor any differential treatment is to be given to the Government, while considering an application for grant of stay of a money decree in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 
  • No exceptional treatment shall be given to the Government while considering an application for stay under Section 36 filed by the Government in proceedings under Section 34 of the A & C Act.
• Tokyo Engineering Corporation v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2021): 
  • The Court held that largely because public corporations are involved, discretion continues to be exercised not on principles under Order XLI Rule 5 but only because large amounts exist, and that Government Corporations have to pay these amounts under Arbitral Awards. 
  • Both these considerations are irrelevant, as was pointed out by us earlier.

Source: Kerala High Court  

Why in News? 

The Kerala High Court in the matter of Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation v. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ruled that while only Constitutional Courts can enforce fundamental rights, specialized tribunals like the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) can exercise judicial review over those rights. This distinction arose during a challenge to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services regulations and tariff order.  

• The court stated that while constitutional courts have the power to enforce rights, tribunals can assess whether decisions align with those rights, thus directing the petitioners to seek redress before TDSAT. 

What was the Background of the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation v. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Case? 

• The case originated when the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation and two television broadcasters (Viacom18 Media Private Limited and Star India Private Limited), along with other broadcasting establishment representatives, filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. 
• The petitioners challenged specific provisions in two regulatory documents:  
  • Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017. 
  • Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2017. 
• The petitioners specifically sought to:  
  • Set aside Clause 3 of the 2024 Tariff Order. 
  • Set aside the Fifth Proviso to Clause 3(3) of the 2017 Tariff Order. 
  • Set aside Clause (a) of Second Proviso to Regulation 6(1) of 2017 Regulations. 
• A single judge bench initially heard the case and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to approach the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). 
• The petitioners then filed an appeal before the division bench of the Kerala High Court, arguing that:  
• The High Court, not TDSAT, was the appropriate forum due to alleged fundamental rights violations 
• The Tariff Order and Regulations of TRAI should be subject to judicial review 
• The respondent authorities (including TRAI) countered by arguing that:  
• The Supreme Court had already upheld the validity of these Regulations in the Star India Private Limited v Department of Industrial Policy and Promotions case (2019) 
• TDSAT has the authority to review Tariff Orders, including cases involving fundamental rights violations 
• The legal principles established by the Supreme Court couldn't be circumvented merely because not all grounds were previously considered 
• The case had particular significance because it involved questions about the jurisdiction and authority of specialized tribunals versus constitutional courts in matters involving fundamental rights. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court held that while the writ petition was maintainable concerning the specific challenge to the regulation, the Single Judge had erred in examining the merits of the challenge against the Tariff Order after noting the existence of an efficacious alternate remedy before TDSAT. 
• The Court observed a fundamental distinction between enforcing fundamental rights and exercising judicial review concerning those rights - while only constitutional courts can enforce fundamental rights, any authority with review power can determine whether a decision or order aligns with fundamental rights parameters. 
• The Court distinguished between res judicata and precedent, noting that res judicata pertains to procedural rules binding litigating parties to previous judgments, whereas precedent constitutes binding legal declarations applicable to all courts and authorities irrespective of parties' rights and obligations. 
• The Court observed that specialized tribunals like TDSAT, comprising expert members with specialized knowledge, cannot be equated with constitutional courts, as the implementation of law involves multiple dimensions including market, economic, environmental, social, and political aspects. 
• The Court held that constitutional courts are not adequately equipped to handle specialized fields, noting that traditional courts tend to focus on dogmatic interpretation of law rather than the nuanced approach required for specialized areas. 
• Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Cellular Operators Association of India case, the Court emphasized TDSAT's wide jurisdiction under Section 14-A of the Act, extending to examining the legality, propriety, or correctness of authority directions/orders. 
• The Court determined that once the Supreme Court dismisses a challenge to regulation, no court bound by Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) can revisit that binding judgment on different grounds, as only the Supreme Court has authority to revisit its own declared law. 
• The Court noted that while constitutional courts are competent to take up such challenges, they must consider economic implications and policy dimensions of TRAI's decisions from various angles, requiring a perspective that traditional constitutional courts typically cannot address effectively. 

What is Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)? 

• Establishment and Evolution: 
  • TDSAT was established in 2000 through an amendment to the TRAI Act, 1997. 
  • In 2004, its jurisdiction expanded to include broadcasting and cable services. 
  • Through the Finance Act 2017, its scope further extended to include matters previously under Cyber Appellate Tribunal and Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal. 
• Core Functions and Mandate: 
  • Adjudicates disputes between licensor and licensee. 
  • Resolves conflicts between two or more service providers. 
  • Handles disputes between service providers and consumer groups. 
  • Disposes of appeals against TRAI's decisions, directions, or orders. 
• Composition and Eligibility: 
  • Consists of a Chairperson and two Members, all appointed by Central Government. 
  • The chairperson must be or have been a Supreme Court Judge or High Court Chief Justice. 
  • Members must have held Secretary-level positions in Central/State Government or possess expertise in technology, telecommunication, industry, commerce, or administration. 
  • Term limits: Chairperson serves until age 70 or four years, Members until age 65. 
• Jurisdictional Scope: 
  • Exercises jurisdiction over Telecom, Broadcasting, IT, and Airport tariff matters. 
  • Functions under three major acts: TRAI Act 1997, IT Act 2008, and Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act 2008. 
  • It has both original and appellate jurisdiction in telecom, broadcasting, and airport tariff matters. 
  • Holds only appellate jurisdiction in cyber matters. 
• Procedural Powers: 
  • Not bound by Civil Procedure Code but guided by principles of natural justice. 
  • Possesses powers of a civil court regarding summoning, document production, and evidence collection. 
  • Can regulate its own procedure and review its decisions. 
  • Orders are executable as civil court decrees. 
• Appeal Mechanism: 
  • Orders in telecom, broadcasting, and airport tariff matters can be appealed to Supreme Court on substantial questions of law. 
  • Cyber matter appeals go to respective High Courts. 
  • No appeals allowed against interlocutory orders or orders made with parties' consent. 
• Special Features: 
  • Civil courts cannot entertain matters within TDSAT's jurisdiction. 
  • Proceedings are deemed judicial proceedings under IPC sections 193, 228, and 196. 
  • Functions as a specialized tribunal with expertise in technical and commercial aspects of telecommunications. 
  • Plays crucial role in ensuring orderly growth of telecom sector and protecting consumer interests. 

What is Constitutional Court? 

• Constitutional Courts in India - specifically the Supreme Court and High Courts - are established directly by the Constitution under Articles 124 and 214 respectively, with the primary authority to interpret the Constitution and protect fundamental rights. 
• These courts possess unique powers including:  
  • Judicial review of legislative and executive actions. 
  • Authority to issue prerogative writs (under Articles 32 and 226). 
  • Power to strike down unconstitutional laws. 
  • Ability to enforce fundamental rights directly. 
• Unlike specialized tribunals, Constitutional Courts have inherent and wide jurisdiction over matters relating to constitutional interpretation, enforcement of fundamental rights, and maintaining federal balance between Centre and States. 
• Constitutional Courts' decisions on constitutional matters serve as binding precedents for all other courts and tribunals in India, making them the ultimate authority on constitutional interpretation. 
• They function as independent guardians of the Constitution, ensuring constitutional governance and rule of law while maintaining checks and balances in India's democratic system.