List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that cause of action for family pension accrues only on demise of the Government servant.                

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Kumkum Dania v. Shri Kul Bhushan Dania. 

What was the Background of Kumkum Dania v. Shri Kul Bhushan Dania  Case?    

• The case involves a married couple - Mr. Kulbhushan Dania (husband/plaintiff) and Ms. Kumkum Dania (wife/defendant). 
• The couple got married on 5th October 1990 and have two children. 
• They had problems in marriage and got separated in 2008 and thereby reconciled in 2012. 
• The wife (Ms. Kumkum) worked as a Music Teacher at a government school in Delhi. She retired on 31st January, 2018, and then got re-employed at the same school. 
• The husband (plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against defendant to direct: 
  • The Defendant No. 1/Revisionist, for processing the due rights of Family Pension in favour of the Plaintiff. 
  • The Deputy Director and Director of the Department of Education (respectively Defendant Nos. 2 and 3) for grant of family pension to the Plaintiff, as per the Complaints made in respect of concealment of the family members in Service Record by the Defendant No.1/Revisionist.  
• The main dispute between the parties is that the wife had not updated her marital status in her service records, keeping it as "unmarried". 
• It is the case of the husband that the same was done intentionally to deprive him and their children of family pension benefits. 
• However, the wife claimed that it was an inadvertent oversight, and she corrected it once she became aware. 
• In the present suit the Defendant had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) wherein it was asserted that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. 
• The Learned ASCJ however, rejected the application.  
• Thereafter, a revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the CPC to set aside the order dated 27th September 2021 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed.

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that pension is a part of salary that becomes due to a government employee on their retirement. 
• It is evident from the definition itself that this is the amount which becomes payable to an individual on superannuation, which a person continues to enjoy during his/her lifetime. 
• The Court observed that it is evident from the definition of Family Pension in Rule 50 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 (CCS Pension Rules, 2021) that the right to claim Family pension accrues only on demise of the retired Government employee and not before then. 
• Further, the Court observed that this right to family pension is not circumscribed by the declaration of the family members in the Service Book. 
• There is no requirement under the law for the Government employee to declare all the family members. 
• Even if the names of the family members are not mentioned in the Service Book, then too, they can apply for Family Pension, as and when the situation arises, to which they would be entitled, if they are qualified as per the Pension Rules. 
• The Court in this case held that in the present facts the wife is still alive and the cause of action for claiming family pension has not arisen during her lifetime. 
• The Court categorically held that this is the case where the husband has filed the suit to harass the wife by making innumerable complaints against her. 
• Thus, the Court held that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is liable to be allowed on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action.

What is Pension? 

• Pension has been defined in Rule 3 (t) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 as: 
  • ““Pension” includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity but does not include dearness relief.” 
• Rule 50 of CCS Rules makes a provision for Family Pension. 
• Rule 50 (1) provides a family becomes eligible for family pension in any of these three situations: 
  • If a government employee dies after working for more than one year continuously. 
  • If a government employee dies before completing one year of service, but only if:  
    • They had passed a medical examination before joining. 
    • The examination was done by the proper medical authority. 
    • They were declared medically fit for government service. 
  • If a retired government employee dies while they were:  
    • Already receiving their pension, or 
    • Getting a compassionate allowance 
    • In any of these cases, the family can start receiving the family pension from the day after the person's death. 

What are Landmark Case Laws on the Right to Pension? 

• Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971): 
  • Pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend on the discretion of the Government and would be governed by the rules.  
  • It was held that a Government servant falling within those rules was entitled to claim pension.  
  • It was also held that the grant of pension did not depend upon anyone's discretion.  
  • The Supreme Court further held that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer.  
  • It was held that it was a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer for an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.   
  • It was held that it was not an incentive but a reward for past service.
• State of Jharkhand and Ors v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (2013): 
  • The Court in this case held that the right to property is not a fundamental right but it is a constitutional right.  
  • The right to receive pension has been recognized as a right to property.  
  • A person cannot be denied his right to pension without the authority of law which is a constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution.   
• R. Sundaram v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Ors. (2023): 
  • The Court held in this case that right to pensionary benefit is a constitutional right and as such cannot be taken away without proper justification.
• Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. (1999):
  • The Court held that grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty but a right of employee and as such cannot be denied without proper justification. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank v. Atin Arora & Anr.  has held that objections to place of suing can't be allowed unless taken in court of first instance at earliest opportunity. 

What was the Background of Punjab National Bank v. Atin Arora & Anr.   Case?  

• Punjab National Bank (PNB) was the appellant against Atin Arora and another party in this matter that reached the Supreme Court. 
• M/s. George Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) had its registered office in Kolkata, West Bengal initially. 
• On 16^th January 2018, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Kolkata, issued an order allowing M/s. George Distributors Pvt. Ltd. to change its registered address from Kolkata, West Bengal to Cuttack, Odisha. 
• PNB filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata on 9th January 2019. 
• The company and its director were aware of these proceedings, as evidenced by their request for a copy of the petition from PNB. 
• M/s. George Distributors Pvt. Ltd. had filed an e-Form for the change of registered address. 
• NCLT Kolkata served notices on the petition through Speed Post of India. 
• The Section 7 IBC petition was admitted for hearing. 
• The NCLT Bench at Cuttack was first constituted via an office order on 11th March 2019. 
• The respondent company had not informed PNB about the change in its registered address from Kolkata to Cuttack. 
• The matter eventually reached the Calcutta High Court through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (COI) where the High Court set aside the NCLT's order rejecting the recall application. 
• Subsequently came before the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following Observations as: 
  • Found that the High Court erred in entertaining the Article 227of the COI petition. 
  • The Supreme Court specifically noted that the Calcutta High Court:  
    • Failed to consider Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) regarding jurisdictional objections. 
    • Overlooked that objections about place of suing must be taken at earliest opportunity. 
    • Did not fully examine the consequences of setting aside the IBC admission order. 
    • Remained oblivious to its limited role and jurisdiction under Article 227 of COI. 
  • The Supreme Court emphasized these key points:  
    • The respondent company never informed PNB about the change in registered address. 
    • Mere mention of e-Form in the petition was not sufficient to indicate knowledge of address change. 
    • The NCLT Cuttack bench was only constituted on 11th March 2019, after PNB had already filed in Kolkata. 
    • The company and its director were aware of proceedings and had even collected petition copies. 
  • The Supreme Court ultimately:  
    • Set aside the High Court's order of the High Court. 
    • Allowed the IBC proceedings to continue. 
    • Preserved the rights of Atin Arora and M/s. George Distributors Pvt. Ltd. to pursue other legal remedies.

What is Section 21 of CPC? 

About: 

• Section 21 of CPC deals with the objections to jurisdiction. 
• The purpose of this section is to safeguard honest litigants and to prevent harassment of plaintiffs who have commenced actions in good faith before a court that is later determined to lack jurisdiction. 

Section 21 of CPC: 

• Section 21 of CPC states that - 
  • No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. 
  • No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. 
  • No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. 
• Under this Section, no objection as to the place of suing will be allowed by an appellate or revisional court unless the following three conditions are satisfied: 
  • The objection was taken in the court of first instance. 
  • It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or before settlement of issues. 
  • There has been a consequent failure of justice. 
• The Supreme Court in the case of Pathumma v. Kuntalan kutty (1981), held that all these three conditions must co-exist. 
• The principles of this Section also apply to execution proceedings. 

Significance of Section 21 of CPC: 

• This Section serves the purpose of preserving judicial resources by preventing parties from taking inconsistent positions regarding jurisdiction. 
• By requiring timely objections, the Section helps in avoiding unnecessary delays and promotes the efficient resolution of disputes. 
• It aligns with the principles of fairness and equity in legal proceedings. 
• It ensures that parties do not take advantage of the court's jurisdiction and then later attempt to challenge it, thereby maintaining the integrity of the legal system. 
• The provision's recognition of exceptional circumstances provides the court with the flexibility which is needed to address unique situations where strict adherence to the rule may lead to injustice. 

Case Laws: 

• ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994): 
  • The Supreme Court held that the reason behind having Section 21 in CPC is to guard the true litigants and also to protect them from any kind of harassment.
• Pathumma v. Kuntalan kutty (1981): 
  • The Supreme Court held that Section 21 of CPC does not preclude objections as to the place of suing being taken in the appellate court, it the trial court has not decided the suit on merits.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News?

The Supreme Court states that the right to appeal against a conviction is a statutory and fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that a properly explained delay in filing an appeal cannot justify its dismissal. This observation came while hearing an appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's dismissal of an appeal due to a 1637-day delay. The accused had cited financial constraints and livelihood-related reasons for the delay. 

• Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh held in the matter of Mahesh Singh Banzara v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 

What was the Background of Mahesh Singh Banzara v. State of Madhya Pradesh Case? 

• Mahesh Singh Banzara was convicted by a trial court on July 23, 2015, under two charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 
  • Section 366 of IPC: Sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 10,000 fine.  
  • Section 376(2)(n) of IPC: Sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50,000 fine.  
• Banzara filed a criminal appeal against his conviction in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but this was filed after a significant delay of 1,637 days. 
• Along with his appeal, he filed an application seeking condonation of the delay, citing two main reasons:  
  • Lack of monetary resources. 
  • Need to travel out of station to earn his livelihood. 
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, on 2nd March 2023:  
  • Interpreted his reasons as absconding after the judgment. 
  • Dismissed his application for condonation of delay. 
  • Consequently, dismissed the criminal appeal. 
  • This made the trial court's conviction final. 
• Against this dismissal by the High Court, Banzara filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The right to appeal against a conviction is a statutory right provided under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973. 
• When it concerns a person's liberty, the right to appeal is also a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court cited the Dilip S. Dahanukar case to emphasize that an offender who has been convicted is entitled to exercise their right of appeal. 
• Referring to the Rajendra case, the Court noted that appeals should not be dismissed as time-barred without examining the reasons for the delay. 
• The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred by dismissing the appeal solely due to delay without properly examining the reasons provided. 
• The Court held that dismissal based on mere technicalities without substantive assessment of the appellant's reasons was erroneous. 
• Based on these observations, the Court condoned the 1,637-day delay and directed the High Court to hear the criminal appeal on its merits. 

Right to Appeal  

• Overview: 
  • The right to appeal is a legal entitlement that allows parties to challenge lower court decisions in higher courts, and is recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
  • It is a statutory right, not an inherent right, and can only be exercised within the framework of specific statutes that grant it. 
  • The law governing the right to appeal is the one in force when the lawsuit was filed, not when the decision is made or appeal is filed. 
  • Historical Development: 4. Ancient India based justice on dharma, where people could approach the king or local courts for redressal. 
• The British rule formalized the legal system by introducing:  
  • Civil Procedure Code (1908) for civil suits. 
  • Criminal Procedure Code (1898) for criminal appeals. 
• Post-independence developments included:  
  • Constitutional recognition of access to justice as a fundamental right. 
  • Establishment of Supreme Court as the highest appellate authority. 
  • Empowerment of High Courts to hear appeals from lower courts. 
• Right to Appeal Characteristics:  
  • It is a substantive right that vests from the beginning of the case but is exercised only after an unfavorable judgment. 
  • The statute granting the right can impose conditions for its exercise and alter the forum of appeal. 
  • The right combines influences from Hindu legal traditions (mediation) and Islamic legal system (fair trials and appeals). 

What are the Legal Frameworks of Right to Appeal? 

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)   

• Section 374 CrPC establishes a hierarchical system of appeals, allowing convicted persons to appeal to three levels of courts - the Supreme Court, High Court, and Court of Session, depending on which court convicted them. 

Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 

• It establishes a three-tiered appellate structure:  
  • Supreme Court for High Court convictions. 
  • High Court for Sessions Court convictions with 7+ year sentences. 
  • Sessions Court for Magistrate convictions. 
• For High Court convictions [Section 415(1)]:  
  • Appeals lie to the Supreme Court. 
  • It only applies to extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction cases. 
  • No minimum sentence requirement specified. 
• For Sessions Court convictions [Section 415(2)]:  
  • Appeals lie to High Court. 
  • Applies to trials by Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges. 
  • Also covers cases with 7+ year sentences from other courts. 
  • Includes co-accused convicted in same trial. 
• For Magistrate Court convictions [Section 415(3)]:  
  • Appeals lie to Sessions Court. 
  • Covers first class and second-class Magistrate trials. 
  • Includes sentences under section 364. 
  • Covers orders/sentences under section 401. 
• Special time limit [Section 415(4)]:  
  • 6-month disposal deadline. 
  • Applies to appeals against sentences under specified sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 
  • Time starts from appeal filing date. 

Right to Appeal under Section 96 of CPC: 

• Under Section 96 of CPC, any party adversely affected by a decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction has the right to file a first appeal. 
• Legal representatives of deceased parties (under Section 146) and transferees whose names are recorded in the suit can also appeal. 
• Non-parties to the suit can only appeal if they obtain special leave from the appellate court and can prove they are bound, aggrieved, or prejudicially affected by the decree. 

Right to Appeal under Article 21 Constitution of India,1950 and Statutory Law: 

• The right to appeal is recognized as part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• It is not an inherent right but a substantive right granted through specific statutes. 
• The right vests at the beginning of the case but can only be exercised after an unfavorable judgment. 
• The law governing the appeal is the one in force when the lawsuit was filed, not when the decision is made, or appeal is filed. 
• While statutes can impose conditions on exercising this right, these conditions cannot be so restrictive as to make the right meaningless, as noted by Justice Khanna.

Appeal Limitation Periods: