List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P Mehta held that if the marriage is legally registered the husband cannot be booked on the ground that he made a false promise to marry as per the customs. 

• The Bombay High Court held this in the case of State of Goa v. XXX (2025). 

What was the Background of State of Goa v. XXX (2025) Case?   

• The present petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeks to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against petitioners under Section 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The petitioner was married to respondent no 3 and the marriage between them was registered before the office of Civil Registrar. 
• It was not disputed that the marriage was not solemnized in accordance with the customs. 
• It was the case of the petitioner that the marriage was the result of pressure that the father of petitioner put on him. 
• Further, the petitioner also claims that he found some disturbing messages shared between Respondent 3 and two other individuals. 
• On 2nd July 2024 the petitioner filed a Matrimonial Petition before Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Panaji seeking annulment of marriage. 
• Respondent no 3 filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging the commission of offence under Section 375, 376 and 420 of IPC. 
• It is the above FIR that the petitioner prays before the Court to quash.   

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It was observed that Section 90 of IPC lays down what would constitute ‘consent’. 
  • Section 90 of IPC provides that if any consent is obtained on misconception of fact, it is not a consent at all. 
  • In case a woman engages in sexual relations on false promise of marriage her consent is based on “misconception of fact” and such sexual act will amount to rape. 
• It was observed by the Court that to establish a false promise of marry it is essential that it is proved that the accused had the intention to deceive the complainant at the time of making the promise. 
• The deception must have persuaded the accused to enter into sexual relations. 
• In the present facts the respondent was aware of the legally registered marriage between himself and the petitioner before they engaged in a sexual relationship. 
• Further, it was admitted by the respondent that following the civil registration of their marriage the parties engaged in consensual intercourse at several occasions. 
• This shows that the respondent was aware of the bond of matrimony and consciously decided to engage in consensual sexual interactions. 
• The Court further reiterated that there is a difference between “false promise to marry” and “breach of promise to marry”.   
• In the present facts the Court observed that the actions of the petitioners can only be interpreted as breach of promise to marry as he refused to solemnize their marriage according to religious customs after discovering the relationship of respondent with other men. 
• Thus, the Court concluded that the offence of rape and cheating based on false promise of marriage are not established against the accused in the present facts. 
• Thus, the Court exercised its inherent powers and quashed the FIR. 

What is the Offence of False Promise to Marry? 

• In IPC there is no such explicit offence. However, such an offence can be found in Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
  • Section 69 of BNS provides punishment for Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.  
  • It states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.  
  • Explanation— “deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that an insurance claim cannot be denied for breach of a contract condition that was impossible to fulfill. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.(2025). 

What was the Background of Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Case? 

• Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. purchased a newly built barge 'Srijoy II' and sought to undertake its maiden voyage from Mumbai to Kolkata. 
• The company applied for a 'single voyage permit' to the Director General of Shipping (DGS), estimating the vessel would sail from Mumbai on 30th April 2013 and arrive at Kolkata on 15th May 2013. 
• The DGS directed the Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) to conduct a detailed inspection of the vessel. 
• Sohom Shipping entered into an insurance contract with The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period between 16th May 2013 to 15th June 2013, which contained a special condition that the "voyage should commence & complete before monsoon sets in." 
• The vessel undertook the voyage on 06th June 2013 but was anchored off near Ratnagiri Port the next day due to bad weather and engine failure, ultimately running aground. 
• After the insurance contract expired, Sohom Shipping sought assistance from the insurer for towing and salvaging the vessel. 
• On 25th July 2013, Sohom Shipping issued a 'Notice of Abandonment' to the insurer claiming total loss on the grounds that repairing the vessel would be more expensive than the insured amount. 
• The insurer issued a 'Repudiation Notice' on 12th September 2013, rejecting the claim on the ground that the vessel set sail after 'monsoon set in,' thereby breaching the special condition in the insurance contract. 
• Aggrieved by the repudiation, Sohom Shipping filed a consumer complaint under Section 21 of COPRA before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which was subsequently dismissed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the insurance policy was taken for a period of one month specifically to cover the voyage from Mumbai to Kolkata, during which time foul weather was already in effect on the East Coast from 1st May. 
• The Court rejected the insurer's contention that they had no knowledge of the voyage during foul weather season, noting that the appellant had clearly stated in the form that the purpose of insurance was to undertake the voyage from Mumbai to Kolkata. 
• The Court concluded that the insurance was availed to cover the foul weather period along both coasts, as even if the voyage commenced immediately on 16.05.2013, the vessel would have arrived at Kolkata harbor after the onset of the monsoon on the east coast. 
• The Court held that the special condition requiring voyage completion before monsoon was impossible to comply with given the voyage route and timing, rendering the condition non-material and implicitly waived by the parties. 
• The Court further noted that a strict interpretation of such a condition would leave the assured without remedy in case of marine accidents during monsoon, which would vitiate the very purpose of an insurance contract. 
• The Court determined that the insurer was not entitled to repudiate the claim on the grounds of breach of the special condition, as this would result in an absurdity that could not have been the intention of any reasonable parties to the contract. 
• The Supreme Court consequently allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC's order and remanding the matter back to determine the extent of the insured sum payable to the appellant. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

• Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (COPRA) - The appeal was preferred by the Appellant under this section against the NCDRC's order. 
• Section 21 of COPRA - The original consumer complaint was filed under this section before the NCDRC. 
• Clause 3 of the Insurance Contract, particularly Clause 3.1.2 - This clause required compliance with recommendations and requirements imposed by the vessel's Classification Society relating to seaworthiness. 

What is Section 67 and 21 of COPRA? 

Section 21 of COPRA (2019)  

The Central Authority has the power to issue directions to traders, manufacturers, endorsers, advertisers, or publishers to discontinue or modify false or misleading advertisements that harm consumer interests or violate consumer rights. 

• The Central Authority may impose penalties up to ten lakh rupees on manufacturers or endorsers for false or misleading advertisements, which may extend to fifty lakh rupees for subsequent contraventions. 
• The Central Authority can prohibit endorsers of false or misleading advertisements from endorsing any products or services for up to one year, extending to three years for subsequent contraventions. 
• Publishers or parties to the publication of misleading advertisements may face penalties up to ten lakh rupees. 
• Endorsers can claim exemption from penalties if they exercised due diligence to verify the claims made in the advertisements they endorsed. 
• Publishers could claim a defense if they published the advertisement in the ordinary course of business without prior knowledge of any order by the Central Authority for withdrawal or modification. 
• When determining penalties, the Authority considers factors such as population and area impacted, frequency and duration of the offense, vulnerability of affected persons, and gross revenue from sales resulting from the offense. 
• The Central Authority must provide an opportunity of being heard before passing any order under this section. 

Section 67 of COPRA (2019)  

Any person aggrieved by an order of the National Commission made under sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58 may appeal to the Supreme Court within thirty days of the order. 

• The Supreme Court may entertain appeals filed after the thirty-day period if sufficient cause for the delay is established. 
• If the appellant is required to pay any amount as per the National Commission's order, the appeal will only be entertained if the appellant has deposited fifty percent of that amount as prescribed. 
• This section establishes the Supreme Court as the appellate authority for challenging certain orders of the National Commission. 
• The appeal mechanism provides a safeguard against potentially erroneous decisions of the National Commission while requiring good faith compliance through the deposit requirement. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan upheld the exclusive jurisdiction clause in employment contracts.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2025). 

What was the Background of Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2025) Case?   

• The case pertains to the appointment and termination of two persons. 
• Rakesh's Case: 
  • Appointed as Executive at HDFC Bank's Patna branch in July 2002. 
  • Employment contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause stating Bombay Courts have jurisdiction for disputes, 
  • Terminated on 28th August, 2016 for alleged fraud and misconduct. 
  • Filed a civil suit in Patna court seeking declaration of termination as illegal and reinstatement. 
  • HDFC Bank filed petition to reject the suit claiming courts in Mumbai had jurisdiction. 
  • Trial court dismissed HDFC's petition. 
  • HDFC Bank filed revision application in Patna High Court, which was successful. 
• Deepti's Case: 
  • Initially worked at Lord Krishna Bank, which merged with HDFC Bank in 2009. 
  • Appointed as officer in Delhi branch with employment agreement containing similar exclusive jurisdiction clause for Mumbai courts. 
  • Terminated on 31st May, 2017 for alleged fraud and misconduct. 
  • Filed civil suit in Delhi court seeking declaration of termination as null and void and reinstatement. 
  • HDFC Bank contested jurisdiction in written statement. 
  • Trial court held jurisdiction clause did not fully oust Delhi courts' jurisdiction. 
  • HDFC Bank's revision application to Delhi High Court was dismissed. 
• Key Judgments: 
  • Patna High Court ruled in favor of HDFC Bank, stating exclusive jurisdiction clause applied to service termination disputes. 
  • Delhi High Court ruled against HDFC Bank, holding that the exclusive jurisdiction clause did not oust Delhi courts' jurisdiction. 
• The central legal issue in both cases concerns whether the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts override the employees' right to file suits in courts where they worked and were terminated. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court laid down that for an exclusive jurisdiction clause to be valid it should satisfy the following conditions: 
  • It should be in consonance with Section 28 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) i.e., it should not absolutely restrict any party from initiating legal proceedings pertaining to the contract, 
  • The Court that has been given exclusive jurisdiction must be competent to have such jurisdiction in the first place, i.e., a Court not having jurisdiction as per the statutory regime cannot be bestowed jurisdiction by means of a contract and, finally. 
  • The parties must either impliedly or explicitly confer jurisdiction on a specific set of courts. 
• The Court held that in the private sector the parties are governed by the terms of the employment contract entered into between the parties. 
• It was further observed that as long as the employment contract does not offend the  applicable legislation like the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) or ICA, there is no scope for interference. 
• Further, a contention was made by the parties that since the present case pertains to service contract the above laid down law would not be applicable is not accepted by the Court. 
• The Court held that a contract be it commercial, insurance, sales, service etc is after all a contract. There can be no distinction on the basis of the status, power or influence of the parties. 
• The Court thus moved to apply the test laid down above in the present facts: 
  • It was observed that Mumbai will have jurisdiction because decision to employ Rakesh and Deepti were taken in Mumbai, the appointment letter in favour of Rakesh was issued from Mumbai, the employment agreement was dispatched from Mumbai, the decision to terminate the services of Rakesh and Deepti were taken in Mumbai and the letters of termination were dispatched from Mumbai 
• Thus, the Court held that HDFC Bank was justified in it’s claim that the suit should be instituted in an appropriate Court in Mumbai. 

What are the Landmark Case Laws on Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause? 

• Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971): 
  • It is not open to the parties by agreement to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a Court which it does not possess under the Code. 
  • But where two courts or more have under the CPC jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy. 
  • Such an agreement does not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act.
• Swastik Gases (P) Ltd v. Indian Oil Corp Ltd (2013): 
  • The intention of the parties—by having Clause 18 in the agreement—is clear and unambiguous that the courts at Kolkata shall have jurisdiction which means that the courts at Kolkata alone shall have jurisdiction. 
  • It is so because for construction of jurisdiction clause, like Clause 18 in the agreement, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius comes into play as there is nothing to indicate to the contrary