Whether Supreme Court order on the extension of limitation dated January 10, 2022, applies to Commercial courts Act proceedings?

In that view of the matter, the period from

15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall have to be excluded for

the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any

General or SPECIAL LAWS in respect of all judicial or

quasi-judicial proceedings. The Commercial Courts Act,

2015 being a Special Law, the said order shall also be

applicable with respect to the limitation prescribed

under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above and more particularly when the 120 days period

expired in the present case on 09.05.2020 which was

during the aforesaid period as prescribed by this Court

in the aforesaid order, the High Court ought to have

excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing

the written statement and ought to have permitted to

take the written statement on record. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court refusing to

condone the delay and take on record the written

statement is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed

that the written statement, already filed, be taken on

record and the same be considered in accordance with law.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022

(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2522/2022)

BABASAHEB RAOSAHEB KOBARNE & ANR. Vs PYROTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 

Dated: MAY 09, 2022

Print Page

Supreme Court guidelines for the online trial of cheque dishonour case

 Banks, being an important stakeholders in cases of this nature, it is their responsibility to provide requisite details and facilitate an expeditious trial mandated by law. An information sharing mechanism may be developed where the banks share all the requisite details available of the accused, who is the account holder, with the complainant and the police for the purpose of execution of process. This may include a requirement to print relevant information, viz the email id, registered mobile number and permanent address of the account holder, on the cheque or dishonour memo informing the holder about the dishonour. The Reserve Bank of India, being the regulatory body may also evolve guidelines for banks to facilitate requisite information for the trial of these cases and such other matters as may be required. A separate software-based mechanism may be developed to track and ensure the service of process on the accused in cases relating to an offence Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

12. With ensuring the credibility of cheques, it is equally important that cheques are not allowed to be misused giving cause to frivolous litigation. The Reserve Bank of India may consider developing a new proforma of cheques so as to include the purpose of payment, along with other informations mentioned above to facilitate adjudication of real issues.

13. Further, a mechanism may be developed to ensure the presence of the accused even by way of coercive measure, if required, taking effect from Section 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which allows attachment of property, including movable property. A similar coordinated effort may be evolved to recover interim compensation Under Section 143A of the N.I. Act as well as fine or compensation to be recovered as per Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The Bank may facilitate mechanism for transferring requisite funds from the bank account of the accused to the account of the holder in due course, as may be directed by the Court.

14. With ever growing institution of N.I. cases, there is a need of developing a mechanism for pre-litigation settlement in these cases. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides for a statutory mechanism for disposal of case by Lok Adalat at pre-litigation stage Under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. Further, Section 21 of the Act, recognises an award passed by Lok Adalats as a decree of a civil court and gives it a finality. This Court in K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji MANU/SC/1412/2011 : 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102 : (2012) 2 SCC 51 has held that:

Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court.

15. The effect of above legal proposition is that an Award passed at the pre-litigation stage or pre-cognizance stage shall have an effect of a civil decree. The National Legal Services Authority, being the responsible Authority in this regard, may evolve a scheme for settlement of dispute relating to cheque bounce at pre-litigation i.e. before filing of the private complaint. This measure of pre-litigation ADR process can go a long way in settling the cases before they come to Court, thereby reducing docket burden.

16. The High Courts, in addition to the above, may also consider setting up of exclusive courts to deal with matters relating to Section 138, especially in establishments where the pendency is above a standard figure. Special norms for assessment of the work of exclusive courts may also be formulated giving additional weightage to disposal of case within the time-frame as per legal requirement.

17. This Court in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited (supra), observed the following:

Use of modern technology needs to be considered not only for paperless courts but also to reduce overcrowding of courts. There appears to be need to consider categories of cases which can be partly or entirely concluded "online" without physical presence of the parties by simplifying procedures where seriously disputed questions are not required to be adjudicated. Traffic challans may perhaps be one such category. At least some number of Section 138 cases can be decided online. If complaint with affidavits and documents can be filed online, process issued online and accused pays the specified amount online, it may obviate the need for personal appearance of the complainant or the accused. Only if the accused contests, need for appearance of parties may arise which may be through Counsel and wherever viable, video conferencing can be used. Personal appearances can be dispensed with on suitable self operating conditions. This is a matter to be considered by the High Courts and wherever viable, appropriate directions can be issued.

(emphasis supplied)

In view of the above, the status of directions issued or measures adopted by the High Courts may be assessed and a best suited mechanism in this direction may be considered.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5464 of 2016

Decided On: 05.03.2020

 Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas Vs.  State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.A. Bobde, CJI and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.

Citation: (2020) 4 SCC 695,MANU/SC/0517/2020

Print Page

Supreme Court: General guidelines issued by the High Court cannot override the specific directions given by Supreme Court

One common reason mentioned by the concerned

court is about the guidelines issued by the High

Court for functioning of Court(s) within the State

during the pandemic period for taking up only

urgent cases. Thus, the trials in the concerned

case could not proceed despite the peremptory

direction given by this Court. This reason, in our

opinion, is unacceptable. For, general guidelines

issued by the High Court cannot override the

direction(s) given by this Court on the judicial

side in the given case, which the concerned

Court(s) and all concerned are expected to comply

with without any demur in its letter and spirit,

unless relaxed by this Court.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1338/2020

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.11315/2019

ANKIT MAHESHWARI ALIAS CHINTOO Vs  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Date : 14-08-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

Print Page

Whether accused can get default bail U/S 167 of CRPC if he was already on interim bail?

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record and I find that there is absolutely no merit in the petition.

Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is meant to ensure that the investigation in the case is concluded promptly and challan is filed in the

Court thereafter at the earliest so that an accused in a criminal case is not made to languish in the jail for a very long time. This provision is meant to ensure that the investigating agency does not show callousness and lethargy in doing the investigation making them aware of the fact that in case investigation is not completed and challan is not filed within 90 days of arrest of the accused, where the investigation relates to an offence

punishable with death imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of

not less than 10 years and within a period of 60 days, where the

investigation relates to any other offence, then the accused would become

entitled to be released on bail and then the Investigating Officer at fault

would be made to explain his acts and omissions in carrying out the

investigation within that time frame.

Now in the instant case after being arrested on 19.3.2020, the

petitioner on account of outbreak of COVID-19 had been granted interim

bail vide order dated 31.3.2020, which stood extended from time to time

and he is still on bail, now required to surrender in jail on 4.9.2020. The

petitioner remaining behind bars for a period of less than two weeks till

date cannot cry foul and ask for bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

The petitioner just want to have dual benefit enjoying interim bail, at the

same time asking for concession of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. He

is certainly not entitled to such concession. Learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Karnal has passed a detailed and well reasoned order, which does

not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR-1018-2020(O&M)

Date of decision:-21.7.2020

Subhash Chander Vs  State of Haryana

CORAM:  MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Print Page

Supreme Court: Service of Summons may be effected by e-mail, FAX, instant messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, etc

I.A. No. 48461/2020- Service of all notices, summons

and exchange of pleadings

Service of notices, summons and exchange of

pleadings/documents, is a requirement of virtually

every legal proceeding. Service of notices, summons

and pleadings etc. have not been possible during the

period of lockdown because this involves visits to

post offices, courier companies or physical delivery

of notices, summons and pleadings. We, therefore,

consider it appropriate to direct that such

services of all the above may be effected by e-mail,

FAX, commonly used instant messaging services, such

as WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc. However, if a

party intends to effect service by means of said

instant messaging services, we direct that in

addition thereto, the party must also effect service

of the same document/documents by e-mail,

simultaneously on the same date.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3/2020

IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 

VERSUS

Respondent(s)

IA No. 48672/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS

IA No. 48375/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION

IA No. 48461/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION

IA No. 48673/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT

IA No. 48374/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION

IA No. 48416/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION

IA No. 48408/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION

IA No. 48671/2020 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)

Date : 10-07-2020 These applications were called on

for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Court can frame charge and record statement U/S 164 of CRPC through video conferencing in Covid19

The Video Conferencing Rules (in short ‘Video

Conferencing Rules’), framed by this Court, a copy of which is

annexed to the petition, lay down the procedure for recording of

evidence by Video Conferencing. Rule 8 contemplates the

examination of persons including the witnesses through Video

Conferencing. Rule 11 indicates that in certain circumstances,

even for remand, an accused can be produced before the

learned Magistrate through Video Conferencing. Rule 11.2

specifically permits recording of statement under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C read with Rule 5 of Chapter 5 of Karnataka Criminal

Rules of Practice 1968 (in short ‘the Rules of Practice’) by Video

Conferencing. Rule 11.2 specifically permits recording of a

statement of the accused under Section 313 through Video

Conferencing. Thus, at the time of framing of charge and at the

time of recording of plea, the presence of the accused before

the Court can be procured through Video Conferencing. By

procuring the presence of the accused through Video

Conferencing in case of Sessions triable cases and in case of

warrant triable cases, the charge can be read over and

explained to the accused and his plea can be recorded. Rule 5

of the Video Conferencing Rules will apply for recording of the

evidence by Video Conferencing. If the accused is in Judicial

Custody, Video Conferencing facility can be provided at the

prison and in such case, the remote point coordinator within the

meaning of Rule 5.3 will be the Jail Superintendent or the officer

in-charge of the prison. In case the accused is on bail, any fit or

proper person will have to be appointed as the coordinator to

ensure that proceedings are conducted in a fair, impartial and

independent manner.

8. Though there is no specific provision in Cr.P.C to that

effect, there is a practice followed by various Courts of taking

the signature of the accused on the plea. If by way of abundant

precaution, the learned Judges desire that the signature of the

accused is necessary on the plea, in case of accused in judicial

custody, a copy of the charge framed and plea recorded

thereon can be send by e-mail to the coordinator who will be an

officer of the concerned prison. He can be directed to down

load the same, take print and obtain the signature of the

accused in his presence and send it to the Court. In case of an

accused on bail, the coordinator can be directed to follow the

same procedure. While recording the plea, the Judicial Officer

will be well advised to record a statement of the accused that

the Judge was clearly audible and visible to him while the

charge was read over and explained to him and while his plea

was recorded.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

W.P. No. 7338/2020

Decided On: 19.06.2020

 High Court of Karnataka  Vs.  The State of Karnataka

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Court can record statement of accused U/S 313 of CRPC through video conferencing during Covid19

 Under Rule 11.2 of the Video Conferencing Rules, it is

specifically provided that in exceptional circumstances, for the

reasons to be recorded in writing, the Courts can record the

statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C through

Video Conferencing.

16. The Court in its discretion can take recourse to subsection

(5) of Section 313 of Cr.P.C and permit the accused to

file his written statement with reference to the questions

formulated. The questions can be sent to Jail and the accused

can be directed to file his written statement duly signed by him

before the Jailor or the Superintendent of Jail. The Court can

always direct the Jail authorities to allow the Advocate of the

accused to meet the accused for the purposes of preparation of

written statement. If accused is on bail, he can be called upon

to answer the questions in writing by handing over the same to

his Advocate by directing that written statement of the accused

shall be countersigned by him by identifying the signature of his

client. The other option is of recording the statement by

procuring presence of the accused by Video Conferencing

Hearing. The concerned Jail superintendent or the officer-incharge

of the prison will be the coordinator at the remote point of

the prison. Before recording the statement and in the midst of

recording the statement, the learned Judge can put questions to

the accused to ascertain whether he is clearly audible and

whether the accused understood the questions posed to him.

The learned Judge may record this in the statement to that

effect. If the signature of the accused is required, a copy of the

written statement recorded can be sent by e-mail to the Jail

authorities with an instruction to the Jail authorities to obtain

signature of the accused on the statement and then forward the

statement to the Court. In case of accused on bail, similar

procedure can be followed. The only difference being a fit and

proper person appointed by the Court will be the coordinator at

the remote point where the accused is sitting.

17. We must note here that we are deciding the issue only in

the context of an exceptional situation created in which due to

spread of COVID-19, the Courts are not able to function

normally. As observed by the Apex Court in suo motu Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2020, it is the duty of every Court to

ensure that the Court premises do not contribute to the spread

of virus. Moreover, in suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of

2020, the Apex Court has categorically directed that in the

present situation, the presence of all the undertrial prisoners

before the Courts must be stopped forthwith and recourse to

Video Conferencing Hearing must be taken for all purposes.

This direction issued by the Apex Court will have to be read with

the directions issued on 6th April, 2020 in suo motu Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 5 of 2020. The course adopted by the Courts while

recording the plea of the accused and recording the statement

of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C through video

conferencing hearing will be a step taken to reduce the physical

presence of the stakeholders in the Courts precincts to meet the

exceptional situation and to secure the functioning of the Courts

by following the best possible health practice. Therefore, such

a course adopted by the Courts shall be deemed to be lawful, in

view of the directions contained in clause (i) of paragraph-6 of

the aforesaid order dated 6th April, 2020 issued in suo motu Writ

Petition (Civil) No.5 of 2020. The directions of the Apex Court

in paragraph 6 are specifically under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India, which will apply during the epidemic of

COVID-19.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

W.P. No. 7338/2020

Decided On: 19.06.2020

 High Court of Karnataka  Vs.  The State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, C.J. and S. Vishwajith Shetty, 

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Presence of complainant is not necessary if he has filed affidavit along with complaint for dishonour of cheque

There is one more decision of the Apex Court on the issue of procedure to be followed during the trial of a complaint under NI Act. That is in the case of METERS & INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD. vs. KANCHAN MEHTA MANU/SC/1256/2017 : (2018) 1 SCC 560 which deals with the issue of conducting entire proceedings of the complaint online. It holds that it is open for the High Courts to consider and lay down a category of cases, which can be conducted online by the designated Court or otherwise. This decision expects the High Courts to issue the directions dealing with the cases under Section 138 of NI Act. We will consider the question of issuing directions in terms of the said decision for online conduct of the proceedings of a complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

16. As far as the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is concerned apart from the decision in the case of A.C. Narayanan, there is another decision of the Apex Court in the case of INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION. vs. UNION OF INDIA MANU/SC/0387/2014 : (2014) 5 SCC 590 wherein, the Apex Court in the context of the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act held that the affidavit filed by the complainant along with the complaint for taking cognizance of the offences is good enough be read in evidence at both the

stages, that is, pre-summoning stage and post-summoning stage. In fact, in paragraph 23.1 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed that the Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and if the complaint is accompanied by an affidavit, and that the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, may take cognizance and direct issuance of summons.

Therefore, to conclude, when a written complaint as contemplated by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 of Cr.P.C. is filed and when the complainant is represented by an advocate, the Courts of Magistrate cannot insist upon personal presence of the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint. In case of a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, it is not necessary for the Magistrates in every case to insist upon personal presence of the complainant for examining him upon oath as contemplated by Section 200 of Cr.P.C., if such a complaint is accompanied by an affidavit of the complainant or his authorized representative. After perusing the affidavit and documents, if any, if the Magistrate is satisfied, he can order issue of summons

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

W.P. No. 7338/2020

Decided On: 03.06.2020

 High Court of Karnataka  Vs.  The State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, C.J. and S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Suo-motto extension of limitation during lockdown will not affect the right to accused to get default bail U/S 167 of CRPC

A learned Single Judge of

Madras High Court in Crl.OP(MD)No. 5291 of 2020,

Settu versus the State, had already considered the

judgment of this Court dated 23.03.2020 passed in

Suo Moto W.P(C)No.3 of 2020 and its effect on

Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The above was also a case of

a bail where the accused was praying for grant of

default bail due to non-submission of charge sheet.

The prosecution had raised objection and had relied

on the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 passed

in Suo Moto W.P(C)No.3 of 2020 claiming that period

for filing charge sheet stood extended until

further orders. The submission of prosecution was

rejected by learned Single Judge. The learned

Single Judge had made following observations in

paragraphs 14 and 15:-

“14. Personal liberty is too precious a

fundamental right. Article 21 states that

no person shall be deprived of his

personal liberty except according to

procedure established by law. So long as

the language of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

remains as it is, I have to necessarily

hold that denial of compulsive bail to the

petitioner herein will definitely amount

to violation of his fundamental right

under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. The noble object of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court's direction is to ensure

that no litigant is deprived of his

valuable rights. But, if I accept the plea

of the respondent police, the direction of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is

intended to save and preserve rights would

result in taking away the valuable right

that had accrued to the accused herein.

15. Of course, the construction placed by

me will have no application whatsoever in

the case of certain offences under certain

special laws, such as Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 and NDPS Act, 1985.

For instance, Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS

Act enables the investigation officer to

apply to the special court for extending

the period mentioned in the statute from

180 days to 1 year if it is not possible

to complete the investigation. Thus, under

certain statutes, the prosecution has a

right to apply for extension of time. In

those cases, the benefit of the direction

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made

23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition

(Civil) No.3 of 2020 will apply. But, in

respect of the other offences for which

Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is applicable, the

benefit of the said direction cannot be

availed.”

28. The Prayer of the accused in the said case for

grant of default bail was allowed. The claim of the

prosecution that by order of this Court dated

23.03.2020, the period for filing charge sheet

under Section 167 Cr.P.C. stands extended was

specifically rejected.

29. The view taken by learned Single Judge of

Madras High Court in Settu versus The State (supra)

that the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020

passed in Suo Moto W.P(C)No.3 of 2020 does not

extend the period for filing charge sheet under

Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has been followed by Kerala

High Court as well as Rajasthan High Court.

30. Rajasthan High Court had occasion to consider

Section 167 as well as the order of this Court

dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Moto W.P(C)No.3 of

2020 and Rajasthan High Court has also come to the

same conclusion that the order of this Court dated

23.03.2020 has no consequence on the right, which

accrues to an accused on non-filing of charge sheet

within time as prescribed under Section 167 Cr.P.C.

Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Revision

Petition No. 355 of 2020 – Pankaj Vs. State decided

on 22.05.2020 has also followed the judgment of

learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in

Settu versus The State (supra) and has held that

accused was entitled for grant of the default bail.

Uttarakhand High Court in First Bail Application

No.511 of 2020 – Vivek Sharma Vs. State of

Uttarakhand in its judgment dated 12.05.2020 has

after considering the judgment of this Court dated

23.03.2020 passed in Suo Moto W.P(C)No.3 of 2020

has taken the view that the order of this Court

does not cover police investigation. We approve the

above view taken by learned Single Judge of Madras

High court in Settu versus The State (supra) as

well as the by the Kerala High Court, Rajasthan

High Court and Uttarakhand High Court noticed

above.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEA L NO. 452 OF 2020

S.KASI  Vs  STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

SAMAYNALLUR POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTRICT 

ASHO K BHUSHAN,J.

Dated:JUNE 19,2020

Print Page

Whether a court can release accused on bail subject to the condition that he will work as Corona warrior?

Though Chargesheet has not been filed but appellants does

not appear to have any criminal antecedents and therefore,

considering the allegations and the fact that the material placed on

record does not disclose the possibility of the appellants fleeing

from justice and trial is not likely to conclude in the near future

and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the

concept of liberty, this court is inclined to extend the benefit of

bail to the appellants.

Undoubtedly, the appellants are young/middle aged/able

bodied responsible citizens. In the present time where the entire

humanity is struggling to survive against the Covid-19 pandemic

the governmental machinery is experiencing extreme shortage of

hands in the process of disaster management, the appellants as

citizens of nation are obliged to assist the govt. in times of this

deep crises by discharging their fundamental duty enshrined under

Article 51-A(d) which reads thus:-

“51A. Fundamental duties. – It shall be the duty of

every citizen of India –

(d). to defend the country and render national

service when called upon to do so;”

Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to pass suitable

order prescribing it to be a part of one of the conditions subject to which appellants have been granted bail so that the human

resource in shape of the appellants can be utilized for the

betterment of the society and to ward off the crises.

The appellants shall register themselves with the District

Magistrate, Guna as “Covid-19 Warriors” by entering their

names in a Register named as COVID-19 WARRIOR

REGISTER. The appellants then, shall be assigned work of

Covid-19 disaster management at the discretion of District

Magistrate Guna by taking all prescribed precautions. The

nature, quantum and duration of the work assigned is left to the  wisdom of District Magistrate, Guna. This Court expects

that the appellants shall rise to the occasion to serve the society

in this time of crises to discharge their fundamental duty of

rendering national service when when call upon to do so as per

Article 51-A(d) of the constitution.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.A. No.2929/2020

(Badal Singh & Others Vs. State of M.P. and another)

Gwalior, dated: 18.05.2019

Print Page

Delhi HC: Tenant can not seek suspension of payment of rent owing to COVID-19

 In Raichurmatham Prabhakar and Ors. v. Rawatmal Dugar,

(2004) 4 SCC 766 the Supreme Court held that suspension of rent may be

claimed by the tenant if the lessee has been dispossessed. Thus, mere nonuse

may not always entitle the tenant for suspension of rent.

28. This view has been followed by a ld. Single Judge of this Court in

Aranya Hospitality Management Services Pvt. Ltd. v. K. M. Dhoundiyal

& Ors. [Arb. A. (Comm.) 6/2017, decided on 21st March, 2017], where the

Court considered the force majeure clause of the contract to hold that the

mere non-approval by the concerned authority for running a restaurant

would not entitle the tenant to seek suspension of rent. The Court held that

under circumstances wherein the tenant cannot use the property for the

purpose for which it was leased, the tenant would have no right to continue

enjoying the property and seek suspension of rent at the same time.

29. In relation to some contracts which are not classic tenancy or lease

agreements, where the premises is occupied and a monthly pre-determined

amount is paid purely as `Rent’ or `Lease amount’, the manner in which

pandemics, such as COVID-19, can play out would depend upon the nature

of the contract. In contracts where there is a profit-sharing arrangement or an

arrangement for monthly payment on the basis of sales turnover, the

tenant/lessee may be entitled to seek waiver/suspension, strictly in terms of

the clause. Such cases would purely be governed by the terms of the contract

itself, and the tenant’s claim could be that there were no sales and no profits

and thus the monthly payment is not liable to be made. Thus, the entitlement

of the client in such a situation is not governed by any overriding force

majeure event but by the consequence of the said event, being that there

were no sales or profits.

Conclusions:

30. In light of the above legal position, the Tenants’ prayer for suspension

of rent in the present case is to be considered. There is no rent agreement or

lease deed between the parties and hence Section 32 of the ICA has no

applicability. The case is governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958. Section 56 of the ICA does not apply to tenancies. The

Tenants also do not urge that the tenancy is void under Section 180 (B)(e) of

the TPA. The tenants are also not `Lessees’ as an eviction decree has already

been passed against them.

31. The Tenants’ plea is for extension of the doctrine of suspension of

rent to cases which are covered by lockdown due to COVID-19. Insofar as

this prayer is concerned, this Court considers the following factors as

necessary for determining the question as to whether the Tenants herein are

entitled to any relief of suspension of rent:

i. Nature of the property: The tenanted premises are located in the

prime commercial area of Khan Market for running of a shop. It is

well-known that the commercial area of Khan Market is a sought-after

location for business purposes.

ii. Financial and social status of the parties: The Landlord is a dentist

who wishes to use the tenanted premises and has sought eviction on

the ground of bonafide use under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

The Tenants, on the other hand, run a footwear shop on the tenanted

premises, which they have been in possession of since 1975 at a

monthly rental of merely Rs.300/-.

iii. Amount of rent: The monthly payment of Rs.3.5 lakhs has been

fixed by this Court, as a condition for grant of stay for continued use

and occupation, after the decree of eviction was passed. The Tenants

do not wish to vacate the property due to the lockdown but wish to

continue to occupy the property. The amount being paid, when

compared to the prevalent market rent in the area, is on the lower side.

This is clear from a perusal of the lease deed of a neighbouring

property placed on record by the Landlord. Even if the said lease deed

is to be ignored and not taken on record, judicial notice can be taken

of the fact that the prevalent rent in Khan Market is amongst the

highest in the whole of Asia. The amount being paid by the Tenants,

though substantial, is on the lower side as compared to other

properties in Khan Market.

iv. Other factors: The Tenants are `unauthorised occupants’ of the

tenanted premises as a decree of eviction has already been passed.

The monthly payment of rent being made has been fixed by this Court

vide the interim order dated 25th September, 2017 in view of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v.

Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705. The use and occupation

charges have to be determined in a manner so as to fully compensate

the Landlord as if the Landlord had let out the property to a third

party. The Tenants are continuing to occupy the premises and do not

intend to vacate the same. In any case, the compensation ought to be

reasonable and should make up for the loss caused to the Landlord

due to delay in execution of the eviction decree. These factors

completely tilt the balance in favour of the Landlord.

v. Any contractual condition(s): There is no contractual condition that

permits non-payment or suspension of rent.

vi. Protection under any executive order(s): There are cases where the

central and state governments may have, from time to time, given

protection to some classes of tenants such as migrants, labourers,

students, etc. These include Order No. 40-3/2020-DM-I (A) dated 29th

March, 2020 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),

Government of India and Order No. F/02/07/2020/S.1/PT. File/81

dated 22nd April, 2020 and Order No. 122-A F/02/07/2020/S.I/9 dated

29th March, 2020 both issued by the Delhi Disaster Management

Authority (DDMA), Government of NCT of Delhi. Without going

into the legality and validity of such Executive orders, suffice it to say

that the present case is not covered by any of these executive orders.

32. The Tenants’ application for suspension of rent is thus liable to be

rejected inasmuch as while invoking the doctrine of suspension of rent on

the basis of a force majeure event, it is clear from the submissions made that

the Tenants do not intend to surrender the tenanted premises. While holding

that suspension of rent is not permissible in these facts, some postponement

or relaxation in the schedule of payment can be granted owing to the

lockdown. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 21st May, 2020

 RC. REV. 447/2017 

RAMANAND Vs   DR. GIRISH SONI 

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Print Page

Whether accused can get bail relying on guidelines issued by the government for the release of the prisoner during COVID 19?

 The learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the

guidelines dated 14/5/2020. It is submitted that the applicant is not being

prosecuted under any special act and therefore, the applicant deserves to

enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the case of the applicant does not

fall into any of the exceptional cases carved out by the said guidelines.

6. However, the guidelines read as follows :

“It is clarified that rest of clauses (iv) to (x) of the decision dated

25/3/2020 of this Committee shall apply and shall form the part

of the present decision.”

7. In view of this, it would be necessary to read the guidelines dated

25/3/2020. The guidelines of 25/3/2020 read as follows :

“The prisoners who fall in the class or the category spelt out by

this decision will be entitled to be released in accordance with

law in considering every case for such reliefs, the nature of the

offence and severity of the offence shall be considered. The

possibility of the prisoner committing offence in case of

temporary reliefs(such as habitual offenders or likelihood of

his/her absconding should also be considered as important tests

to decline such request for temporary release.”

8. The learned APP has submitted the list of offences registered against

the present applicant. The applicant is being prosecuted. That the

applicant is being prosecuted in Crime No.97 of 2007 for offence

punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is

pending and is registered as Sessions Case No. 150 of 2007. Besides that,

the applicant is also charge-sheeted prosecuted for serious offences. The

applicant is charge-sheeted in 17 cases. Preventive measures have been

taken against the applicant on more than 7 occasions and that the

applicant has created a terror in the said area. It is submitted by the

learned APP that the applicant is a habitual offender.

12. Hence, in view of the guidelines dt. 25.3.2020 the applicant cannot

claim benefit by the guidelines dated 14.5.2020. It would be necessary to

also take into consideration the merits of the matter, the gravity of the

offence and the attitude of the accused of indulging into criminal activities

despite preventive measures, the applicant cannot take benefit of the

circular dated 14/4/2020 and does not deserve temporary bail. Hence, the

application stands rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

LD VC BAIL APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2020

Mahesh B. Patil  Vs. State of Maharashtra

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.

DATE : 15th MAY 2020.

Print Page

Bombay HC: No work no wages” cannot be made applicable in such extraordinary circumstances

This Court cannot turn a Nelson's eye to an extraordinary

situation on account of Corona virus/ COVID19

pandemic. Able bodied

persons, who are willing and desirous to offer their services in deference

to their deployment as contract labourers in the security and house

keeping sector of the Trust, are unable to work since the temples and

places of worships in the entire nation have been closed for securing the

containment of COVID19

pandemic. Even the principal employer is

unable to allot the work to such employees in such situation. Prima facie,

I feel that the principle of “no workno

wages” cannot be made applicable

in such extraordinary circumstances. The Court cannot be insensitive to

the plight of such workers, which has unfortunately befallen them on

account of the Covid19

pandemic.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4013 OF 2020

RASHTRIYA SHRAMIK AGHADI. Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :12th  May, 2020

Print Page