Category: news

The Supreme Court (SC), dealing with the issue of period of limitation w.r.t. a specific performance suit, has held that as per Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance is 3 years from the date fixed for performance. Further, the SC noted that the second part of the said Article 54 stipulates that “…when no time is fixed for performance, the court will have to determine the date on which the plaintiff had notice of refusal on part of the defendant to perform the contract.”

The Bombay High Court (BHC), in an anti-enforcement action suit filed against the anti-suit permanent injunction order passed by the High Court of Singapore (HCS), has held that “The principle of comity of Courts …. cannot override the aforesaid valuable right of a litigant to access of justice, particularly when … an anti-suit injunction, is issued by a foreign Court having the effect of interference with or preventing the plaintiff from pursuing the only legal remedy available…” The suit was filed by co-founder of People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. (shaadi.com) seeking stay from enforcement of the anti-suit order passed by the HCS. The appellant contended that respondent’s actions amounted to oppression & mismanagement and thereby sought to approach NLCT; however, appellant was restrained through the order of SHC.

The Delhi High Court (DHC) in a recent ruling expounded on the inconsistency between limitation period for filing appeal under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) vis-à-vis Family Courts Act, 1984 (FCA). The limitation period prescribed under the HMA is 90 days; however under the FCA it is only 30 days. Clarifying the issue the DHC propounded that the period of limitation for filing an appeal from an appealable order and decree of a District Court would be as under section 28 of HMA – 90 days, whereas wherever there are Family Courts in the territory, the same would be governed under section 19 of FCA thus, the limitation period of 30 days will be applicable.

The Allahabad High Court (All. HC), dismissing a writ petition filed for issue of mandamus directing Kanpur Bar Association to comply with order passed by the State Bar Council’s (SBC) Vice-Chairman for addition of petitioners’ names to the Association’s electoral list, has held that there is no statutory duty casted on SBC to issue any direction to an independent Bar Association to revive/renew the registration or membership to any individual. Further, the All. HC noted that powers vested with SBC are w.r.t. protecting the interests, rights & privileges of advocates, as a body of individuals; & not individual interests.

The Delhi High Court (DHC), in an appeal challenging the order of a Family Court rejecting grant of maintenance to wife, has held that a spouse being highly qualified & of earning capacity having a source of income disentitles the spouse from claiming maintenance. The DHC relied on Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgement where it interpreted Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and observed that “Section 24 of HMA is not meant to create an Army of idle people waiting for a dole to be awarded by the other spouse.”

The Supreme Court, in an appeal dealing with acceptance of claim by Resolution Professional submitted by a Creditor against Corporate Debtor after approval of the Resolution Plan (RP) by Committee of Creditors (CoC), has held that “mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process.” Further, the SC held that I&B Code, 2016 is time bound process and the Courts are cautioned against allowing claims after RP has been approved by CoC.

The Supreme Court (SC), in reference to whether a declaration made by a Constitution Bench of SC regarding a provision of law being unconstitutional can be applied retrospectively or not, has held that “once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part-III of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, still born, unenforceable and non est in view of Article 13(2) of the Constitution and its interpretation by authoritative pronouncements.”

The Delhi High Court (DHC) while hearing a bail application filed by the accused arraigned for the offence of dowry death under Section 304B IPC noted that “For invoking the offence under Section 304B IPC, not only the harassment or cruelty should be soon before death but it should be related to demand of dowry. The expression “soon before death” is a relative expression.” DHC noted that prosecution evidence failed to prove any demand of dowry to be the instigation factor for wife to commit suicide. Further, DHC observed that allegations of extra-marital affair and habit of betting cannot be considered as ground for implicating offence Section 304B IPC.

The Supreme Court (SC) was dealing with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed under Art.136 of the Constitution assailing an order passed by the Telangana High Court (Tel. HC) rejecting the plea for online hearing. SC noted that since it’s in nature of administrative order and that “..Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial.” Thus, it held that no SLP lies in the present case

Australia, on 06.09.2023, passed a new law to curb near-monopoly status of Australia Stock Exchange Ltd. (ASX) and to foster competition in post-trade settlement and clearing services in financial market. The new law creates a framework for fair, transparent and non-discriminatory access to market infrastructure for emerging competitors at par with ASX.