List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Bombay High Court in Gaurav Sri Kalyan v. Ram Naresh Singh and Others. (2025) rejected the plaintiff's interim application seeking restoration of possession, holding that he failed to prove settled possession of the suit premises as required under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA).  

What was the Background of Gaurav Sri Kalyan v. Ram Naresh Singh and Others. (2025) Case? 

• The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 claiming forcible dispossession from premises known as Block Nos. 1 and 3 on the ground floor of 'Laxmi Sadan' building in Dadar (East), Mumbai on 8 September 2025. 
• The plaintiff claimed to be the nephew and Class-II legal heir of Radheshyam Chhotelal Shah (Radheshyam), who was a tenant of the suit premises. 
• Radheshyam had allegedly acquired tenancy rights in Block Nos. 1 and 3 from another tenant and from Smt. Saroj Krishnaji Salakade (Saroj), who owned 50% share in the building. 
• Saroj had bequeathed her entire share in the property to Radheshyam through a Will dated 25 January 2006, and the plaintiff claimed to be the executor of this Will. 
• The plaintiff alleged that he resided with Radheshyam as a family member, though he was employed in Jordan and made periodic visits to India. 
• Radheshyam passed away on 2 July 2025, and the plaintiff flew down from Jordan on 3 July 2025 to perform the last rites. 
• On 8 September 2025, the plaintiff was allegedly forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises by the defendants. 
• Defendant No. 1 subsequently filed S.C. Suit No. 2136/2025 on 10 September 2025 claiming to be a tenant inducted in the suit premises and seeking injunction against the plaintiff. 
• The plaintiff filed the present suit on 19 September 2025 seeking restoration of possession and damages of Rs. 10 crores, along with an interim application for temporary injunction. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Section 6 and Settled Possession: 

• The Court held that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act protects "actual possession," not mere "claim to possession" or presence in property. 
• Mere proof of presence is insufficient – what needs to be proved is "settled possession" that is effective, undisturbed, and to the knowledge of the owner. 
• Relying on Rame Gowda v. M. Vardhappa Naidu (2004) and Poona Ram v. Moti Ram (2019), the Court emphasized that casual or stray acts do not constitute possession worthy of protection. 
• Section 6 provides temporary relief until rival claims are adjudicated; no appeal or review is permitted, indicating its summary nature. 

On Animus Possidendi and Plaintiff's Status: 

• The Court emphasized that possession requires animus possidendi – the conscious intent to control and exclude others from the property. 
• The plaintiff, being a permanent resident of Jordan who visited periodically, demonstrated complete absence of intention to possess the suit premises. 
• His entry for performing Radheshyam's last rites could not be equated with possession of the property. 
• The Court noted that restoring possession would merely result in the plaintiff locking the premises and returning to Jordan, defeating the purpose of Section 6. 

On Legal Principles and Balance of Convenience: 

• Citing Behram Tejani & Others v. Azeem Jagani (2017), the Court held that relatives staying with gratuitous licensees do not acquire independent possessory rights. 
• The plaintiff would not suffer irreparable loss as he was not a resident and would not lose his shelter. 
• The Court observed that ample alternative remedies were available – a declaratory suit for tenancy rights or a title-based suit for ownership. 

Final Order: 

• The Court rejected the interim application, holding that the plaintiff thoroughly failed to prove a prima facie case of being in settled possession of the suit premises as on the date of alleged dispossession. 

What is Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 

About: 

• Section 6 provides a remedy for persons dispossessed of immovable property without their consent and otherwise than in due course of law. 
• The dispossessed person may recover possession through a suit, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up. 
• The suit must be brought within six months from the date of dispossession. 
• No suit under this section can be brought against the Government. 

Key Features: 

• It is a summary remedy that does not require proof of title or legal nature of possession. 
• The objective is to discourage people from taking law into their own hands and to restore status quo ante. 
• No appeal lies from any order or decree passed under this section, nor is any review allowed. 
• This section does not bar any person from subsequently suing to establish title and recover possession. 

Requirements for Relief: 

• The plaintiff must prove actual possession (not merely constructive or paper possession) of the immovable property. 
• The possession must be settled, effective, and undisturbed – not casual, intermittent, or stray. 
• There must be element of animus possidendi (intention to possess). 
• Dispossession must have occurred within six months prior to filing the suit. 
• Dispossession must be without the plaintiff's consent and otherwise than in due course of law. 

Distinction from Title-Based Suits: 

• Section 6 suits focus solely on the fact of possession and dispossession, not on title or legal right to possess. 
• Even a trespasser or person without legal right can maintain a Section 6 suit if in settled possession. 
• Questions of title, if any, can be determined in separate substantive proceedings after restoration of possession under Section 6. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta in the case of General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Achchey Lal & Anr. (2025) set aside the Labour Court award and High Court judgment that had directed reinstatement of canteen workers with back wages, holding that the workers were employees of the cooperative society running the canteen and not of the bank. 

What was the Background of General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Achchey Lal & Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. was registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 in 1959. 
• Employees of the Bank formed a separate society registered under the Act, 1912 named "U.P. Cooperative Bank Employees Society Limited" to provide canteen facilities to its members. 
• The Bank took a policy decision to permit the Society to run a canteen and worked out modalities regarding subsidies and infrastructure in consultation with the Society. 
• The four respondents (Achchey Lal, Satya Prakash Srivastava, Vijay Kumar, and Leela Dhar) were appointed by the Society as employees to run the canteen, though formal appointment orders were not on record. 
• In a meeting dated 14.09.1982, the Bank, Society, and Employees Union resolved that 75% of wages would be borne by the Bank and 25% by the Society. 
• On 28.06.1989, the Bank enhanced the subsidy by 30%. 
• In 1995, the Society requested enhanced subsidies from the Bank, which was declined. 
• The Society consequently decided to close the canteen and terminated the services of the four respondents with effect from 31.05.1995. 
• This led to an industrial dispute, and the State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. 
• The Labour Court, vide award dated 14.09.1999, held that the workers were employees of the Bank and their termination was illegal, directing reinstatement with back wages. 
• The Bank challenged the award before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. 
• The High Court, vide judgment dated 08.10.2012, dismissed the Bank's writ petitions and affirmed the Labour Court's award. 
• The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Court's Analysis: 

• The Court emphasized that to establish employer-employee relationship, relevant factors include: (a) who appoints the workers; (b) who pays salaries/remuneration; (c) who has authority to dismiss; (d) who can take disciplinary action; (e) whether there is continuity of service; and (f) extent of complete control and supervision. 
• The Court noted the respondents were engaged by the Society, which had its own Committee of office bearers and approximately 1000 employees. 
• While the Bank provided infrastructure, finance, and subsidies (75% of expenses), there was nothing to indicate the Bank had a direct role in managing the canteen's affairs. 
• The Court distinguished the case from Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000), noting that in that case workers were enlisted in the Bank's welfare fund scheme, eligible for medical check-ups by Bank doctors, and admitted to provident fund benefits. 
• The Court applied the test of "complete administrative control" as laid down in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. (2014). 
• The Court relied on State Bank of India v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (2000) and Employers in relation to Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen (1996). 
• The Court held that subsidies and infrastructure support alone, without direct control over appointment, management, and disciplinary matters, do not establish employer-employee relationship. 
• The Court noted that facts vary from case to case and conclusions must be based on evidence in each particular case. 

Court's Directions: 

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Bank. 
• The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court were set aside. 
• The award passed by the Labour Court was also set aside. 
• The Court held that the Labour Court and High Court committed an egregious error in concluding that the respondents were employees of the Bank. 

What are Statutory vs Non-Statutory Canteens? 

Statutory Canteens: 

• Under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, it is statutorily obligatory for certain establishments to provide and maintain canteens. 
• When a canteen is run pursuant to statutory obligation, it becomes part of the establishment. 
• Workers in statutory canteens are generally considered employees of the management, subject to the test of control and supervision. 

Non-Statutory Canteens: 

• Non-statutory canteens are those not mandated by law but provided as a facility or welfare measure. 
• The obligation to provide a canteen must be distinguished from the obligation to provide facilities to run a canteen. 
• Canteens run pursuant to the latter obligation do not automatically become part of the establishment. 
• Employment status depends on various factors including control, supervision, appointment authority, and integration with the main establishment.