0

Interim relief cannot be seeked for an International Arbitration Case: SC

Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Ilwohnibrand Co. Ltd. V. Mahakali Food Pvt.Ltd and Ors.

Case no: Arbitration case No.of 2023

Dated on: 3rd April, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadikhari  and Hon’ble Shri Justice Devnarayan Mishra

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner had business relationship with the respondent no.1 to 3. A sale contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents on 18.09.2019 for supply of 2014 MT ‘ Full-Fat Soya Grits’. However, respondents committed a breach of contract wherein there was neither the quantity supplied according to the contract nor the quality. Even for the sub-standard material supplied by the respondent, the authorities conducted raid and sealed the premises of the petitioner. Petitioner notified the respondent about the breach. Respondent though admitted the supply of substandard quality under the contract and promised to compensate the petitioner but no such compensation was ever paid. Another contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent wherein respondent insisted for enhanced rate and issued proforma invoice and payment was duly made by the petitioner. However, respondent again committed breach of contract by not supplying the material as per the timeline mandated in the contract and in fact only supplied goods worth $1,42,500 despite receiving advance payment of $375,000 and thereafter respondent did not make any supply and stopped answering the calls. Again, with malicious intent, respondents communicated that it shall pay the balance amount to the petitioner, but no heed has been paid. Efforts to resolve the dispute failed since the respondent did not want to and stopped making communication with the petitioner. Since, the contract between parties provides for resolution of dispute by way of arbitration to be conducted in India, the petitioner filed petition under the Section 9 (1)(i) of the Conciliation Act of 1996 before the Commercial Court which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the present petition had been filed. Shri Aniket Naik, appointed as Amicus Curiae submitted that petitioner has already approached the Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 seeking interim protection. However, learned Commercial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding the same as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction as the matter pertains to international commercial arbitration and not domestic arbitration.

Contentions of the Appellant:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that evidence of breach committed by the respondent are available and, therefore, an order of interim protection securing the amount involved in the arbitration is required to be passed since despite sending several reminders, respondent kept making false promises, but neither exported the balance shipment nor compensate for the delivery of sub-standard quality of products thereby putting the petitioner to suffer irreparable loss. In terms of section 2(e) and (f) of the act of 1996, the petition can by heard by this court being the jurisdictional court and the present arbitration being an international commercial arbitration. In an identical situation the apex court , in S.D. Containers V. Mold Tek Packaging Ltd., had remanded the case to the court to be tried under its original civil jurisdiction where the court held that while invoking its powers under clause (9) of the letter patent read with rule 1(8) of chapter IV of the rules of the exercise its extra ordinary civil jurisdiction. Hence, the petition which is made under Section9 of the Act 1996 is exclusively triable by this court, therefore, the present petition to be deleted from the category of  the arbitration case and be listed under  the relevant category before appropriate single bench.

Contentions of the Amicus Curiae:

Petitioner has already approached the commercial court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 seeking interim protection. But the court dismissed saying that the same is not maintainable as it pertains to international arbitration. Thereafter,

Petitioner has preferred the present application under section 9 (2)(1)(f) of the act of 1996 which is not maintainable in the view the fact that as per the Chapter 2 Rule 3 of Rules, 2008 an application under section 11 of the act of 1996 shall be registered as arbitration case which deals with the appointment of the arbitrator.  Court to sub-rule 8 Rule 10 Chapter 2, of the High Court rules 2008 which says that these cases can be considered as a  Miscellaneous Civil Case and also to be registered as a Miscellaneous Civil Case if they do not fall under the ambit of the first seven clauses which is not interlocutory to any proceedings. It is submitted that petitioner can very well file Miscellaneous Civil Case in terms of sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of Rules of 2008, which can be entertained and appropriate orders can be passed.

Legal Provisions:

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act-  Seeking interim reliefs before, or during the arbitral proceedings, or at any time after the passing of the award but before it is enforced.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act- Appointment of the arbitrator.

Sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rules of 2008- Filing miscellaneous civil cases.

Issues:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek interim measure of protection and securing the amount involved in the arbitration   under section 9 of Arbitration act 1996 and section 10 of the commercial courts act,2015?

Courts Judgement and Analysis:-

The present petition itself is not maintainable on twin grounds:

(i) Firstly , the petitioner resorting to the liberty granted by the Commercial Court has filed present petition under Section 9 r/W Section 2(1)(f) of the Act of 1996 seeking interim protection before this Court which cannot be entertained by this Court.

(ii) Secondly, as rightly pointed out by Amicus Curiae, in terms of Chapter 2 Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008, an application Section 11 of the Act of 1996 shall be registered as an arbitration case which deals with appointment of Arbitrator which is not the case herein.

In the considered opinion of this Court, looking to the nature of case and the relief as sought for by the petitioner, the same does not fall within the category of an Arbitration Case. Rather the same ought to have been filed as a Miscellaneous Civil case falling within the ambit and scope of any other application of civil nature, not falling under any of the specified categories in terms of sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of Rules of 2008. In view of the above   discussion, its hereby rejected. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file miscellaneous civil case in terms of sub-rule 8 of Rules of 2008.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement Reviewed By- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read more

0

“Decades-Long Land Dispute Resolved: Supreme Court validates Jaipur Property Agreement from 1978 stating adherence to due process under CPC despite delayed Judicial Procedure”

Blog, Supreme court

Case Title – Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRS. Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRS.

Case Number – Civil Appeal of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18772 of 2014

Dated on – 21st March,2014

Quorum – Justice Vikram Nath

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Case of Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRS. Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRS., revolves around a property Municipal Nos.52-57, Maniharon Ka Rasta, Jaipur, initially owned by Ghulam Mohiuddin (RespondentNo-1). On the 4th of October,1967, an agreement to sale was signed by Saeeduddin (RespondentNo.2), the brother of Respondent No.1 who was acting under power of attorney for RespondentNo.1. However, as the vendor did not satisfy the commitment to execute the sale deed, the Appellant initiated a Civil Suit for the purpose of specific performance, registered as Suit No. 13/72, stating Ghulam Mohiuddin as the Respondent No. 1 and Saeeduddin as the Respondent No. 2. Amidst the pendency of the lawsuit, the parties arrived at a compromise on the 11th of May, 1978, which was submitted for endorsement to the Trial Court.  In the compromise deed the Respondent No.1 consented to execute and register the sale deed in the favour of the Appellant by 1st of July,1978 after receiving a payment of Rupees 25,000. Nonetheless, the Respondent No.1 again failed to fulfil certain obligations, including obtaining a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) and ensured that the Respondent No.2 evacuates a portion of the property. Despite the procedural delays, the compromise was verified by the court on the 9th of May,1979 and a decree was issued based on the terms and conditions of the compromise. The proceedings related to the execution were initiated by the Appellant when the Respondent No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed, leading to the objections filed by Akhtar Un Nisa, the wife of the Respondent No.2, claiming that the decree issued was void.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that the compromise arrived between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 was valid and binding as per the law.
  2. The Appellant, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that the Respondent No.2 possessed absolutely no ownership rights over the property, as proved by his Written Statement that was submitted to the Trial Court and the previous legal proceedings.
  3. The Appellant, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that the verification of the compromise was appropriately done by the court, fulfilling all the requirements of the Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
  4. The Appellant, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that the objections that were raise priorly by the General Tarik, a legal heir of the Respondent No.2, were duly dismissed by the High Court indicating the lack of merit in similar objections raised by Akhtar Un Nisa, the wife of the RespondentNo.2.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that as the signature of the Respondent No. 2 was not obtained on the compromise decree and that he was a Co-owner of the property, the decree was null and void.
  2. The Respondent, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that it was failure on the part of the Trial Court to adhere to the provisions of the Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 regarding the verification of the compromise.
  3. The Respondent, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that Akhtar Un Nisa, as the legal heir of the RespondentNo.2, had the right to challenge the validity of the decree through the objections under the Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Whether the compromise held between the Appellant and the RespondentNo.1 was valid and binding?
  2. Whether the compromise was properly verified in accordance to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Trial Court?
  3. Whether the objections put forth by Akhtar Un Nisa be considered valid taking into consideration that the General Tarik’s similar objection was dismissed?

ISSUES

  1. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 provides the addressing of the matters concerning the satisfaction or the discharge of the decrees.
  2. Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 deals with the recording and enforcement of the compromises.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRS. Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRS., held the validity of the compromise between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 as the Respondent No.2 possessed no rights of ownership over the property. The court observed that the Trial Court verified the compromise deed properly despite of procedural delays. The court stated that considering the dismissal of similar objections by the General Tarik in previous legal proceedings, the objections raised by Akhtar Un Nisa were deemed not maintainable. Therefore, the court ruled that the appeal was allowed and that the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The court restored the executing court’s order rejecting the objections and that no costs were rewarded.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

“Dismissing Defamation Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High court Rejects writ petition in Marriage Fraud lawsuit stating lack of substantiated evidence”

Blog, Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title – Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 7831 of 2024

Dated on – 12th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Appellants, Bharat Singh Chouhan, Ram Singh Chouhan, Ankit Singh Chouhan and Kamala Devi Chouhan, through their Counsel, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Appellants claimed that the wedding between Ankit Singh Chouhan (Appellant No.3) and Kamnee Singh Chouhan (Respondent No.11), was held on the 11th of June,2023. However, it was discovered subsequently, that the Respondent No. 11 had misstated her educational qualification to Ankit Singh Chouhan. She purported that she had qualified her Class 12th, but later it was exposed that she only had the qualification till 10th grade. Consequently. Ankit Singh Chouhan lodged a complaint on various forums, alleging fraud in the marriage and seeking the registration of an offense under the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, through an investigation it was detected by the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Mahila Thana, Katni, that there was no merit in the allegations and concluded that the wedding between Ankit Singh Chouhan and Kamnee Singh Chouhan was valid.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case, contented that the wedding between Ankit Singh Chouhan and Kamnee Singh Chouhan was conducted relying on the false pretext provided by the Respondent No.3 (Kamnee Singh Chouhan) concerning her educational qualification.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case, contented that the wedding constituted fraud under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which attracts legal actions against the Respondents.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case, repudiated the allegations made by the Appellants and contented that the wedding was valid under law and no offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 was committed.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case, contented that the Appellant was attempting to tarnish the reputation of the Mother-in-Law of Ankit Singh Chouhan, which they considered unjustified and defamatory and that it was an offense under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of the High Courts to issue writs.
  2. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 states the offense of Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
  3. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 governs the validity of the Hindu Marriages
  4. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 prescribes the list for grounds of divorce
  5. Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 prescribes Punishment for Defamation

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the misstatement of educational qualification in a marriage amounts to an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860?
  2. Whether the accusation of corruption against the police officials and the defamation of the mother-in-law of Ankit Singh Chouhan were justified?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, scrupulously analysed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 and the Indian Penal Code,1860 regarding the accusations made by the Appellants. The court stated that the misstatement of the educational qualification in a marriage did not amount to fraud under the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Moreover, the court did not find any grounds for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 based on such accusations. The court stated that it was sham and defamatory, laying accusations of corruption against the police official and the assassination of the character of the mother-in-law of Ankit Singh Chouhan. It accentuated that making unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or departments without any conclusive evidence was objectionable. The court, thus, dismissed the Writ Petition and imposed a cost of Rupees 25,000 on the Appellants for their superficial accusations. The Appellants were ordered to deposit the cost withing one month, failing which a contempt of court proceedings would be instituted against them.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

“Telangana High court upholds Equitable property Division: Validates Sale Deed for Partitioned Properties”

Blog , , , ,

Case Title: Mohd. Mujthaba Ali and another v. Mohd. Murtuza Ali and Ors 

Case No.: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3099 of 2023 

Dated: March 22, 2024 

Quorum: Justice P Sam Koshy 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:  

The Court of the IX Additional Court Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, issued an order on October 4, 2023, which has been challenged by the petitioners in their current Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.  

Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed a case seeking partition with regard to the schedule A and schedule B properties. This information is crucial to the decision of the current Civil Revision Petition. 

A preliminary decree was passed allocating 1/8th share in schedule A and schedule B property in favour of the plaintiff as well as defendants, and 1/16th share each to defendants. The forementioned suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff via judgement and decree dated June 15, 2016.  

Defendants Nos. 6 and 8, who were unsatisfied with the preliminary decree, filed an appeal with this High Court, which was dismissed on June 10, 2022, upholding the ruling and decree made by the lower court. An I.A. was filed following the appeal’s dismissal.  

Meanwhile, in accordance with I.A.No. 1623 of 2016, the final decree was passed. During this process, the Court below accepted the Advocate Commissioner’s report and held that the Suit schedule A and B properties were not divisible according to the preliminary decree’s terms and bounds. As a result, it was recommended that the property be put up for public auction, with the proceeds from the sale being divided among all parties.  

In order to sell the Suit schedule A and B properties and divide the sale proceeds among the parties in accordance with those terms, a request for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner has been made under Section 2 of the Partition Act read with Section 75 of the CPC. In opposition to this I.A., which is permitted, the current Civil Revision Petition has been submitted.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 

The petitioners’ learned senior counsel contended that the lower court overlooked the fact that the petitioners should have been granted pre-emption rights and authorization to buy out other coevent owners. On behalf of the defendants, who have likewise been awarded an equal share, or one-eighth of the share in the Suit schedule property, as has been awarded to the plaintiff, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been submitted.  

Acquired Knowledge For the past more than seventy (70) years, the petitioners’ senior counsel claimed that the plaintiff’s family as well as the petitioners’ own the property listed in the suit schedule. It was further argued that one of the Suit schedule’s floors Respondent built a property with his own money, and the court procedures clearly demonstrate this. Additionally, given that it was in their possession. 

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further contended that they were prepared to pay a figure of Rs. 8,00,00,000/-far more than the property’s market worth and that they had sought for the right of pre-emption in their favour. 

The petitioners, who are the defendants in the original suit, are prepared to pay an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the said property while claiming a right of pre-emption in the suit schedule ‘A’ property, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The respondent himself has quoted the value of schedule ‘A’ property at Rs. 4,00,00,000/-. 

That being said, of the Rs. 8,00,00,000/-that the petitioners have determined to be the value of the schedule ‘A’ property that they are willing to donate for the subject property, 1/8th of the share would be worth Rs. 1,87,50,000/-to each of the petitioners, or Rs. 3,75,00,000/-between the two. Because of this, the petitioners in this case are prepared to deposit with the lower court an amount of Rs. 4,25,00,000, which is the amount remaining after deducting Rs. 3,75,00,000, which represents their portion of the Suit schedule A property. 

The petitioners have further declared that they are prepared to give up their claims to the Suit schedule B property in the event that the aforementioned proposal is approved. Respondent, party-in-person, on the other hand, contends that the plan put forth by the petitioners does not merit acceptance and opposes the Civil Revision Petition. As per his statement, when the property is auctioned off, the appointment property values can exceed the amount even the petitioners have specified, which is Rs. 8,00,00,000/-. The respondent would likewise receive a larger portion of the property in the suit schedule under the aforementioned conditions. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: 

The other respondent, opposed the Civil Revision Petition on the grounds that the decree could not be executed because of the current Civil Revision Petition and the interim order obtained therein, despite the fact that respondents had filed their counter-affidavit.  

On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents claims that there doesn’t appear to be any disagreement on the side of the current petitioners regarding the sale of the Suit schedule B property at auction. Each of the parties to the lawsuit would then get the portion to which they are each lawfully entitled, and at least that portion of the decree would be put into effect. It was further contended that the said property was on the main road. 

It is evident that respondents argued that, having lived in the aforementioned premises for more than seven (07) decades, they have sentimental attachments to the residence. They therefore do not wish to sell the subject property or give up the aforementioned property. Although the plaintiff has stated that the Suit schedule A property is valued at Rs. 4,00,00,000/- in the petition submitted to the lower court according to Section 2 of the Partition Act.  

Finally, the respondents contended that after deducting their respective shares of the property, which are worth a combined total of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- from the total amount they have offered, the petitioners, who also own a share in the said property, have quoted a price of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- for the said property. They have also offered to pay an additional amount of Rs. 4,25,00,000/-. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed in opposition to this application of pre-emption, which the lower court denied. 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 75 of CPC- Power of Court to issue commissions. The Court may issue a commission to examine any individual, conduct a local investigation, review or amend accounts, or divide property, subject to any restrictions and limitations that may be specified.  
  • Section 2 of the Partition Act- Power to court to order sale instead of division in partition suits. In any partition suit where a decree for partition might have been made if the suit had been filed before the Act’s passage, and it appears to the court that a sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would benefit all shareholders more than dividing the property due to the nature of the properly to which the suit relates, the number of shareholders involved, or some other unique circumstance, the court may, upon request from any of these shareholders interested either individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards, order a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds.  
  • S.3 of the Partition Act- Procedure when sharer undertakes to buy. If a shareholder requests permission to purchase the share of the party seeking a sale, the court will determine the value of the share in any case where it is requested to do so under the previous section. It will also offer to sell the shares to the shareholder at the determined price and may issue any necessary and appropriate directions in this regard. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

Respondent Number One was primarily against the petitioners’ plan, citing the Advocate Commissioner’s observation that the property in question could not be divided and allocated among the shareholders after the commissioner had visited the location. The only practical means for the respondent to obtain his portion of the property, as the partition was impractical, was through an auction, which might bring in the highest price while taking into account the property’s current worth.  

The contested order was passed after hearing the arguments made by each of the solicitors representing the separate parties as well as the party in person. The petitioners submitted the aforementioned I.A. in accordance with Section 2 of the Partition Act as well as Section 75 of the CPC, requesting the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the sale of the Suit category A and B properties through public auction. On June 15, 2016, the preliminary decree in the aforementioned O.S. No. 19 of 2003 was approved.  

The property was to be divided in accordance with the decree, as stated in this order’s paragraph. Following the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, who submitted his report on June 30, 2017, it was determined that neither the schedule A nor schedule B properties could be divided in accordance with the preliminary decree with metes and bounds.  

The aforementioned portion of the Civil Revision Petition was accepted. The Suit Schedule A and B properties were to be placed up for auction, and the two petitioners in this case were to be given access to the top bidder’s price quote so they could indicate their intent to buy the property at that amount.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S. Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

0

“Strategic Centralised Filing System Implementation: A thorough examination in a historic ruling”

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Karan S Thukral v. The District and Sessions Judge & Ors.  

Case No.: W.P.(C) 6082/2019 

Dated On: April 22, 2024 

Quorum: Acting Chief Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora  

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:  

The facts of the case revolve around compliance with filing reports, with Karan S. Thukral as the petitioner and the district and session judges acting as the respondents. A compliance report was also instructed to be submitted by the learned Registrar General.  

A compliance report from the Registrar General dated February 12th. There were certain developments following the filing of the reports, according to the high court’s experienced counsel. 

The focal point of the case revolved around the Centralized Filing System: District Courts will, in accordance with the current protocol for new cases, centralize all filings pertaining to cases that are pending or currently underway. Every submission needs to have its own file number assigned by this system, and the party or attorney sending the documents needs to receive an acknowledgment receipt.  

The systematic logging of various applications, documents, pleadings, and other filings at centralized filing counters under the supervision of assigned staff members is required. It could be required to hire more employees or enhance existing ones in order to do this. It is the responsibility of the corresponding Principal District and Sessions Judges to supervise the prompt and efficient implementation of this centralised filing process. 

District Courts should centralise all case-related filings, just as they currently do for new cases. Every submission needs to have its own file number assigned by this system, and the party or attorney sending the documents needs to receive an acknowledgment receipt. 

 It is imperative that they guarantee a smooth transition and offer training to all pertinent parties involved to minimise any disturbances to the legal procedures.” The efficient and timely implementation of this centralised filing procedure is under the purview of the corresponding principal district and session judges. In order to minimise disruptions to court proceedings, they must also make sure that the transition is smooth and that all pertinent parties receive training.  

The Centralised Filing System has been successfully deployed at the Patiala House District Courts and is operating efficiently, according to the status report filed on October 9, 2023, which also said that the aforementioned instructions have been followed. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 

The learned counsel for the respondent for the HighHigh Court, Ms. Shubham Mahajan, claims that the files had to be digitised in order to comply with the aforementioned directives before being picked out. Additionally, she says that in 2017, Delhi District Courts’ digitization initiative was just getting started. This resulted in a massive increase in the number of files pending in record rooms and a slowdown in the process of sorting out the determined cases. 

It is further contended that because the District Courts were having trouble sorting through records, they requested that this Court’s Information Technology Committee take a look at the aforementioned circumstance. She goes on to say that the Committee in question suggested to the Registry, as per the Minutes of the Meeting held on July 20, 2022, that it obtains judicial clarity from the aforementioned Court.  

It is also alleged that the Registry in Tarif Singh then submitted an application to get clarification on a number of orders. She adds that the following instructions have been issued by the knowledgeable Single Judge via an order dated June 1, 2023: 

  1. The instructions in this decision were restricted to criminal cases, but they would later be extended to civil cases as well.
  2. As long as the Record has not yet reached its statutory preservation time and has no historical significance, it may be removed in accordance with current regulations. 
  3. Data about cases filed or pending in the High Court will be made available by the High Court Registry to the District Court through an API or other IT interface in cases where any appeal, revision, etc. is filed in the High Court and the Trial Court Record (TCR) is required for efficient adjudication. This will allow the District Court to flag and check the status of appeals, revisions, etc. in the High Court. 
  4. The digitization of every small-case document prior to its deletion is not required. The category of cases that need to be digitalized and the “petty cases” that don’t need to be digitalized will be determined by the Pr. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), in collaboration with all other Pr. District & Sessions Judges and Ld. OIC data rooms. 
  5. The Delhi District Courts’ Pr. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), in collaboration with the other Pr. District & Sessions Judges and the Ld. Chairman (IT & digitalization), will develop a comprehensive list of the types of cases and records that should be given priority for digitalization. 
  6. In order to allow district courts to destroy records (apart from permanent ones), the Registry will take action to include a clause akin to Rules 1A (Volume V, Chapter 5 Part C) in the rules that apply to them as well. 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 3 of the Destruction of the Records of the Act, 1917: Whenever necessary, the subsequently mentioned authorities may establish regulations on the destruction or other method of getting rid of documents that, in their judgement, have insufficient public worth to warrant their preservation. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

In the course of the hearing on October 9, 2023, it was also brought to the attention of this court that, in certain District Courts, the Ahlmad is not consigning records of decided cases to the record room, which was making it difficult for people to quickly obtain certified copies or documents. 

As a result, all District Judges were instructed to make sure that the custodian of the record promptly remitted the case’s records to the record room upon its disposal and requested a progress report. The status report dated November 18, 2023, has been filed in accordance with the aforementioned directive, providing an update on the consignment’s status and weeding out of record. 

Respondent of the High Court filed a supplemental status report during the hearing regarding the files that are ready to be weeded out in the District Courts, along with the timeline needed to complete the task. This was done in light of the above facts when the matter was brought up for hearing. 

The records of decided cases in some District Courts are not being consigned to the record room by the Ahlmad, which is causing difficulties in obtaining certified copies/documents in a timely manner, was also brought to the attention of this Court during the hearing on October 9, 2023.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 1,672