List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court clarified that the principle of res judicata does not strictly apply to criminal proceedings, allowing a subsequent Section 482 CrPC petition if prompted by a change in law. It held that withdrawing an earlier petition without liberty to refile does not bar filing a new petition under changed legal circumstances. This ruling came in an appeal against a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision dismissing a subsequent petition in a cheque bounce case. 

• Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held in the matter of Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Anr 

What was the Background of Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Anr? 

• Muskan Enterprises and its proprietor were convicted in a cheque bounce case by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amloh, District Fatehgarh. 
• The conviction included:  
  • 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the proprietor 
  • Compensation of Rs. 74,00,000 (double the cheque amount) to be paid to the complainant 
  • The convicted parties appealed to the Sessions Court, Fatehgarh Sahib. 
• The Sessions Court:  
  • Admitted their appeal 
  • Suspended the sentence until the appeal was decided 
  • Granted bail to the proprietor 
  • Ordered them to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days 
  • Allowed the complainant to withdraw the deposited amount with an undertaking to return it if the appeal succeeded 
• The appellants challenged this 20% deposit condition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a Section 482 CrPC petition. 
• At that time, the Supreme Court's Surinder Singh Deswal case (2019) was the governing precedent, which made such deposits mandatory. 
  • Due to this binding precedent, the appellants withdrew their petition from the High Court. 
• Subsequently, a new Supreme Court judgment (Jamboo Bhandari case, 2023) modified the interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 
• Based on this change in law, the appellants filed a fresh Section 482 petition before the High Court. 
• The High Court dismissed this second petition solely because the earlier petition had been withdrawn without obtaining liberty to file afresh. 
• The appellants then approached the Supreme Court challenging this dismissal by the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court erred in applying civil procedure principles to a criminal matter by insisting on obtaining leave before filing a fresh petition, as the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of CPC is not applicable to criminal proceedings. 
• Section 482 of CrPC preserves the inherent powers of High Courts to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of court process and secure the ends of justice, which cannot be constrained by procedural requirements of civil law. 
• A material change in law constitutes valid grounds for filing a subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC, even if the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining express leave to file afresh. 
• The Court distinguished between a review petition and a fresh petition based on changed law, noting that the appellants' subsequent petition was not a review in disguise but an attempt to seek application of the current legal position. 
• Regarding Section 148 of NI Act, the Court observed that the legislature's deliberate use of both 'may' and 'shall' in different contexts within the same section indicates a clear legislative intent to grant discretionary power to appellate courts in ordering deposits. 
• The Court observed that while appellate courts normally should order deposits, they retain discretion in exceptional cases to dispense with the deposit requirement, provided reasons are recorded for such deviation. 
• When two coordinate benches express divergent views (as in Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari), the latter judgment, having considered the earlier one, becomes the prevailing law until a larger bench decides otherwise. 

What is Res Judicata? 

• Res judicata, meaning "a matter adjudged," is fundamentally codified under Section 11 of CPC and is governed by three maxims:  
  • No person should be vexed twice for same cause, litigation must have finality, and judicial decisions must be accepted as correct. 
• For res judicata to apply, five essential elements must coexist:  
  • Matter in issue must be identical 
  • Parties must be the same 
  • Parties must be litigating under same title 
  • Previous court must have had competent jurisdiction 
  • Matter must have been heard and finally decided 
• In criminal proceedings, particularly under Section 138 of NI Act, res judicata has limited application - while technical dismissals don't create a bar, decisions on merits after full trial invoke Section 300 CrPC's protection against double jeopardy. 
• In divorce cases, res judicata's application focuses on the cause of action rather than the relief sought - findings in one matrimonial proceeding (like restitution suit) can bar contradictory claims in subsequent proceedings (like divorce suit). 
• The doctrine serves dual purposes - preventing multiplicity of proceedings involving same matter while protecting parties from facing repeated litigation over issues already decided by competent courts. 

What are the Differences Between Section 482 of CrPC, Section 528 of BNSS and Section 151 of CPC? 

Note: Section 528 BNSS is the successor to Section 482 CrPC under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, maintaining similar principles with updates for contemporary needs. 

 Case Referred By Court  

• Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S. S. Deswal vs Virender Gandhi (2019) 
  • Held that the condition for deposit under Section 148 of NI Act was mandatory 
  • This was the governing precedent when appellants first approached High Court 
• Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2023) 
  • Held that Section 148 should be given purposive interpretation 
  • Established that appellate courts can make exceptions to 20% deposit requirement in justified cases 
  • Reasons must be specifically recorded for such exceptions 
  • This judgment modified the strict mandatory interpretation in Surinder Singh Deswal 
• S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2007) 
  • Established that High Courts retain inherent power to decide successive petitions under Section 482 
  • Confirmed that res judicata principle does not limit this power 
• Devendra v. State of U.P. (2009) 
  • Reiterated that res judicata principle has no application in criminal proceedings 
• Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. (2023) 
  • Held there is no blanket ban against filing successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC 
  • Established that changes in facts or circumstances can justify filing of subsequent petitions 
  • Court must examine if such changes necessitated the fresh petition  

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice PS Narsimha and Justice Manoj Misra held that the IBC is a complete code in itself having sufficient checks and balances.                     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors. 

 What was the Background of Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd v. Farooq Ali Khan Case?  

• Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) were admitted against the corporate debtor on 26^th October 2018, initiated by Oriental Bank of Commerce, a financial creditor. 
• During the 19^th Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting, resolution plans were reviewed. The appellant was asked to incorporate certain items, and the meeting was adjourned to 11^th February 2020. 
• Sachin Misal, representing the suspended director, Mohd. Farouk Darvesh confirmed no objection to the plans or the process. However, this was contested by Mr. Shyam Divan, counsel for the suspended director. 
• The resolution professional issued a notice for the second adjourned 19^th CoC meeting on 11^th February 2020, but Mr. Shyam Divan claimed his client did not receive the notice. 
• At the adjourned meeting, a revised resolution plan was deliberated, voted on, and unanimously approved by the CoC with 100% voting share, declaring the appellant as the successful resolution applicant. 
• Another company, Swamitva, whose resolution plan submission was rejected, filed an interlocutory application seeking reconsideration. This was dismissed by the NCLAT on 19^th September 2022. 
• The suspended director also filed an application to reject the appellant’s resolution plan, raising similar objections. The NCLAT rejected these appeals. 
• Swamitva’s appeal against the NCLAT order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 25th November 2022. 
• The suspended director expressed interest in submitting a resolution plan at earlier CoC meetings (16^th, 17^th, and 18^th), where resolution plans were deliberated. 
• The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the resolution plan primarily on the ground that principles of natural justice were violated as 24 hours’ notice was not granted.  
• The present appeals were filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court interdicting Corporate Insolvency Process culminating in the acceptance of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors in minutes of meeting dated 11th February 2020. 

 What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that the jurisdiction and power of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(c) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has already been reiterated by the Supreme Court. 
• The Court has on several occasions highlighted the importance of concluding the CIRP proceedings in a timely manner. 
• The Court observed that in view of the delay in approaching the High Court, particularly when respondent no.1 himself has initiated proceedings under the Code by filing interlocutory applications seeking similar relief, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition. 
• The High Court should have noted that IBC is a complete code in itself having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. 
•  Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal discipline and preserves the balance between the need for order and the quest for justice. 
• The supervisory and judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application. 
• The Court held that this was certainly not the case for the High Court to interdict CIRP proceedings under the IBC Code. 

 What is IBC? 

• The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was introduced in 2016 to address the growing problem of non-performing assets and inefficient debt recovery mechanisms in India. 
• It replaced older systems with a time-bound, creditor-driven process for resolving corporate financial distress. 
• Under the IBC, insolvency can result in either resolution or liquidation. Efforts are first made to restructure the company or transfer ownership, and if these fail, the company's assets are liquidated. 

 What is the Process followed under IBC? 

• The process of insolvency can be understood by the flowchart below: 

What are the Important Case Laws on IBC as a Complete Code? 

• ES Krishnamurthy & Ors v. M/s Bharat Hitech Builders Pvt. Ltd.  (2021): 
  • The IBC is a complete code in itself. 
  • The Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority are creatures of the statute. Their jurisdiction is statutorily conferred.  
  • The statute which confers jurisdiction also structures, channelises and circumscribes the ambit of such jurisdiction.  
  • Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority can encourage settlements, they cannot direct them by acting as courts of equity.  
•  Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Limited (2022): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that it has been consistently held that the IBC is a complete code in itself. 
  • Also, in view of the provisions of Section 238 of the IBC, the provisions of the IBC would prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.   

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors. has held that A legal principle known as the Doctrine of Relation Back permits some rights or acts to become operative retrospectively from a date earlier than the actual date of occurrence. The theory protects the individual from the harm that occurs between the time of enforcement and the actual occurrence of the rights or interest since the rights were enforceable earlier. 

What was the Background of Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors. Case? 

• In this case, Bhavakanna Shahapurkar was the original owner of the disputed properties. He had two wives - Parvatibai (first wife) and Laxmibai (second wife). 
• Parvatibai was his legally wedded first wife. Since they had no children, she consented to Bhavakanna marrying Laxmibai without dissolving the first marriage. 
• From his marriage with Laxmibai, Bhavakanna had two children - Parashuram and Renuka. 
• Bhavakanna died on 4^th March 1982, leaving behind his two widows. 
• After his death, Parvatibai (first wife) filed a suit against Laxmibai, Parashuram and Renuka for partition and separate possession of properties. 
• This suit was settled through a compromise, and in the final decree proceedings, Parvatibai was allotted 9/32 share in schedule 'A' and 'D' properties. 
• On 16^th July 1994, Parvatibai adopted Mahesh (the appellant) as her son. The adoption deed was signed and registered by his natural father and Parvatibai. 
• After adoption, the appellant came to live with Parvatibai and relinquished all rights in his natural family. He was 21 years old at the time of adoption. 
• Later, Parvatibai executed two contested transactions: 
  • A sale deed dated in favor of defendants 2 and 3. 
  • A gift deed in favor of defendants 4 and 5. 
• The appellant (adopted son) filed suit claiming: 
  • He was entitled to half share in the suit properties. 
  • The sale deed and gift deed executed by Parvatibai were invalid without his consent. 
  • He demanded partition of the suit properties. 
• During the pendency of the case, Parvatibai (defendant No.1) passed away. 
• Trial Court's Observations: 
  • Partially decreed the suit filed by the appellant. 
  • Declared the gift deed executed by Parvatibai in favor of defendants 4 and 5 as null and void. 
  • Granted entire suit schedule B and C properties to the appellant as the sole legal heir of Parvatibai. 
  • Rejected Mahesh's claim regarding schedule A property. 
  • Upheld the sale deed executed by Parvatibai in favor of defendants 2 and 3. 
  • Found that Parvatibai was not aware of the contents of the gift deed. 
  • Noted that the gifted properties (B and C schedule) were never delivered to defendants 4 and 5. 
• High Court's Observations: 
  • Set aside the trial court's judgment and decree. 
  • Held that Parvatibai was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. 
  • Found that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the registered gift deed. 
  • Interfered with trial court's findings regarding the gift deed without detailed discussion. 
  • Aggrieved by the decision of the present petition is filed by the appellant. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Regarding Sale Deed: 
    • Confirmed the concurrent findings of lower courts that the sale deed dated was valid. 
    • Held that the appellant was bound by this alienation due to the cumulative effect of earlier compromise decree. 
  • Regarding Gift Deed: 
    • Quashed and set aside High Court's judgment. 
    • Restored trial court's judgment declaring gift deed as null and void because:  
      • Acceptance of gift was not proven. 
      • No delivery of property took place. 
      • Defendants 4 and 5 falsely claimed to be grandchildren of Parvatibai. 
      • Properties remained in Parvatibai's possession until her death. 
      • The High Court erred in reversing the trial court's finding without sustainable reasons. 
  • Applied key legal principles: 
    • Adoption and its Effects: 
    • Established that once adoption is proven through a registered deed, it is presumed valid unless disproven under Section 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). 
    • An adopted child becomes legally equivalent to a natural-born child from the date of adoption. 
    • All ties with the birth family are severed and replaced by those in the adoptive family. 
  • Doctrine of Relation Back: 
    • An adoption by a widow relates back to the date of death of her husband. 
    • The adopted child is treated as if born to the deceased husband. 
    • Creates immediate coparcenary interest in joint property. 
    • However, lawful alienations made before adoption remain binding on the adopted child. 
    • Rights and Limitations of Adopted Children: 
      • Cannot divest any person of estate vested before adoption under Section 12 of HAMA. 
      • Right to challenge previous alienations depends on:  
      • The capacity of the person making the alienation. 
      • The nature of the alienation. 
    • Requirements for Valid Gift (Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act,1882): 
      • Must be voluntary transfer without consideration. 
      • Requires two essential elements:  
      • Offer by donor 
      • Acceptance by donee 
    • Acceptance must include actual delivery of property. 
    • Mere registration of gift deed is insufficient without actual transfer of possession. 
    • Property Rights of Female Hindu (Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1955): 
      • Property possessed by female Hindu becomes her absolute property. 
      • She holds it as full owner, not limited owner. 
      • Includes property acquired through various means including inheritance, partition, or maintenance. 
  • Concluded that: 
    • Appellant’s adoption was valid and legally established. 
    • As an adopted son, he was entitled to challenge invalid alienations. 
    • He was entitled to entire B and C schedule properties as sole heir of Parvatibai. 
    • The sale deed of A schedule property would remain valid and binding on him. 
• The Supreme Court thus provided a balanced judgment by upholding valid transactions while protecting the adopted son's rights against invalid alienation. 

What is the Doctrine of Relation Back? 

About: 

• As per the black’s law dictionary the doctrine is defined as ‘a principle that an act done today is considered to have been done at an earlier time’.  
• It means an act done by a person in the present can be linked with the previous acts.  
• The doctrine has different applicability with the different laws.  

Objective: 

• The doctrine is useful for removing ambiguity at the time of delivery of justice.  
• It helps to avoid limitations and restrictions in a case.  
• It further reduces the chances of making mistakes.  

Applicability: 

• Hindu law:   
  • Section 12 of HAMA provides that the child so adopted will not divest or deprive any person of any estate which is vested in him before the adoption. Thus, adoption would have no effect on the estate which is already vested in a person.    
  • Section 12(c) of HAMA denies the theory of relation back which was applied and used in the case of vesting and divesting of property.  
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): The doctrine of relation back is impliedly given under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. It provides that a court can allow a party to a suit to amend the pleadings at any time before the trial, if it is necessary to determine the issues between the parties.    
• Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA): The application of the doctrine of relation back under the ICA can be found in the concept of ratification given under Section 196 of the ICA.  
• Limitation Act, 1963: Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 clearly provides that the substitution or addition of parties will be governed by the doctrine of relation back.