Supreme court of India

Automatic Vacation of Stay Orders in Six Months - A Positive Affirmation

Cases in India can take years to be disposed of. Stay of proceedings on account of interim orders has been greatly responsible for causing inordinate delay in disposal of cases. These orders typically stay effective unless expressly vacated, or until a final order is passed, which then subsumes the interim order. Interim orders that stay proceedings before a subordinate court are often misused by litigants as a dilatory tactic to maintain status quo in their favor. The subordinate courts account for 87% of India’s pending cases.[1] A greater challenge faced by the judiciary and litigants alike is the delay in determination of cases at the appellate level, which in turn leads to endless wait for determination of matters even at the trial stage. The Law Ministry estimates that on an average, a trial is delayed by about 6.5 years due to stay of proceedings by higher courts.[2]
Continue Reading Automatic Vacation of Stay Orders in Six Months: A Positive Affirmation

 Supreme Court sets out object and purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908

Introduction

Judicial time is precious and ought to be employed in the most efficient manner possible. Sham litigations are one such menace that not only waste the time of the courts, but also cause unwarranted prejudice and harm to parties arrayed as defendants in such litigations, thereby defeating justice. In order to deal with such a menace, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), under Order VII Rule 11[1] (“O7 R 11”) provides litigants the option to pursue an independent and special remedy, empowering courts to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any grounds contained in this provision.

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali[2] (“Case”), while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents, discussing the intent and purpose of O7 R11, while setting out the principles in relation to the same.
Continue Reading Supreme Court sets out object and purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence revisited by the Supreme Court

Background

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court recently held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”), is a condition  precedent to the admissibility of electronic record in evidence.[1] This judgment arose from a reference by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, which found that the Division Bench judgment in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh[2] required reconsideration in view of the three-judge bench judgment in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer.[3]
Continue Reading Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence revisited by the Supreme Court

How did a virus extend limitation?

 Introduction

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has forced unprecedented measures on the movement of people across the country, thereby also bringing the functioning of courts and tribunals to a grinding halt. Considering the present scenario, where courts have become physically inaccessible, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) on March 23, 2020 took suo-moto cognizance of a petition for extension of limitation and passed an order (“Order”)[1] extending the limitation prescribed either under general law or special laws, whether condonable or not, for filing any petitions, applications, suits, appeals and all other proceedings in all courts and tribunals from March 15, 2020, until passing of further orders.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the Order was being passed to “obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country”.
Continue Reading How did a virus extend limitation?

Indian Industrial Law - Wages

In its judgment dated September 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of India (SC), in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Shri Phool Chand[1] (Phool Chand) has ruled on a worker’s (workmen as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) entitlement to back-wages, if he/she his reinstated.

Under Indian labour and industrial laws, the provisions pertaining to a worker’s entitlement to back-wages is covered under the legal regime of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).

In this regard, the ID Act stipulates that a worker[2] will be entitled to back-wages during pendency of proceedings.
Continue Reading Back Wages Upon Reinstatement: An Entitlement Which Has To Be Determined!!