Top News Headlines 20th Dec 2021: Same interest? Suit Can Be Filed In Joint Capacity

Same interest? Suit Can Be Filed In Joint Capacity

• A bench of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Brigade Enterprises Limited vs. Anil Kumar Virmani and ors. has held that when an array of consumers have the same interest in a suit, they do not necessarily have to file a representative suit, they can file a joint complaint instead.
• The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian, while distinguishing between a complaint filed in a representative capacity and a joint complaint, observed:

“ A joint complaint stands in contrast to a complaint filed in a representative capacity. For attracting the provisions of section 35, the complaint should be on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers having the same interest”.

But this does not mean that where there a few consumers and not “numerous”, they cannot join together but instead should file separate and independent complaints.

• The Court, while referring to section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act said that the word ‘consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act would be deemed to include the plural, that is, consumers as well as according to the Court, there is nothing repugnant in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act which would indicate that the word “
• “consumer” would not include the plural.
• In the present case, 91 persons who has purchased 51 residential apartments in a complex which contains 1134 apartments, filed a joint complaint in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This complaint was accompanied by an application under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a joint prosecution not just of those 91 applicants, but of several others. The NCDRC allowed the application. It is against this order that the present case was filed.
• While interpreting the explanation to Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, the Court held that this explanation clearly distinguishes between persons having the same interest in one suit and persons having the same cause of action. It was necessary that the persons for whose benefit Section 35 is invoked should have the same interest.

And now, a question for our aspirants-

When did the Consumer Protection Act come into force?

Alienation By Karta For The Benefit Of The Estate Binding On Other Members O Joint Family- SC

• Recently, in the case of Beereddy Dasaratharmi vs. V. Manjunath (2021) SC the Hon’ble SC has held that an alienation of the joint hindu family property made for the benefit of the property, done by the Karta, would be binding on othermembers of the Joint Family.
• In this case, K. Vellusamy, acting in his capacity as a karta, agreed to sell off the suit property for Rs.29 lakhs and has received Rs.4 lakhs in advance from the appellant. Beereddy then instituted a suit for the specific performance of the agreement to sell against both Vellusamy and his son V. Manjunath. The suit was decreed by the trial court.
• V. Manjunath instituted an appeal in the HC and contended that since the joint property was under the ownership of three persons, namely K. Vellusamy, his wife and his son, V. Manjunath, his signatures were also necessary before alienating the property, which were not taken by his father.
• The HC held that the agreement to sell is unenforceable as the property was jointly owned by the three persons and hence could not be alienated without the signatures of the others.
• The Apex Court, in the present case held that “where a Karta has alienated a Joint Hindu Family property for value either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate, it would bind the interest of all the members of the undivided members of the family even when they are minors or widows”.
• Referring to the decision of this Court in Kehar Singh vs. Nachittar Kaur (2018) SCC, the court further held that alienation of property by karta, done because of legal necessity, is binding on all the members of the joint family. What constitutes legal necessity, the Court held, is a question of fact depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

And now, a question for our aspirants-

Devolution of interest in coparcenary property has been dealt with under which section of the Hindu Succession Act?

Extension Of Limitation Not Applicable When Defendant Not Prevented From Filing W.S.- Delhi HC

• On March 23, 2020 the Hon’ble SC had extended the period of limitation for all filings until further orders. This was done owing to the difficulties that the Covid pandemic has created for everyone throughout the globe.
• Justice Asha Menon of the Delhi HC was dealing with an application for the condonation of delay filed by the defendants (Brainlink International) in a suit filed by HT Media Limited (HT Media Limited and anr vs. Brainlink International, INC. and anr). The defendants had claimed that they were not served with the summons and had only received an intimation of the institution of the suit. They further contended that they were under the bonafide belief that they were not required to file the written statement in the absence of the summons. They also requested for the condonation relying on the order of the SC mentioned above as their case was instituted during the Covid pandemic in 2020.
• The plaintiff’s argued that “it was clear that the conditions prevailing in the pandemic had not actually impacted the defendants to prevent them from interacting with their counsel and filing appropriate replies before the Court”.
• The Court observed that since the defendants were fully aware of the present case and that they had participated in various dates from 29 May, 2020, including in mediation, there was no reason for them to not file a w.s. in the Court.
• The court also observed that the contention of the defendants that the period of limitation had not begun to run due to non-service of summons does not hold merit as well. Thus, no merit was found in the application on either of the grounds mentioned in the application.

And now, a question for our aspirants-

An application for the condonation of delay is filed under which order of CPC?