Top News Headlines 25th Feb 2022: High Court Cannot Exercise Its Powers Beyond The Contours Of What Is Stipulated Under Section 482 of CrPC

High Court Cannot Exercise Its Powers Beyond The Contours Of What Is Stipulated Under Section 482 of CrPC: SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court), in Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras v The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai &Anr observed that the High Courts ought to be mindful and conscious about the consequences of their orders and due care must be taken to avoid suo motu exercise of such power beyond the contours of the wide and inherent powers given under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).  
• The observation was made while considering a criminal appeal assailing the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (HC) where a Learned Single Judge passed an order directing transfer of 864 cases in which the final reports were filed before the respective Special Courts in relation to land grabbing cases pending in various districts.  
• The subject matter of the controversy was the issue of Government Order (GO) in 2011 which created 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in the State of Tamil Nadu.  Consequent to such orders, Special Courts were constituted exclusively to deal with such land grabbing cases.  
• In writs filed before the HC challenging the GO, the HC, by a common judgment passed in 2015, set aside the aforementioned GO and remarked that the State Government was at liberty to enact any appropriate legislation on the lines of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 or better legislations
• The impugned order of the HC was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in 2015.  The SC, in its notice, stayed the operation and implementation of the HC’s directives.  Consequently, the GO continued to be in operation and the jurisdiction of the Land Grabbing Cases continued with the Special Cell/ Courts created in this regard.  
• During the pendency of the SLP, a complaint (original compliant) seeking transfer of the said case from the Special Court to the Court of CCB and CBCID, Metropolitan Magistrate, (MM) Egmore, Chennai was filed.  
• The HC, the High Court allowed/disposed of the petition and directed the concerned police officials to take back the final report from the Special Courts and file the same before the MM, Egmore, Chennai.  
• Thereafter, on special mentioning made by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the High Court, on two occasions, directed transfers 82 and 782 cases respectively, pending in the Special Courts to the jurisdictional courts.  
• The SC noted that no proceedings were pending before the Learned Single Judge when the impugned transfer orders were passed by the HC.  The SC remarked that passing of orders on a ‘special mentioning’ that too, in a disposed of matter was unheard of and that the Single Judge had become functus officio (having performed his duty) insofar as the matter of original compliant was concerned.  
• Expressing its disapproval towards the approach adopted by the HC, the Court remarked that it could not comprehend how in a disposed of matter with respect to only one case, further orders could have been passed by the High Court transferring approximately 864 cases pending in different Special Courts.  
• Quashing the impugned order of the HC on the grounds of the same being without jurisdiction, the SC noted that the even on merits, the transfer orders were in the teeth of the interim order passed by the SC in the SLP.  

Property Given As Dowry Will Be Included In A Partition Suit By A Daughter Under Hindu Succession Act: Karnataka HC

• The Karnataka HC has, in Hemalatha vs. Venkatesh held that the properties given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage to the daughter would be included in the partition suit instituted by the daughter. Only then, according to the Court, can an equitable division of the assets be done without injustice to the rest of the family members.
• In the instant case, a suit was filed by the petitioner seeking for the partition of the joint family property as a coparcenary under section 6 of the HIndu Succession Act as the daughter of the family. While the suit was pending, an application was filed by the brother of the petitioner (Defendant no. 4) to include two other properties in the suit which were gifted to the petitioner as dowry. 
• The first property was a land measuring one acre which was gifted as dowry by the execution of a sale deed in favour of Channaiah, the petitioner’s father-in-law. The second property was purchased by the first defendant out of his own money and was given in dowry to the petitioner and her husband at the time of her marriage. 
• This application was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that the first property mentioned was bought by the petitioner’s father in law out of his own funds much before the marriage of the petitioner and her husband. The same was also contended with regard to the second property as well. 
• It was also contended that if the defendant had any right in the property, the correct way would have been to file a declaratory suit to establish ownership.
• This application was allowed by the Trial Court.
• The Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the application was allowed by the Trial Court without sufficient reasons being accorded to it. The same is liable to be set aside. 
• The Hon’ble HC held that a beneficiary of section 6 of the HSA cannot claim a benefit by way of partition without reference to the properties already gifted to her at the time of marriage as dowry or gift or otherwise. The properties were undisputedly a part of the joint family property and were gifted to the petitioner as such, the same would have to be made part of the suit so that the same is equitable.
• The Court also observed that it is for the parties to decide whether the properties belonged to the joint family or not, and the same has to be decided during the course of the trial. If the parties were able to establish that the property was purchased by them out of their own funds then the same would not be amenable to partition. This has to be ascertained by the trial court only after trial.
• Thus, in view of the above, the writ petition was dismissed. 

Respondents Claim Not Forming Part Resolution Plan Shall Not Survive: SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court), in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd v Union of India &Orshas observed that claims which were not lodged pursuant to pursuant to public announcements under Sections 13 and 15 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and not forming part of the resolution plan submitted before the NCLT would not survive.  
• The appeal before Supreme Court challenged the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (HC) rejecting writ petitions filed by the Appellant seeking an issuance that Notification 38 of 2002, Customs was not applicable to the import of palmolein oil covered under the Bill of Entry for Home Consumption.  
• The said notification increased the tariff price of Crude Palm Oil from 337 to 392 US$ per metric tonne.  
• The Appellant, through its Bankers, filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).  After the completion of the process, an application under Section 30(6) of the IBC was filed for grant of approval of the Resolution Plan.  
• The Appellant contended that a claim was lodged by the Respondent before the Resolution Professional in respect of their demands.  However, no claim was lodged for the demand being the subject matter of the present proceedings. Therefore, the Respondent is not entitled to any claim which was not part of the Resolution Plan.
• In its argument, the Respondent stated no notice was issued to the Authority at Mangalore and there was certain confusion as to whether the operational debt as defined under Section 5(21) of the IBC would cover the claim of the Respondent.  They submitted that it was in view of the said confusion that the Authority at Mangalore did not lodge any claim with respect to the present proceedings.
• The SC observed that the issue in the present appeal was the subject matter of consideration by this Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. V Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. &Ors wherein the Court held that once a resolution plan was duly by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1),all claims under the plan stood frozen stake holders like corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, etc would be bound by the resolution plan.
• In the same case the Court held that claims not forming part of the resolution stand extinguished as on the date of the approval and no person is entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim not forming part of the plan.  
• Further, the Court also noted that amendment to Section 31 was clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the I&B Code came into effect.  
• Having regard to all the above, the SC allowed the appeal on the ground that claim, which is not part of the Resolution Plan, will not survive.