List of Current Affairs

Source: Jammu & Kashmir High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Rajnesh Oswal has deprecated the practice of implicating relatives of the husband as accused in proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) without specific allegations.   

• The Jammu & Kasmir High Court held in the case of Sumesh Chadha v. UT of J&K and Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of the Sumesh Chadha v. UT of J&K and Anr Case? 

• Sumesh Chadha is the petitioner in this case. He is a resident of Ludhiana and the maternal uncle of Kunwar Sood. 
• Kunwar Sood was married to Respondent No. 2 (Prerna Gupta). Their marriage was solemnized in November 2019. 
• The marriage between Kunwar Sood and Respondent No. 2 failed. The petitioner participated in reconciliation meetings in July 2023 in the United Kingdom. 
• Despite reconciliation attempts, the couple decided to part ways. Kunwar Sood filed for divorce through HM Courts and Tribunal Services in Harlow, UK. 
• The UK court issued a conditional divorce order declaring the marriage had broken down irretrievably. This was followed by a final divorce order. 
• Respondent No. 2 participated in the divorce proceedings in the UK court. 
• Later, Respondent No. 2 registered FIR at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Sections 498-A and 420 of IPC against the petitioner Sumesh Chadha. 
• Respondent No. 2 alleged that during her marriage, she was subjected to torture, cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws, and claimed that the petitioner had provoked her in-laws, resulting in acts of cruelty and humiliation. 
• One specific allegation involved the illegal withholding of jewelry/stridhan belonging to Respondent No. 2, which she claimed was retained at the petitioner's behest. 
• Respondent No. 2 claimed that the petitioner was nominated by the other accused persons to return her valuable jewelry and other items as agreed in an email, but these items were never returned. 
• Respondent No. 2 alleged that in May 2023, the petitioner's nephew (her husband) withdrew consent for her IVF treatment one week before final insemination, causing her significant emotional, physical, and financial distress. 
• The complainant also alleged that the petitioner arranged meetings in London in July 2023 under the guise of reconciliation but actually used these meetings to harass and extort money from her and her family. 
• Following these meetings, Kunwar Sood sent a divorce notice to Respondent No. 2. 
• The petitioner contended that the FIR was false and frivolous, filed against him only because he was nominated to hand over jewelry that was not in his possession. 
• Aggrieved by such actions the present petition has been filed before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The J & K High Court made several significant observations regarding the case: 
  • The High Court observed that all allegations in the FIR were primarily directed against Kunwar Sood (the husband) and his parents, not the petitioner Sumesh Chadha. 
  • The Court noted that the petitioner only came into the picture in July 2023, after relations between Respondent No. 2 and her husband had already deteriorated significantly. 
  • The High Court observed that no specific allegations were made against the petitioner in the complainant's application that led to the FIR. 
  • The Court determined that the petitioner appeared to have been arrayed as an accused only because he was nominated by the other accused for handing over jewelry/articles that were physically in the UK. 
  • The High Court observed that even in the statement recorded during investigation, there were no specific allegations against the petitioner except his participation in reconciliation meetings held in the UK. 
  • The Court noted that the petitioner seemed to have been included as an accused merely to pressure him to persuade his sister, nephew, and brother-in-law to return the complainant's jewelry and belongings. 
  • The High Court referenced Supreme Court precedents that have repeatedly deprecated the practice of implicating relatives of the husband as accused in proceedings under Section 498-A IPC without specific allegations. 
  • The Court observed that the FIR against the petitioner contained general and omnibus allegations that appeared to be an exaggerated version suggesting over-implication of the accused. 

What are the Provisions Related to Cruelty under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS)? 

About 

• Section 85 of BNS states: 
  • Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. 
    • Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 
  •  This provision was earlier covered under Section 498A of IPC. 

Landmark Judgement 

• Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2024): The Supreme Court in the case held that:  
  • Regarding General Allegations: The Supreme Court held that "allegations against the accused are general and omnibus in nature and that apart they are nothing but exaggerated versions invariably suggesting over implication of accused." 
  • Court's Duty in Section 482 Cases: The Supreme Court emphasized that courts have a duty "to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurize the family of the husband to yield to the demands." 
  • Obligation to Consider Contentions: The Supreme Court held that "The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions," emphasizing that courts must examine claims of over-implication even if a chargesheet has already been filed. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice KV Viswanathan held that a three-step test must be adopted to determine the law governing the arbitration agreement. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Disortho S.A.S v. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited (2025). 

What was the Background of Disortho S.A.S v. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited (2025) Case?   

• Disortho S.A.S is a company incorporated in Bogota, Colombia, and is the petitioner in the present facts. 
• Meril Life Science Private Limited is a company incorporated in Gujarat, India, and is the respondent. 
• The two companies executed an International Exclusive Distributor Agreement on May 16, 2016, for distribution of medical products in Colombia. 
• Disputes later emerged between the parties. 
• Disortho has filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitral panel based on Clauses 16.5 and 18 of the Distributor Agreement. 
• Meril opposes the petition on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that these clauses do not grant Indian Courts jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators. 
• Clause 16.5 states that the Agreement is governed by Indian law and subject to jurisdiction of courts in Gujarat, India. 
• Clause 18 provides that disputes shall be submitted to conciliation under the Rules of the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota, and if not resolved, to arbitration at the Arbitration and Conciliation Center of the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota. 
• The case is complicated by divergence of opinion on determining jurisdiction in trans-border arbitration, involving interaction between three legal systems: lex-contractus (substantive contract law), lex arbitri (law governing arbitration agreement), and lex-fori (procedural arbitration law). 
• The conflict between contractual clauses 16.5 and 18 is creating a complex legal situation that is addressed by the three- judge bench in this case. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court in this case cited the case of Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb (2020) where the UK Supreme Court discussed the law governing the arbitration. 
• In this case the Court followed the principles stipulated in Sulamérica Cia Nacional De Seguros S.A. and Others v. Enesa Engenharia S.A. and Others (2012), wherein the Court held that the law governing the contract may differ from the law of the contract. 
• The Court in the above case held that there is a distinction between a stand alone arbitration clause and one embedded within the contract. In the former the choice of seat of arbitration becomes significant and the law of the seat would likely govern the arbitration agreement. 
• However, when the arbitration agreement forms part of the contract the express choice of lex contractus will strongly indicate the intention of the parties. In such a case it would generally be inferred that the arbitration is governed by the same law as the substantive contract. 
• The Court thus must adopt a three-step inquiry:  
  • First, looking at the express choice of law. 
  • Second, considering any implied choice. 
  • Third, determining the closest and most real connection. 
  • Second step is applied when the first step is negative, and the third step is applied when the first and second steps are negative. 
• The Court held that according to Melford Capital Partners (Holdings) LLP and Others v. Frederick John Wingfield Digby (2021) when resolving conflicting clauses in a contract, courts should read the contract as a whole and attempt to give effect to all provisions. 
• Clauses should not be rejected unless clearly inconsistent or repugnant to the rest of the agreement. 
• The Court applied the three-step test in the present facts as follows: 
  • In this case, Clause 16.5 clearly states that Indian law governs the agreement and Gujarat courts have jurisdiction over disputes. 
  • While Clause 18 designates Bogota as the venue for arbitration and conciliation, this does not diminish the supervisory powers of Indian courts as outlined in Clause 16.5. 
  • Applying the three-step test from Sulamérica Cia, the court determined that Indian law governs the arbitration agreement since no explicit law was stated for the arbitration agreement. 
  • The choice of Bogota as a place for arbitration is not sufficient to override the presumption favoring the lex contractus (Indian law). 
  • The specification that the award shall conform to Colombian law pertains only to arbitration proceedings and does not override Clause 16.5. 
• The court affirmed the applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act under Section 11(6). 
• During the hearing, both parties agreed that if the application under Section 11(6) is allowed, they are willing to hold the arbitration in India. 
• Both parties have consented to the appointment of a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes.

What is Law Governing Arbitration Agreement? 

• Martin Hunter and Alan Redfern, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 53, trenchantly explain, a body of rules which sets a standard external to the arbitration agreement, and the wishes of the parties, for the conduct of the arbitration. 
• The law governing the arbitration comprises the following: 
  • Rules governing interim measures (e.g. Court orders for the preservation or storage of goods),  
  • Rules empowering the exercise by the Court of supportive measures to assist an arbitration which has run into difficulties (e.g. filling a vacancy in the composition of the arbitral tribunal if there is no other mechanism)  
  • Rules providing for the exercise by the Court of its supervisory jurisdiction over arbitrations (e.g. removing an, arbitrator for misconduct). 
• There are four choices of law: 
  • the law governing the arbitration, 
  • the proper law of arbitration agreement 
  • the proper law of contract, and 
  • the procedural rules which apply in the arbitration

How is Law Governing Arbitration can be Determined? 

• For the purpose of determining laws governing arbitration the test was laid down in following case laws: 
  • Sulamérica Cia Nacional De Seguros S.A. and Others v. Enesa Engenharia S.A. and Others (2012): 
    • In order to determine the law governing arbitration the court must conduct a three-step inquiry:  
      • First, looking at the express choice of law. 
      • Second, considering any implied choice.  
      • Third, determining the closest and most real connection. 
      • Second step is applied when the first step is negative, and the third step is applied when the first and second steps are negative. 
  • Arif Azim Co. Ltd v. M/s Micromax Informatics Fze (2024): 
    • The following position of law emerges: (i) Part I of the Act, 1996 and the provisions thereunder only applies where the arbitration takes place in India i.e., where either (I) the seat of arbitration is in India OR (II) the law governing the arbitration agreement are the laws of India. 
    • The moment ‘seat’ is determined, it would be akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause whereby only the jurisdictional courts of that seat alone will have the jurisdiction to regulate the arbitral proceedings. 
    • The more appropriate criterion for determining the seat of arbitration in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court is that where in an arbitration agreement there is an express designation of a place of arbitration anchoring the arbitral proceedings to such place, and there being no other significant contrary indicia to show otherwise, such place would be the ‘seat’ of arbitration even if it is designated in the nomenclature of ‘venue’ in the arbitration agreement.