List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court imposed a hefty cost of ₹1,00,000 on a petitioner for indulging in frivolous litigation and forum shopping over 11 years, including more than 10 attempts before the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.  

• A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal observed that while access to courts is a cornerstone of democracy, it must be exercised responsibly.  
• The Court condemned the petitioner for abusing the judicial process, filing meritless pleas, and wasting judicial resources, which hinder the dispensation of justice to others. 

What was the Background of Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr ? 

• Pandurang Vithal Kevne has been employed as an Examiner with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) since 1977. 
• In December 1997, BSNL issued him a charge sheet for misconduct due to frequent and prolonged unauthorized absences from duty without prior permission or intimation. 
• Following a departmental inquiry, Kevne was found guilty and removed from service effective 14th July 2000. 
• A police investigation initiated by BSNL revealed that Kevne was running a business in his wife's name at his native place while being employed with BSNL. 
• When Kevne claimed illness as a defense, BSNL directed him to undergo a medical examination, He was declared medically fit to resume duty on 6th October 1997. 
• Despite being declared fit, Kevne did not report to work until 27th January 1998, after which he took two days of leave and remained absent again for two months. 
• After his dismissal, Kevne's statutory appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, following which he raised an industrial dispute that was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in Mumbai. 
• The CGIT passed its final award on 22nd December 2006, upholding Kevne's removal from service, noting that his absences qualified as misconduct as they were "habitual" and without prior permission. 
• This initiated a long series of legal proceedings by Kevne, including multiple appeals, review petitions, and complaints to various authorities, spanning over two decades. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that this case represents an example of misuse and abuse of the judicial process, where the petitioner, driven by his sense of grievance, has embarked on a relentless and frivolous litigation spree. 
• The Court states that while the right to access courts is a cornerstone of democracy, it is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly, noting that forum shopping, repetitive pleadings, and deliberate delays erode the foundation of the legal system. 
• The Court expressed concern that the petitioner's persistent litigation has resulted in choking the court's dockets, noting that such unscrupulous litigation hinders the efficient administration of justice for genuine claims. 
• The Court referenced its earlier judgment in Subrata Roy Sahara vs Union of India, highlighting how the Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation that causes anxiety and restlessness to innocent parties on the other side. 
• The Court observed that no legal system can sustain a scenario where a person repeatedly raises the same issue after its resolution at the highest level, as it results in complete wastage of judicial time. 

Central Government Industrial Tribunal 

• Legal Foundation 
  • Established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
  • Additional powers granted through Finance Act, 2017 for EPF&MP Act appeals 
• Geographical Coverage 
  • Total of 22 tribunals across India 
  • Strategic distribution with multiple courts in major industrial centers 
  • Two courts function as National Tribunals (Mumbai No.1 and Kolkata) 
• Leadership Structure 
  • Presiding Officers are selected from:  
    • Serving or retired High Court judges 
    • Serving or retired District/Additional District judges 
  • National Industrial Tribunals specifically headed by High Court judges 
• Core Objectives 
  • Maintain industrial peace and harmony 
  • Ensure quick disposal of industrial disputes 
  • Prevent industrial growth hindrance due to unrest 
  • Handle increasing worker grievances due to:  
    • Greater awareness of labor rights 
    • Technological restructuring leading to retrenchment 
    • Workforce surplus declarations 
• Administrative Structure 
  • Funding allocated for:  
    • Presiding Officers' salaries 
    • Staff salaries 
    • Administrative expenses 
    • Management of all 22 tribunals 

What is Frivolous Litigation? 

• Frivolous litigation refers to situations where a party makes needless, baseless, or malicious legal claims in their statements without merit.  
• Frivolous litigation occurs when a case lacks any reasonable basis in law or fact, and is typically filed to harass defendants, force settlements, or generate media attention, causing defendants to expend unnecessary time, energy, and resources. 
• Unlike vexatious litigation (which involves repeatedly filing similar cases), a frivolous case can be identified by its complete lack of merit and clear intention to either harass the defendant or abuse the court process, even if filed only once. 
• The problem of frivolous litigation significantly contributes to case backlogs in Indian courts, with such cases often stealing valuable court time and causing unjust deviation from genuine pending litigation, especially problematic during post-pandemic times. 
• While some suggest increasing court fees to deter frivolous cases, the Supreme Court has noted this approach may also discourage legitimate plaintiffs, suggesting instead that stronger legal consequences and careful screening at the "issue notice" stage might be more effective solutions. 
• International jurisdictions like the UK and New Zealand have specific provisions to strike down frivolous pleadings, while the US employs a case evaluation system to identify and discourage such litigation early in the process. 

What is the Difference between Frivolous and Vexatious? 

• Vexatious litigation specifically refers to the habitual or persistent filing of cases on issues that have already been decided whether against the same parties, their successors, or different parties. 
• Frivolous litigation, in contrast, doesn't require persistent filing - a single case can be considered frivolous if it has no merit and is intended to harass the defendant or abuse court process, as clarified by the 192nd Law Commission Report. 
• While the Bengal Regulation of 1795 suggested increasing court fees to curb frivolous cases, Lord Macaulay argued this approach was flawed as it would deter both dishonest and honest plaintiffs alike, without actually addressing the underlying issue of meritless claims. 
• The Law Commission's view states that both types of problematic litigation should be "nipped in the first possible instance" to save court time, but they require different approaches due to their distinct nature. 

Case Law  

• Charu Kishor Mehta v. Prakash Patel (2022) 
  • The petitioner had defaulted on a massive bank loan of Rs. 277 crores, and despite signing a settlement deed with Phoenix A.R.C. Pvt. Ltd., continued to obstruct recovery proceedings through multiple legal filings. 
  • The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions that the civil court had no jurisdiction in this matter under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as these issues fell under the purview of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 
  • The Court found the petitioner's conduct to be an abuse of the legal process through repeated frivolous litigation, particularly after signing the settlement deed, and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 while dismissing the Special Leave Petition. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of H.Guruswamy & Ors v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs. made strong observations particularly emphasized the importance of limitation periods and criticized the High Court's casual approach in condoning such a long delay without proper justification.  

What was the Background of the H.Guruswamy & Ors v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs Case?

• The case concerns a property situated at Byrasandra, Bangalore, Karnataka, originally measuring 45 yards (East to West) and 55 yards (North to South). 
• One Venkatappa purchased this property in 1916. He later sold a portion and retained a balance measuring 45 yards (East to West) and 27.5 yards (North to South). 
• Through a registered family partition, the property was divided between Venkatappa and his brother Muniga @ Chikonu: 
  • Venkatappa received 29 Ankanas with 1/3rd share 
  • Chikonu received 10 Ankanas of house with 2/3rd share 
• Venkatappa filed for injunction against his family members, which he subsequently withdrew on 14th June1965. 
• C.R. Narayana Reddy filed for specific performance against the appellants regarding the land with house in Byrasandra Village. 
• A. Krishnaiah (deceased Respondent No.1) impleaded himself as Defendant No. 14 claiming purchase from Defendants No.3 to 13. 
• A. Krishnaiah filed a suit seeking similar reliefs against the appellants, which was dismissed on merits on 08th December 1975. 
• A. Krishnaiah then filed another suit for possession and other reliefs. 
• The suit was initially dismissed for default in 1983 but restored in 1984 through a Petition. 
• Defendant No.4 (Nagaraja) in the suit passed away on 04th December.1999. Despite opportunities given on various occasions the Respondents failed to bring his legal heirs on record. 
• Smt. Jayalakshmi G., wife of deceased Respondent No. 1, claimed medical issues including hospitalization and angioplasty as reasons for delay. 
• Multiple applications were filed by the Respondents under Order 22 Rule 4, Order 32 Rule 1 & 2, and Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside abatement and bring legal heirs on record. 
• After dismissal of these applications, the Respondents filed Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court, which was dismissed. 
• Finally, the Respondents filed an application for recall the case before the Trial Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • On Timeline and Delay:  
    • Noted the suit was 48 years old (from 1977) and still at evidence recording stage. 
    • Highlighted the 6-year (2200 days) delay in filing recall application. 
    • Second instance of suit dismissal due to respondents' negligence. 
  • On High Court's Decision:  
    • The High Court overlooked critical aspects of the case. 
    • Exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints. 
    • Incorrectly applied concepts of "liberal approach" and "substantial justice." 
  • On Limitation Principles:  
    • Limitation rules aren't meant to destroy rights but prevent dilatory tactics. 
    • Length of delay is crucial in considering condonation. 
    • Parties cannot fix their own period of limitation. 
    • Courts must first ascertain bona fide before considering merits. 
    • Limitation is not merely technical but based on sound public policy and equity. 
• Based on the above observations the Supreme Court 
  • Set aside the High Court's order. 
  • Restored Trial Court's order. 
  • Emphasized that courts shouldn't keep 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over litigants indefinitely. 
• The Supreme Court's strong observations particularly emphasized the importance of limitation periods and criticized the High Court's casual approach in condoning such a long delay without proper justification. 

What is the Law on Condonation of Delay? 

• The Limitation Act, 1963 (LA), enacted on 5th October 1963, and effective from 1st January 1964, aims to prescribe the time periods within which existing rights can be enforced in courts of law. 
• The Act is based on the Latin maxim "vigilantibus, non dormientibus jura subveniunt," which means that the law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. 
• However, the Act recognizes that there may be circumstances beyond a litigant's control that prevent them from filing a suit or appeal within the prescribed time limit. 
• This is where the concept of "condonation of delay" comes into play. 

What is Condonation of Delay? 

• About: 
  • Condonation of delay is a discretionary remedy exercised by courts wherein, upon an application made by a party who wishes to have an appeal or application admitted after the prescribed period, the court may condone (overlook) the delay if the party provides a “sufficient cause” that hindered them from filing the appeal or application on time. 
  • If the court is satisfied with the sufficient cause, it may condone the delay and admit the appeal or application as if no delay had occurred, allowing the matter to proceed on merits rather than being dismissed solely on technical grounds. 
• Section 5 of LA: 
  • Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 enunciates the principle of condonation of delay. It states: 
    • “Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of CPC, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period”. 
    • The Explanation to Section 5 further clarifies that if the appellant or applicant missed any order, practice, or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period, it may constitute a sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. 
• Interpreting "Sufficient Cause": 
  • The term "sufficient cause" has not been defined in LA allowing courts broad discretion in its interpretation. 
• Sufficient Cause to Grant Condonation of Delay: 
  • Significant changes in the law 
  • Serious illness of the applicant 
  • Imprisonment of the applicant 
  • The applicant being a pardanashin woman (living in seclusion) 
  • Delay in procuring copies from officials, provided the applicant-initiated efforts to obtain them vigilantly 
  • Delay caused by the action or inaction of the applicant's lawyer 
• Applicability to Special Laws: 
  • The provisions of Section 5 of LA may not apply to special laws or statutes that have their own provisions for condonation of delay. 
  • For instance, the Supreme Court has held in several cases that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which deals with setting aside an arbitral award, expressly excludes the applicability of Section 5 of LA by using the phrase "but not thereafter." 

What are the Landmark Judgments on Condonation of Delay? 

• Krishna v. Chattappan (1889): 
  • The Privy Council laid down two rules for interpreting "sufficient cause": 
    • The cause must be beyond the control of the invoking party, and 
    • The parties must not be lacking bona fide or shown to be negligent or inactive. 
• Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962): 
  • The Supreme Court held that the delay requiring explanation is from the date the time was running out until the date of filing the appeal or application, and that a lack of diligence until the last date of limitation would not disqualify a person from applying for condonation of delay. 
• State of W.P v. Howrah Municipality (1972): 
  • The Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. 
• New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra (1976): 
  • The Supreme Court held that the discretion conferred by Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be interpreted in a way that converts a discretionary remedy into a rigid rule, and the term "sufficient cause" cannot be defined by hard and fast rules. 
• Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987): 
  • The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for administering the doctrine of condonation of delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations and that there is no presumption that the delay is caused deliberately. 
• Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others (2001): 
  • The Supreme Court stated that in exercising discretion under Section 5, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach, distinguishing between inordinate delays and relatively short delays, and keeping in mind that the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that when an application seeks amendment of plaint which constitutes a continuous cause of action no notice to the government is required under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.                     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of State of West Bengal v. Pam Developments Private Limited and Anr (2024). 

What was the Background of State of West Bengal v. Pam Developments Private Limited and Anr. Case?  

• On 4^th December 2013, the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Kolkata, floated a tender for strengthening the Howrah-Amta Road, with the project to be completed by 19^th August 2014. 
• The Respondent was awarded the contract, but the work was not completed on time. The timeline was extended with a penalty, and on 14^th May 2015, the Respondent's security deposit was forfeited. 
• On 7^th July 2015, the Respondent was debarred from participating in PWD tenders for two years (First Debarment Order), but the Calcutta High Court set it aside due to lack of notice to the Respondent. 
• A show-cause notice for debarment was issued on 18^th September 2015, followed by a memo on 8^th March 2016 requesting the Respondent to appear before the Debarment Committee. 
• The Respondent challenged the memo via Civil Suit No. 102 of 2016 and sought an injunction, claiming debarment was beyond the contract's scope and caused significant financial loss. 
• The High Court allowed the Respondent to contest all issues, including jurisdiction, before the Debarment Committee, which issued multiple orders culminating in a two-year debarment order on 31^st October 2017. 
• The earlier debarment orders were set aside by the High Court for procedural lapses on 6^th February 2017, 22^nd March 2017, and 2^nd August 2017. 
• The Respondent challenged the 31^st October 2017 debarment order but was rejected on 24^th January 2020, with the Court leaving the validity of the debarment open. 
• The Respondent sought to amend the plaint twice, first in 2019 (application dismissed as “not pressed”) and again in 2022, citing continuous cause of action and new developments. 
• The High Court allowed the 2022 amendment on 8^th January 2024, noting the facts constituted a continuous cause of action and did not change the suit's nature. 
• The above order of the High Court which allowed the application for condonation of delay and dispensed with the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) was challenged before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that there are two issues to be determined here: 
  • Whether the underlying application for amendment is legally sustainable? 
  • Whether the Respondent ought to serve notice upon the Appellants under Section 80 of CPC? 
• With Regards to Issue (i): 
  • The Court observed that the debarment orders form a continuous cause of action. 
  • A cause of action is continuing when the act alleged to be wrongful is repeating over a period of time, and consequently extending the limitation period 
  • Cause of action is a bundle of facts giving rise to a legal right; where in the present case the cause of action is the termination of the agreement, the First Debarment Order, and the memo dated 08th March 2016. 
  • It was observed that the subsequent debarment orders are all part of the same event and hence the subsequent events form a continuous cause of action for which a fresh suit is not filed as it does not change the nature and character of the civil suit. 
  • The Court thus held that that the circumstances give rise to a continuous cause of action resulting in situation where both the amendment applications were filed at different points of times and the former was not adjudicated on merits. 
• With Respect to Issue (ii): 
  • It was the case that the notice under Section 80 of CPC should have been filed before filing the application for amendment. 
  • The Court held that the amendment amounts to a continuous cause of action and maintains the nature and character of suit and to that extent the notice under Section 80 of CPC is irrelevant. 

What is Section 80 of CPC?

• Section 80 of CPC refers to the requirement of giving notice in case suit is filed against the Government. 
• Section 80 (1) of CPC provides that 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 
• As per Section 80 (1) of CPC the notice shall state the following: 
  • Cause of Action 
  • the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff 
  • the relief which he claims 
  • the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. 
• Section 80(2) of CPC, 1908 provides exception to the sub-section (1), It exempt the court to entertain a suit dealing with urgent or immediate relief against the government on reasonable opportunity of show cause that the matter needs immediate attention. 
  • If on hearing the court is unsatisfied with the ground that urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, it should return the plaint for the later presentation after satisfying the compliance needed in sub-section (1). 
• Section 80(3) of CPC, 1908 deals with the basic requirement of notice. If those requirements are satisfied, then the suit cannot be set aside merely on the ground of any error or defect in the notice.  
  • Those basic requirements of notice are:  
    • The name, description, and the residence of the plaintiff in such vivid way that it clearly allows to identify the person serving the notice. 
    • Such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in subsection (1) 
    • The cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated. 

What is the Object Behind Serving Notice under Section 80 of CPC? 

• The underlying object behind serving notice under Section 80 of CPC is as follows: 
  • In case of reasonable and just reason for filling suit, a prior notice will provide an opportunity to the government or public officer to correct or accept the demand put forward by the plaintiff. It leads to speedy settlement of the grievances. 
  • In case of reasonable complaint government or public officer will get enough time of two months to settle it down or to negotiate on the issue. Which might take years if it will decide in court. 
  • By giving a chance to negotiate and settle down the dispute this section is inserted for saving the money and time of plaintiff. It will help in avoiding money wastage in long process of litigation. 

What are the Important Case Laws on Notice under Section 80 of CPC? 

• BR Sinha v. State of MP (1969) 
  • Provisions u/s. 80 CPC are mandatory and failure to serve two months prior notice will entail the dismissal of the suit. 
• Islamia Junior High School v. State of UP (1986) 
  • Court is competent to consider whether or not there is in existence the urgency or likelihood of immediate relief being granted to the plaintiff. 
  • If the court is of the opinion that there is no such urgency existing or immediate relief cannot be granted, the court may refuse leave u/s. 80(2) of the CPC. 
• Bishan Dayal v. State of Orissa (2001) 
  • The Court held that if by amendment of plaint a new cause of action is brought, then a fresh notice u/s. 80 CPC is mandatory.