0

Supreme Court Upheld the Decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court on Registration of Sale Deed.

Blog, Supreme court, Transfer of Property , , , , , , , , , , ,

Case Name: Kanwar Raj Sing (D)TH.LRS vs. Gejo (D)TH.LRS
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013
Dated: January 02, 2024
Quorum: Honourable Justice ABHAY S. OKA

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondents are the legal representatives of the Plaintiff Gejo. There are total 8 defendants Plaintiff claimed a declaration of ownership over the land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas (“suit property”) based on the sale deed executed on 6th June 1975 and registered on 23rd July 1975. According to the case of the original plaintiff – Smt. Gejo, before registration of the sale deed, an interpolation was made in the sale deed by the first defendant by adding that only 1/3rd share measuring 23 kanals and 8 marlas was being sold. The suit was contested by the first defendant, contending that what was sold was the area of 23 kanals and 8 marlas, which was his 1/3rd share in the suit property.

The Trial Court decreed the suit and held that what was sold to the original plaintiff was the entire land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas. The first and eighth defendants preferred an appeal before the District Court. On 23rd August 1984, the Additional District Judge allowed the said appeal and held that the correction made in the sale deed was bona fide and was not fraudulently made. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the second appeal. High court passed a order in favour of plaintiff and then the unsuccessful defendant moved an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of high court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  • Section 47 of The Registration Act, 1908

Time from which registered document operates —A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.”

  • Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1984

“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. —Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.

  • Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
  • Contract for sale—A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.

It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.”

Issues raised:

  1. Whether the sale deed as originally executed will operate?
  2. The corrections unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will have to be ignored?

Submissions:

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as the price of the property subject matter of the sale deed was only Rs. 30,000/-, it is impossible that a vast area of 71 kanals 8 marlas was sold under the sale deed. Learned counsel submitted that the sale took effect from the date on which the sale deed was registered and not from the date on which it was executed. He submitted that what is conveyed by the sale deed is what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. He submitted that even the agreement for sale executed before the execution of the sale deed refers to the sale of 1/3rd share of the first defendant and not the entire property. He submitted that the entry of the name of the original plaintiff in the revenue records as the owner of the whole area would not confer any title as what is relevant is the description of the property in the registered sale deed.

Court Analysis and Judgment:

The Hon’ble court referred section 47 of Registration Act,1908 and also took precedence from Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer and analyzed that Section 47 applies to a document only after it has been registered, and it has nothing to do with the completion of the sale when the instrument is one of sale. It was also held that once a document is registered, it will operate from an earlier date, as provided in Section 47 of the Registration Act.

After referring section 54 of Transfer of Property Act,1984 the Court has observed Every sale deed in respect of property worth more than Rs. 100/- is compulsorily registerable under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, a sale deed executed by the vendor becomes an instrument of sale only after it is registered.

After considering the facts of this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed The first defendant admittedly made the said interpolation after it was executed but before it was registered. In terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate from the date of its execution. Thus, the sale deed as originally executed will operate. The corrections unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will have to be ignored. Only if such changes would have been made with the consent of the original plaintiff, the same could relate back to the date of the execution. It is not even the first defendant’s case that the subsequent correction or interpolation was made before its registration with the consent of the original plaintiff.

Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of High Court and dismissed the appeal.

“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.”

JUDEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

Click here to view full judgement: Kanwar Raj Sing (D)TH.LRS vs. Gejo (D)TH.LRS

0

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR in Landmark Criminal Appeal

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Case Name: Dinesh Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. and Rajesh Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2024 arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2024 arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.564 of 2023

Date of Judgment: January 11, 2024

Quorum of the Case: The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 29.07.2018, Karan Gambhir filed a complaint leading to an FIR. The complaint listed DD Global’s address inaccurately in Noida, although its registered office was in New Delhi. The intent was to falsely establish jurisdiction in Gautam Budh Nagar. The addresses of accused Rajesh Gupta, Dinesh Gupta, and associated companies were misleadingly listed in Gautam Budh Nagar, while their actual addresses were in New Delhi. The true addresses of the accused were revealed during the charge-sheet filing, confirming the complainant’s intent to create false jurisdiction. The Chief Judicial Magistrate issued summons without proper verification of addresses or business locations, showing a lack of due diligence. The complainant claimed to be misled into converting a loan into equity. However, board resolutions from 2011 demonstrated that this was a deliberate decision by the complainant’s company, undermining claims of inducement. The complainant concealed knowledge of the merger between Gulab Buildtech, Verma Buildtech, and BDR Builders, approved by the High Court in 2013. An attempt to recall the merger was dismissed in 2016, which was not  The FIR was registered years after the complainant became aware of the merger and its dismissal, indicating a delay in pursuing the case. The Delhi High Court had appointed an Arbitrator in 2019 to resolve the dispute, which was still pending. The court found the FIR to be malicious prosecution and quashed it, citing an abuse of the judicial process. Karan Gambhir was ordered to pay costs of ₹25 lakhs within four weeks for the benefit of SCBA and SCAORA members.

ISSUES

  • Whether the Complaint Established False Jurisdiction
  • Whether the Allegations of Inducement into Loan Conversion were Valid
  • Whether there was Concealment of Material Facts by the Complainant

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

  • Section 420 (Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property): This section was central to the complainant’s allegations that the accused had induced the complainant to advance a loan by deceitful means. The court ultimately found no evidence of cheating as the decisions were made through company resolutions.
  • Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust): Allegations were made against the accused for breach of trust in handling the complainant’s investments. The court found these allegations to be unsubstantiated, determining that the dispute was commercial rather than criminal in nature.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

  • Section 482 (Inherent Powers of High Court): This provision allows the High Court to quash FIRs to prevent abuse of the court process. The court invoked this section to quash the FIR, concluding that the complaint was malicious and an abuse of the legal system.
  • Companies Act, 1956 and 2013:
  • Provisions related to Company Resolutions and Mergers: The case scrutinized the company resolutions regarding the investments and the legal procedures followed during the merger of Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech with BDR Builders. These provisions helped demonstrate the commercial nature of the dispute.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants contended that the FIR was registered based on misleading statements by the complainant. The addresses provided for the company and the accused individuals were deliberately incorrect, falsely indicating they were based in Noida to create jurisdiction in Gautam Budh Nagar, which was not applicable. The actual business addresses and residences of the accused were in New Delhi, not Noida. This misrepresentation was argued to be a deliberate attempt to manipulate jurisdiction. The appellants argued that the transaction in question was purely commercial, not criminal. They provided evidence in the form of company resolutions dated 25.03.2011 and 26.08.2011, showing that the complainant had knowingly decided to invest in the equity of Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech. This decision was documented and undisputed, contradicting the claim that the appellants had induced the complainant to advance a loan that was later converted into equity. The appellants emphasized that this was a business decision taken by the complainant’s board, not a case of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The appellants contended that the complainant had concealed critical information from the court. This included the complainant’s prior knowledge of the merger of Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech with BDR, which had been legally processed and approved by the High Court. The complainant had neither raised objections during the merger proceedings nor disclosed the filing and dismissal of an application for the recall of the merger order. The appellants argued that these omissions were intentional, aimed at giving a criminal color to what was essentially a commercial dispute. This concealment was presented as evidence of the complainant’s malicious intent and abuse of the judicial process. The appellants highlighted the significant delay in filing the FIR—more than eight years after the initial loan transaction and over two years after the dismissal of the application for recall of the merger order. This delay, coupled with the complainant’s knowledge of the merger and the commercial nature of the dispute, was argued to indicate malicious intent. The appellants contended that the complainant had waited for an opportune moment to initiate false and frivolous litigation, further demonstrating abuse of the legal system.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent argued that the appellants were attempting to evade jurisdiction by falsely claiming their addresses were in New Delhi when their businesses were allegedly operating out of Noida. The complainant’s FIR was filed based on information that the companies were located in Noida, which was consistent with their registration documents and the addresses provided for service of process. This misrepresentation of address and jurisdiction was crucial for filing the case in Gautam Budh Nagar. The respondent contended that the investments made by the complainant were originally loans, not equity. The appellants reportedly induced the complainant into providing loans, which they later converted into equity without proper authorization. This conversion, according to the respondent, constituted criminal breach of trust and cheating, and the appellants used forged documents to appropriate the complainant’s shares in the merged companies. The respondent argued that the appellants deliberately concealed material facts from the court, such as their knowledge of the merger and the complainant’s status as a major shareholder. The appellants allegedly did not disclose the process of merger adequately, which led to the complainant’s loss of shares. The complainant filed the FIR only after discovering the fraudulent activities and non-disclosures by the appellants, which undermined the integrity of the legal process.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court critically examined the jurisdictional aspects raised by both parties. It noted discrepancies in the addresses provided in the FIR versus the actual registered addresses of the companies involved. The court found that the complainant had misrepresented the jurisdiction by stating the companies were based in Noida when their registered offices were in New Delhi. This misrepresentation was deemed deliberate, aiming to falsely establish jurisdiction in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The court analyzed the nature of the transactions between the parties. It considered the complainant’s contention that the investments were initially loans and were later converted into equity without proper authorization. The court reviewed documentary evidence, including resolutions passed by the companies involved, which indicated that the conversion was a legitimate business decision rather than a fraudulent act as alleged by the complainant.

Addressing the criminal allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, the court found insufficient evidence to substantiate these claims. It emphasized that the investments made by the complainant were based on resolutions passed by the companies, which were not disputed. The court also noted that the complainant failed to timely pursue legal remedies after becoming aware of the alleged wrongdoing, waiting several years before filing the FIR.  Regarding the allegations of non-disclosure and misrepresentation by the appellants, the court observed that the complainant had knowledge of the merger of Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech with BDR Builders but did not raise objections during the merger process. The court criticized the complainant for not disclosing these crucial details in the FIR, highlighting a lack of transparency and full disclosure.

Concluding on the abuse of legal process, the court found that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings were malicious and aimed at harassing the appellants. It noted that the complainant’s actions undermined the trust in judicial processes and imposed unnecessary burdens on the appellants. Therefore, the court concluded that the FIR was an abuse of the legal system and quashed all proceedings against the appellants. As a deterrent measure, the court imposed costs of ₹25 lakhs on the respondent for misusing the legal system and initiating frivolous litigation. The costs were directed to be deposited with the court and subsequently utilized for the development and benefit of legal associations.

“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- Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Supreme Court Upholds Reasoned Legal Standards in Acquittal Reversals

blog, Supreme court , , ,

Case Name: Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Others v. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2010

Date of Judgment: April 19, 2024

Quorum: Mehta, J

 FACTS OF THR CASE

The case involves an appeal against the acquittal of individuals accused of murdering Malagounda on September 19, 2001. The complainant, Malagounda’s father, claimed to witness the murder along with several servants. Despite multiple alleged eyewitnesses, only Malagounda was injured. The complainant reported the incident at 4 am, but inconsistencies and contradictions arose in witness testimonies. Notably, PW-6 stated the complainant was not present during the attack, contradicting the complainant’s account. Doubts surfaced due to the lack of injuries to other witnesses and discrepancies about where the complaint was lodged. The Medical Jurist’s testimony suggested the death occurred more than 24 hours before the autopsy, conflicting with the reported time of death. Furthermore, heavy rainfall in the area raised questions about the plausibility of the victim being in the field. The defense highlighted a previous murder involving the deceased’s family as a potential motive for false allegations. The High Court’s reliance on weapon recoveries based on accused’s disclosures was deemed inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellate court found the trial court’s acquittal justified, noting the High Court improperly interfered without sufficient grounds, affirming the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the Accused Were Rightly Acquitted by the Trial Court.
  2. Whether the High Court Was Justified in Reversing the Acquittal.
  3. Whether the Weapon Recoveries Were Admissible and Valid.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  • Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
  • Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
  • Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
  • Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants, in their defense, put forth several contentions challenging the lower court’s decision. Firstly, they argued that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they were responsible for the murder of the deceased. They contended that the evidence presented by the prosecution was circumstantial and did not conclusively prove their guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They highlighted inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of key witnesses, which they asserted cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case. Secondly, the appellants challenged the admissibility of certain statements and evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They argued that the statements made by the appellants during police custody were coerced and not voluntary. They further contended that the recovery of weapons allegedly used in the commission of the crime was not supported by independent witnesses or corroborative evidence, thereby raising doubts about its legality and authenticity. Thirdly, the appellants raised procedural irregularities during the investigation and trial stages. They asserted that their rights under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were violated during the recording of statements and confessions. They alleged that the police did not follow proper procedures, leading to inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements recorded, which undermined the reliability of the evidence presented against them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, presented several contentions in defense of the lower court’s decision. Firstly, they argued that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. They emphasized that the circumstantial evidence presented, including eyewitness testimonies and forensic reports, collectively pointed to the culpability of the appellants in committing the murder of the deceased and attempting to murder another individual. Secondly, the respondent contested the appellants’ claim regarding the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They asserted that the statements made by the appellants during police custody were voluntary and led to the recovery of crucial evidence, such as weapons used in the crime. They argued that these statements were pivotal in connecting the appellants to the commission of the offense and were obtained in accordance with legal procedures. Thirdly, the respondent refuted the appellants’ allegations of procedural irregularities during the investigation and trial. They contended that the investigation was conducted diligently and in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). They maintained that any discrepancies or inconsistencies in witness statements were minor and did not undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The appellate court began by emphasizing the stringent standard of review in appeals against acquittals. It underscored the dual presumption of innocence benefiting the accused post-acquittal, grounded in the foundational principle of criminal law. The court highlighted the necessity for the appellate tribunal to meticulously reassess both oral and documentary evidence, emphasizing that it should only overturn a lower court’s acquittal if convinced beyond doubt of the accused’s guilt. The court enumerated the grounds justifying the reversal of an acquittal: manifest perversity in the judgment, a lack of scrutiny of essential evidence, or the irrefutably exclusive existence of evidence compellingly supporting the accused’s guilt. It then systematically scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution, identifying contradictions, implausibilities, and discrepancies that cast doubt on its credibility. Moreover, the court scrutinized the evidence provided by the prosecution. It found several inconsistencies and contradictions. For example, the complainant’s presence at the crime scene contradicted the statements of witnesses. Additionally, the timing of the incident was questioned based on the medical evidence presented. There was also a lack of important documents such as the Daily Diary of the police station, which undermined the FIR’s credibility. Furthermore, there were questions about the process of recovering weapons by the investigating officer, which raised doubts about their admissibility as evidence.

In conclusion, after a thorough review of the evidence and consideration of the principles guiding appeals against acquittals, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused. It observed that the trial court’s judgment was reasonable and well-founded, devoid of any apparent defects or perversions. As a result, the appellate court concluded that the High Court’s decision to reverse the acquittal and convict the accused was not justified. It overturned the High Court’s judgment and acquitted the accused of all charges. The court also stated that the accused appellants were on bail and did not need to surrender. Consequently, their bail bonds were released. This judgment underscored the critical need for caution and scrutiny in appellate review of acquittals, reinforcing the presumption of innocence and demanding substantial and compelling evidence to overturn a lower court’s decision.

“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- Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Supreme Court Dismissed the SLP on the Ground of Territorial Jurisdiction

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , ,

Case Name: ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD. V.  TATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS
Case Number: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8488 OF 2024
Dated: April 16, 2024
Quorum: Honorable Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case and pleadings arises in the plaint, Suit No. 458/2000:

Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd is the original plaintiff in a dispute with Tata Steel Limited, TYO Trading Enterprises, Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, Arcadia Shipping Limited, and M.G. Trading Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. as the defendants. Bhushan Steel, a manufacturer of galvanised steel corrugated sheets, was instructed by TYO Trading to place supply orders for the material. The material was dispatched by Bhushan Steel and loaded by shippers Arcadia from Mumbai, India, to Djibouti, Ethiopia.

Bhushan Steel prepaid freight charges to Arcadia, who was directed to deliver the goods to the Bank of Ethiopia. The Bank of Ethiopia refused to encash the Letter of Credit due to discrepancies. Bhushan Steel informed Arcadia that both shipments had been released to TYO Trading, as they had presented a Bill of Lading endorsed by the Bank of Ethiopia. However, the payment was not received by Bhushan Steel, and the material could not be shipped back to Bhushan Steel.

The defendants took a contradictory stand, with TYO Trading stating they paid for the goods, while Arcadia claimed the material was released upon presentation of the Bill of Lading. PNB returned the original documents, including the Bill of Ladings, to Bhushan Steel, stating they had received them without any encashment of the Letter of Credit by the Bank of Ethiopia.

ISSUSES

  1. Whether the defendants are jointly liable for the loss suffered by Bhushan steel of $2,73,510 in the deal of galvanized steel corrugated sheets ?
  2. Whether the Delhi High Court have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit ?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 
  • ARTICLE 136: Special Leave Petition

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

  1. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 
  • Section 20(C): It accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Every suit is based upon the cause of action, and the circumstances of the cause of action, even in part, will confer territorial jurisdiction on the court.
  • ORDER 1 RULE 3: Who may be joined as defendants?

All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where—

(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and

(b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.

  • ORDER 1 RULE 7: When plaintiff in doubt from whom redress is to be sought.

Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he is entitled to obtain redress, he may join two or more defendants in order that the question as to which of the defendants is liable and to what extent may be determined as between all parties.

 Contentions of plaintiff

The plaintiff is entitled to $2,76,510 in a bill of lading dispute between Tata Steel Limited and TYO Trading Enterprises. The plaintiff is entitled to the payment if the goods were released by the Bank of Ethiopia after obtaining a duly endorsed bill of lading from TYO Trading Enterprises. If the goods were released without obtaining the endorsement, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for making payment. TYO Trading Enterprises cannot escape its liability under any circumstances, as the irrevocable Letter of Credit would not have been issued in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff would not have supplied the goods, and the Bank of Ethiopia’s liability arises if they delivered the goods without obtaining endorsement from TYO Trading Enterprises. The cause of action arose when the plaintiff was assigned an order by M.G. Trading Worldwide Pvt Ltd, and the defendants were jointly and severally liable. The High Court at Delhi possesses territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit.

Defendant ‘s contention

This Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit. Apparently, no cause of action arose against Arcadia within the jurisdiction of the Court to grant the relief prayed by the plaintiff. It is not a controversy that the goods in question were shipped / loaded at Mumbai; the freight charges were paid there. The goods were to be delivered at Djibouti Port, Ethiopia Apparently, no cause of action whatsoever qua Arcadia arose at Delhi to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and the judgment records that Arcadia had not disclosed who was the ‘Principal’, who was an undisclosed foreign party. Arcadia had not produced document to show if the freight charges were received on behalf of the ‘Principal’ etc.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND Judgment

In the judgment or order dated December 20, 2017, the Single Judge of the High Court at Delhi recorded the following findings:

The goods were released by Arcadia unauthorizedly and have not been accounted for by them. Accordingly, Arcadia is liable to Bhushan Steel for the loss suffered. Arcadia should pay Bhushan Steel the value of the goods without any interest. Despite these findings, the Single Judge directed the return of the complaint on the question of territorial jurisdiction.

A Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi, vide judgment/order 09.01.2024, allowed an appeal against the judgement/order passed by the Single Judge dated December 20, 2017, in an appeal preferred by Tata Steel Limited.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Arcadia, against the judgment/order of the Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi, dated January 8, 2024.

Arcadia claims two transactions occurred: the sale of goods and a shipment of goods from Mumbai to Djibouti. They claim their involvement was restricted to the second transaction, as supply orders were placed in Delhi. However, the court finds Arcadia’s contentions unfounded as the transactions are intertwined and cannot be compartmentalized into silos. The shipment of goods was linked to the sale of goods by Bhushan Steel through the Bill of Lading. The release of goods by Arcadia hinged on the presentation of the Bill of Lading by TYO Trading at the point of receipt. The Bank of Ethiopia issued the Letter of Credit, and Bhushan Steel remained the owner of the goods. The actions of Arcadia and the transactions were interconnected, and a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.

It would be opportune to refer to the provisions of the CPC.

Section 20(c) of the Code accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Every suit is based upon the cause of action, and the circumstances of the cause of action, even in part, will confer territorial jurisdiction on the court. The expression ‘cause of action’ can be given either a restrictive or wide meaning. However, it is judicially read to mean every fact that the plaintiff should prove to support their right to the judgment.

Order I Rule 3 of the Code states that the plaintiff may join as a defendant in one suit all persons against whom the plaintiff claims the right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act, transaction or series of transactions. The claim, viz. the defendants can be joint, several or alternative. Thus, it is permissible to file one civil suit, even when separate suits can be brought against such persons, when common questions of law and fact arise.

Order I Rule 7 of the Code permits a plaintiff who is in doubt as to the person from whom they are entitled to obtain redress to join two or more defendants in order that the question of which of the defendants is liable and to what extent can be decided in one suit.

The supply order was placed in Delhi, and the payment was to be released in Delhi. The cause of action arose in part at Delhi, under Section 20(c) of the Code. Bhushan Steel could enjoin all defendants, including Arcadia, in a single suit under Order I Rules 3 and 7 of the Code. The relief claimed by Bhushan Steel lies against all defendants, albeit to different extents, and was ‘in respect of and arises out of a series of transactions’. The Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside the Single Judge’s finding on territorial jurisdiction.

The Single Judge held that no liability could be fastened to TYO Trading and Bank of Ethiopia, but liability could be fastened to Arcadia. In the context of the dispute, the remedy was to file a civil suit against the defendants, which was maintainable in Delhi, a part of the cause of action having arisen in Delhi. Therefore, the Single Judge erred in upholding Arcadia’s contention regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and absence of any cause of action arising against them in Delhi, based on their businesses being located in Mumbai. For the aforesaid reasons, the present civil appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of.

“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.”

JUDEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

Click here to view the full judgement: ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD. V. TATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

0

Burning topic: SC had ordered Neet re-exam on 24th June

Uncategorized , , , ,

On June 24th, the Supreme Court of India issued a significant order mandating a re-examination of the NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test), a crucial examination for admission into undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental courses across the country. This decision came amidst mounting concerns and allegations of irregularities during the conduct of the exam, highlighting the Court’s proactive stance in upholding fairness and transparency in educational assessments.

NEET serves as a gateway for thousands of aspiring medical and dental students annually, determining their admission to prestigious institutions based on merit. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of such high-stakes examinations, ensuring that all candidates have a level playing field.

The order for a re-examination is a response to various issues raised regarding the administration and conduct of the exam. These concerns include reports of question paper leaks, discrepancies in exam centers, and allegations of malpractice. Such incidents not only undermine the trust in the examination process but also raise doubts about the fairness with which candidates are evaluated for their academic prowess.

For the students who had already appeared for the previous NEET exam, the Court’s decision means uncertainty and additional preparation. It necessitates that these students invest more time and effort to perform well in the upcoming re-exam, thereby impacting their academic timelines and aspirations.

Moreover, the re-examination directive has broader implications for the education sector and its stakeholders. It prompts discussions among policymakers, educational institutions, and regulatory bodies about enhancing the security measures and protocols for conducting examinations of national importance. It underscores the need for stringent measures to prevent leaks, maintain the confidentiality of question papers, and ensure the smooth conduct of exams across multiple centers nationwide.

The Supreme Court’s proactive approach in ordering a re-exam reflects its commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness in educational assessments. By intervening in matters concerning the conduct of NEET, the Court asserts its role in safeguarding the interests of students and maintaining the credibility of the examination system.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court’s decision to order a NEET re-exam on June 24th aims to address concerns over alleged irregularities, it also highlights the challenges and complexities involved in conducting large-scale examinations in a fair and transparent manner. It calls for collective efforts from all stakeholders to strengthen the examination process, restore trust among candidates, and ensure that meritocracy remains the guiding principle in admissions to medical and dental colleges in India.

“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.”

News Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani

1 2 3 … 8