Legal Talks by Desikanoon

On today’s show, we will discuss a case that has a chequered history. The name of the Case is Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 348, involving questions relating to disclosure of financial information under the RTI Act. In order to understand the matter, let us go through the chronology of events that has transpired in relation to this case.

To read more about it, please visit our Blog http://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/06/RBI-RTI-.html

Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1

Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD

Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon

Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.

Credits: Music by Wataboi from Pixabay

In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the constant abuse of procedural provisions that defeat justice, such as putting up frivolous objections or setting up third parties to contest for the sake of delaying the outcome in a case.

BACKGROUND

Let us discuss the brief background of this case.

The facts of the case at hand are not relevant for the purposes of this show and we just need to know that there was a case that was being contested since last more than two decades and despite having judgment of the Court, the same was not getting implemented because of continuous objections that were raised by the parties and hence, the execution or implementation of the decree was stalled.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

Hence, let us understand the observations of the Court.

It was observed that as on 31st December 2018, there were 11,80,275 Execution Applications pending in various courts of India and according to the Court, “the execution proceedings which are supposed to be handmaid of justice and sub-serve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice.”

Further, the Court discussed the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the manner in which its provisions are being misused by the litigating parties. However, according to the Court, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) intends that all questions that may arise in a suit, must be decided in the same trial itself, so as to avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT

Therefore, the Court felt that it was constrained to issue certain directions to all the Trial Courts that are dealing with Civil Suits and Execution Proceedings.

Firstly, it was directed that in suits relating to delivery of possession, the Trial Court must examine the parties in relation to disclosure of any third-party interest in the suit-property and seek production of documents upon oath. This would ensure that later on third parties do not spring up to cause a delay in the litigation.

Secondly, wherever required, a commissioner could be appointed to assess the accurate description and status of the property so that the cases do not get delayed on account of these petty issues.

Thirdly, after examination of parties or production of documents or the report of the Commissioner, as the case may be, the Trial Court must add the necessary parties that have not yet been impleaded to the suit, so as to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings.

Fourthly, under Order 40 of CPC, “a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as Custodia Legis (In custody of Law) for proper adjudication of the matter.”

Fifthly, the decrees that are passed must be unambiguous as to the description and the status of the property.

Sixthly, in money suits, before settling the issues, the Defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath to the extent of his liability in the suit and under Order 40 Rule 11 of CPC, the Court should ensure immediate execution of decree for payment of money on Oral Applications itself. This would ensure that in the garb of seeking time for drafting of Applications, no delay could be sought.

Seventhly, in Execution Proceedings, the Execution Courts must not issue notice at the behest of third parties in a mechanical manner and no issues ought to be taken up that have already been taken up by or ought to have been take up before, the Trial Court.

Eighthly, taking of evidence in Execution Proceedings should be done only in exceptional cases where other methods could not be resorted to, and where frivolous issues are raised in Execution Proceedings, compensatory costs under Section 35A of CPC should be granted to the other party.

Ninthly, Execution Proceedings should be decided expeditiously within six months and any further delay should be supported by reasons to be recorded to in writing. Police assistance could also be sought wherever necessary.

And lastly, “under Section 60 of CPC, the term “...in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.”

So, these were the directions that were issued by the Supreme Court in relation to delay in Execution Proceedings and Civil Suits. Further, the Court also directed the High Courts to update all their rules in relation to Execution Proceedings, within one year, and till such exercise is completed, the directions that we discussed shall remain enforceable.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, it could be said that delay in civil suits is not a new phenomenon and whenever such issues co...

Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1

Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD

Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon

DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT

Let us discuss the directions given by the Court in this case on 7th June 2021.

The Court stated that there are close to 30,071 children who have become orphans or have lost one parent or abandoned.

To be precise, there are 3,621 orphans, 26,176 children who have lost one parent and 274 children who have been abandoned.

Firstly, the States were directed to continue identifying the children who have become orphans or lost a parent after March 2020, either due to Covid-19 or otherwise and update such data on the website of National Commission for Protection of Children Rights without delay.

Secondly, the Court directed the Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) to ensure that since such children require financial assistance, food provisions, it should pass appropriate orders in this regard, without delay.

Thirdly. The Court directed that there should be a follow up with such children to ascertain their well-being and accordingly take steps under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Fourthly, it was also directed that after the identification of the children who have become orphans or lost one parent, prompt action has to be taken to provide the basic needs of the children and the various benefits under the schemes such as Integrated Child Protection Scheme should be immediately disbursed to them.

Fifthly, the District Child Protection Officers (DCPOs) in every District should act swiftly to contact the child on receipt of information about the loss of the parent/parents of the child.

Sixthly, the States were directed to continue identifying the children who have become orphans or lost a parent after March 2020, either due to Covid-19 or otherwise and such data has to be updated on the website of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights without delay.

And seventhly, the State Governments were also directed to make provisions for continuance of education of the children both in Government as well as in private schools.

Eighthly, it was ordered that stern action is to be taken against those NGOs or individuals who are indulging in illegal adoptions.

Ninthly, the Court also observed that the States should give wide publicity to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for the welfare of children.

And lastly, in order to have a comprehensive coverage, it was directed that all such exercises that were just mentioned, are also to be undertaken at the Gram Panchayat Level to monitor the welfare of the disconsolate children.

CONCLUSION

I think that Covid-19 has wreaked havoc on children. They are the ones who seemed to have suffer a lot. And being minors, there voice is mostly unheard. The Supreme Court has passed comprehensive guidelines for welfare of children and now, it is the responsibility of the states to implement the guidelines in letter and spirit. I hope that the same is done as quickly as possible.

Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1

Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD

Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon

Important Judicial Precedents

Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1999) 2 SCC 131 –

In this case, it was observed that the concept of sui generis is applied generously in the adjudication of disputes related to International Law to ascertain whether a particular law or a treaty covers “any area territorially or any subject topically” or not. If not, the adjudicating body devises its sui generis or “one of a kind” method to resolve such disputes. The Court, while delving on the question that whether the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) is a sui generis body or not, in respect of a task assigned to it, namely, to look into flagrant human rights violations in a particular matter, opined that the NHRC became a sui generis body as soon as the Supreme Court directed it by way of a Judicial Order to carry out certain tasks at its behest. Thus, to carry out those certain tasks, the NHRC did not require any jurisdiction to be conferred on it from any statute or that any statute could not have limited its jurisdiction to carry out those tasks and could have acted sui generis that is in a unique manner in order to fulfil the task assigned to it.

Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra – (2021) 2 Mah LJ 457 –

In this case, the Court was looking into question of “what could be a small and what could be a large gathering.” According to the Court, the general classifications of gatherings like funerals and marriages have nothing in common and are of entirely different character and hence, the principle of sui generis could have no applicability in such certain circumstances where each situation (gathering) is of a different character and there could be no straight-jacket formula to make specific classifications. A marriage or a funeral could have a small gathering or a large gathering, depend upon a number of factors. Same is true for any general species of public gatherings.

Therefore, we see that the concept of sui generis has no applicability in situations where no specific categorization exists and that its applicability is limited to identify the uniqueness of an object from a large set where a precise taxonomy exists. This could be a reason that it is used heavily in academic literature.

K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 1985 Supp SCC 714 –

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the sui generis status of the Constitution of India. According to the Court, Constitution of India is inherently sui generis since it is born in specific circumstances. It has a geography, history, economics etc. different from other countries and does not fit into a water-tight compartmentalization. Therefore, it would be utterly improper to apply the general rules of statutory interpretation to interpret it.

The Court asserted that even our Indian Constitution Makers were not concerned merely with the words and their arrangement in the Constitution, rather their emphasis was on “the philosophy and the pervading “spirit and sense” of the Constitution, so elaborately exposed for our guidance in the Directive Principles of State Policy and other provisions of the Constitution.”

Therefore, in this context, sui generis would mean the specific nature of the Constitution of India and that there is no classification where the Constitution of India could fit necessitating adoption of a sui generis approach for its i...