List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice K Babu held that a subsequent application to deliver interrogatories is maintainable when there is a changed cause of action or subsequent developments, even if an earlier application was dismissed as not pressed. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of K. C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K. C. Vasanthakumari @ K. C. Vasanthi and others (2025). 

What was the Background of K. C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K. C. Vasanthakumari @ K. C. Vasanthi and others (2025) Case ? 

• The case involves members of the Kuttipurath Chelath Tharawad (a family), where the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are family members. 
• The property in dispute originally belonged to the tharawad and was subject to partition proceedings in O.S No.76/1960 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode. 
• A preliminary decree was passed on 03rd January 1970, and in the final decree proceedings dated 30th August 1971, the properties were partitioned among family members. 
• The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the final decree, with her mother (defendant No.2) acting as her guardian. 
• Defendant No.2 later remarried, and the plaintiff attained majority on 09th July 1972, after which she married and moved to Goa. 
• Certain properties were set apart for the plaintiff and defendant No.2 jointly, while other properties were allocated to defendant No.1. 
• The plaintiff alleges that her share in the properties is managed by defendant No.2, who refused her request for partition on 01th October 2014. 
• Upon approaching defendant No.1, the plaintiff discovered that he had allegedly fraudulently created document No.4283/2012, a gift deed in favour of defendant No.3 (his grandson). 
• The plaintiff contends that defendant No.1 had no right to execute this deed and claims entitlement to one-half share in the properties. 
• The defendants argue that the final decree remains unexecuted, that the properties have become co-sharership properties, and that the plaintiff should have filed an execution application before 09th July 1974. 
• Defendant No.1 further denies the plaintiff's title or interest in the properties, claiming defendant No.3 possesses the property under settlement deed No.4283/2012. 
• The plaintiff filed I.A No.255/2017 seeking leave to deliver interrogatories, which was dismissed as not pressed, and later filed I.A No.843/2019 for the same purpose, which was allowed by the Trial Court. 
• Defendant No.1 challenged this order in the present Original Petition before the Kerala High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from their opponent for maintaining their own case. 
• The Court noted that answering interrogatories might shorten trial proceedings, save time, and reduce expenses for summoning witnesses and documents. 
• The Court distinguished between the laws on interrogatories in England and India, noting that in India, interrogatories must be confined to facts relevant to matters in question in the suit. 
• The Court emphasized that the power to allow interrogatories should not be confined within narrow limits but should be used liberally to serve the interests of justice. 
• The Court observed that interrogatories should not be allowed to ascertain the nature of one's opponent's case but may be allowed to support one's own case. 
• The Court stated that a party is not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of the adversary's case or title. 
• The Court noted that interrogatories relating to confidential communications between an opponent and legal advisors or involving disclosures injurious to public interests are not permissible. 
• The Court observed that when relevant documents like the final judgment and decree could not be traced from the Trial Court, this resulted in a "changed" cause of action. 
• The Court held that a subsequent application seeking to deliver interrogatories is not barred even in cases where the previous application was dismissed as not pressed, provided there is a subsequent cause of action. 
• The Court determined that the merit of a petition seeking leave to deliver interrogatories should be decided on the touchstone of 'prejudice' even in advanced stages of trial. 
• The Court found that the interrogatories sought to be delivered were relevant to the matters in question and were not intended to test the credibility of defendant No.1. 
• The Court concluded that defendant No.1 had not demonstrated that answering the interrogatories would cause prejudice to his case. 

What is Order XI Rule I of Code of Civil Procedure ,1908 (CPC) ? 

• Order XI Rule 1 governs the procedure for disclosure, discovery, and inspection of documents in civil proceedings. 
• The rule establishes a mandatory framework requiring parties to disclose all relevant documents at the earliest stage of litigation. 
• Under Rule 1(1), a plaintiff must file a comprehensive list of all documents in their power, possession, control, or custody pertaining to the suit along with the plaint. 
• The plaintiff's disclosure obligation extends to three categories of documents:  
  • Documents referred to and relied upon in the plaint 
  • Documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings, regardless of whether they support or are adverse to the plaintiff's case 
  • Documents that may be produced later for specific purposes, such as cross-examination or rebuttal 
• The rule requires the plaintiff to specify whether the disclosed documents are originals, office copies, or photocopies, and provide details regarding parties to each document, mode of execution, issuance, receipt, and line of custody. 
• The plaintiff must submit a declaration on oath that all relevant documents have been disclosed and that no other documents pertaining to the facts and circumstances remain in their possession, control, or custody. 
• For urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents, subject to court approval, and must file such documents within thirty days along with the requisite oath. 
• The rule imposes restrictions on the plaintiff's ability to rely on previously undisclosed documents, permitting such reliance only with leave of court upon establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure. 
• Similarly, defendants are required to file a list of all relevant documents along with their written statement or counter-claim, subject to parallel disclosure obligations. 
• The rule creates a continuing duty of disclosure that persists until the final disposal of the suit, ensuring that newly discovered relevant documents are promptly brought to the court's attention. 
• The rule establishes a robust document disclosure regime that promotes transparency, reduces surprise at trial, and facilitates the efficient resolution of factual disputes. 
• This rule is part of the broader framework of the Civil Procedure Code designed to ensure fair, efficient, and expeditious resolution of civil disputes. 

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Bhuwan Goyal and Justice Avneesh Jhingan refused to interfere with the arbitrator’s direction to refund the damages and reiterated the limited scope of appellate intervention under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the case of Rajasthan Urban Infrastructures Development Project v. M/s National Builders (2025). 

What was the Background of Rajasthan Urban Infrastructures Development Project v. M/s National Builders (2025) Case?   

• The appellant filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act), challenging the dismissal of their application under Section 34 of the Act. 
• The appellant had issued a work order to the respondent, and both parties entered into a contract on February 3, 2003. 
• The project involved widening and strengthening of National Highway Beawar Road in Ajmer from Ramganj to Transport Nagar and erecting a ramp on one side. 
• The work was scheduled to be completed by February 2, 2004, but was actually completed on May 10, 2005, resulting in a delay of 463 days. 
• Disputes arising during the contract performance were referred to an arbitrator, who passed an award on August 30, 2010. 
• The arbitrator directed the appellant to pay Rs. 41,54,511/- to the respondent and Rs. 1,01,500/- towards arbitration costs. 
• The arbitrator also awarded interest under Section 31(7)(a) amounting to Rs. 15,87,957/- and 18% per annum under Section 31(7)(b) on the awarded amount from the date of award until payment. 
• The appellant's application under Section 34 was dismissed by the Commercial Court on July 11, 2019, leading to the present appeal. 
• The appellant raised five main issues: recovery of interest on mobilization advance, recovery of excise duty, recovery for non-submission of video cassette and documents, claims for escalated prices, and the imposition of liquidated damages. 
• The respondent argued that there was no clause for charging interest on mobilization advance, exemption of Light Diesel Oil was legally availed, required documentation was submitted, clause 41 regarding price escalation was deleted, and the delay was primarily attributable to the appellant. 
• A Higher Powered Committee had determined that of the 463 days of delay, 458 days were attributable to the appellant, not the respondent. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's decision in favor of the respondent. 
• The appellant had paid interest-free mobilization advances to the respondent, which were to be repaid within ten months through deductions from interim payments. 
• The arbitrator found that the appellant failed to make deductions from interim bills despite having the right to do so. 
• The respondent had requested deduction of advances (90% in November 2003 and 10% in December 2003) via letter dated 03.12.2003. 
• The court rejected the appellant's recovery of Rs. 2,09,760 in excise benefits claimed by the respondent for use of LDO, as exemption eligibility was to be determined by the excise department. 
• The court found no evidence that the excise department had objected to the exemption claimed by the respondent. 
• The court upheld the refund of Rs. 1,00,000 recovered for alleged violation of clause 85, as this clause had been deleted by clause 126. 
• The respondent's claim for price escalation was valid despite the appellant's objections, as clause 41 had been deleted and clause 38 allowed for price adjustment. 
• The appellant had itself made partial payments for price escalation, which contradicted its position in court. 
• A Higher Powered Committee had attributed 458 days of the 463-day delay in completion to the appellant, with only 5 days attributable to the respondent. 
• The court upheld the arbitrator's decision to set aside liquidated damages imposed on the respondent, given that the majority of the delay was caused by the appellant.

What are Liquidated Damages?

• Liquidated damages clauses are common features in commercial contracts including construction, engineering, equipment supply, purchase, and service agreements. 
• These clauses are particularly useful in contracts with strict timelines, allowing parties to estimate damages payable in case of breach. 
• Liquidated damages promote commercial certainty by pre-determining compensation, enabling parties to undertake a "defined risk." 
• In India, as in the United Kingdom, liquidated damages clauses are enforceable only if they don't possess characteristics of a penal clause and are reasonable. 
• Liquidated damages must pre-estimate a reasonable amount as compensation for breach of contract. 
• Three key principles differentiate liquidated damages from penalties: liquidated damages constitute a pre-estimate of losses while penalties are punitive; the pre-estimated sum must be reasonable; and the sum fixed in the liquidated damages clause serves as the upper limit on damages payable. 
• The Supreme Court of India in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Saw Pipes (2003) emphasized examining the terms and language of the contract when determining the nature of such clauses. 
• The Court held that when parties explicitly consent to a genuine pre-estimated liquidated damages amount as compensation, and the amount is not penal in nature, courts should grant the compensation.

What is Section 37 of A & C Act?

• Section 37 of A & C Act provides for appealable orders. 
  • Section 37 specifies the limited set of orders from which appeals can be made to the court authorized to hear appeals from original decrees. 
  • Notwithstanding any other law in force, appeals can be filed against orders refusing to refer parties to arbitration under section 8. 
  • Appeals are permitted against orders granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9. 
  • Orders setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34 are appealable. 
  • Appeals can also be made against orders of the arbitral tribunal that accept pleas referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16. 
  • Orders of the arbitral tribunal granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17 are appealable. 
  • No second appeal is permitted from an order passed in appeal under this section. 
  • The section preserves the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, which remains unaffected. 
• The important judgments in this regard are as follows: 
  • MMTC Limited vs. Vedanta Limited (2019) 4 SCC 163:  
    • The Supreme Court held that interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. 
    • The court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award when hearing an appeal under Section 37. 
    • The appellate court must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. 
    • If an arbitral award has been confirmed by the court under Section 34 and by the court in an appeal under Section 37, the Supreme Court must be extremely cautious and slow to disturb such concurrent findings. 
  • Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. M/s Sanman Rice Mills & Ors. (2024) 
    • The appellate power under Section 37 is limited within the domain of Section 34 of the Act. 
    • The appellate power is exercisable only to determine if the court under Section 34 has acted within its prescribed limits or has exceeded or failed to exercise its conferred power. 
    • The Appellate Court has no authority to consider the merits of the dispute as if sitting in an ordinary court of appeal. 
    • The appellate court can step in only where the court exercising power under Section 34 has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or has exceeded its jurisdiction. 
    • The power under Section 37 is more akin to superintendence as vested in civil courts while exercising revisionary powers. 

Source: Indian Express 

Why in News? 

Recently, President Droupadi Murmu, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in case, where the Court set a deadline for powers under Article 200 Constitution of India,1950 (COI) has asked the Supreme Court for guidance under Article 143(1) of the Constitution regarding the time limits for the President and Governors to approve state bills. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025). 

What was the Background of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) ? 

• The dispute emerged after RN Ravi's appointment as Tamil Nadu Governor in September 2021, when tensions arose between the DMK-led state government and the Governor over the handling of legislative Bills.  
• The Tamil Nadu government observed a pattern where Governor Ravi was consistently withholding assent on multiple Bills, with some pending since January 2023, leading to significant legislative delays.  
• In November 2023, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Governor's actions and seeking clarity on the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial powers under Article 200.  
• During the initial hearing on 6th November 2023, the Supreme Court made a significant observation, stating that "Governors cannot be oblivious to the fact that they are not elected representatives of the people."  
• Following this development, the Tamil Nadu Assembly took proactive steps by re-enacting the pending Bills that had been stalled by the Governor.  
• However, Governor Ravi responded by referring two of these re-enacted Bills to the President for consideration and continued to withhold assent for the remaining Bills, further escalating the constitutional crisis.  
• The case gained broader significance as other opposition-ruled states including Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab filed similar petitions, stating a pattern of gubernatorial delays in legislative processes across multiple states.  
• This constitutional dispute has now become a precedent-setting case that will determine the scope of the Governor's powers, particularly regarding timeframes for assent and the limits of their authority to withhold or reserve Bills. 

What is Article 200 and 143 of COI? 

Article 200 of COI 

• Article 200 of the COI establishes the procedure for gubernatorial assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, with the following key legal provisions: 
• The Governor, upon presentation of a Bill passed by the State Legislature, must exercise one of three constitutional options:  
  • Grant assent to the Bill 
  • Withhold assent from the Bill 
  • Reserve the Bill for Presidential consideration 
• The Governor possesses a qualified power to return non-Money Bills to the Legislature with recommendations for reconsideration, subject to the following conditions:  
  • Such return must occur "as soon as possible" after the Bill's presentation 
  • The return must be accompanied by specific recommendations or suggested amendments 
  • This power is explicitly excluded for Money Bills 
• The Legislature retains ultimate authority through the reconsideration process, as:  
  • The Legislature must reconsider the Bill along with the Governor's recommendations 
  • The Legislature may accept or reject the Governor's suggestions 
  • If the Legislature repasses the Bill (with or without amendments), the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent 
• The Governor has a mandatory duty to reserve certain Bills for Presidential consideration, specifically:  
  • Any Bill which, in the Governor's opinion, would derogate from the High Court's powers 
  • Any Bill that might endanger the constitutionally designed position of the High Court 

Article 143 of COI 

• Article 143 establishes the President's power to seek advisory opinions from the Supreme Court: 
• The President may refer questions to the Supreme Court under two circumstances:  
  • Under Article 143(1): When a question of law or fact has arisen or is likely to arise that is of such nature and public importance that obtaining the Supreme Court's opinion is expedient 
  • Under Article 143(2): For disputes mentioned in the proviso to Article 131, notwithstanding anything contained therein 
• The Supreme Court's role in such references is:  
  • To consider the question after appropriate hearings 
  • To report its opinion to the President on the matters referred 
• The nature of this power is advisory rather than adjudicatory, creating a constitutional mechanism for obtaining judicial input on significant legal questions without the constraints of regular litigation. 

Article 201 of COI 

• Article 201 of the COI governs the procedure for Bills reserved by a Governor for Presidential consideration, establishing the following key legal provisions: 
• Presidential Options on Reserved Bills:  
  • When a Bill is reserved by a Governor for Presidential consideration, the President must exercise one of two constitutional options:  
    • Grant assent to the Bill 
    • Withhold assent from the Bill 
• Presidential Power to Direct Return for Reconsideration:  
  • For non-Money Bills, the President possesses a qualified power to direct the Governor to return the Bill to the state legislature 
  • This return must be accompanied by a message similar to that mentioned in the first proviso to Article 200, potentially including recommendations or suggested amendments 
• Time-Bound Legislative Reconsideration Process:  
  • Upon return of a Bill by Presidential direction, the state legislature must reconsider it within a constitutionally mandated period of six months from receipt of the Presidential message 
  • This six-month timeframe creates a specific constitutional limitation not present in the Governor's return power under Article 200 
• Legislative Authority After Reconsideration:  
  • The state legislature may repass the Bill with or without incorporating the recommended amendments 
  • After reconsideration and repassage, the Bill must be presented again to the President 
• Final Presidential Determination:  
  • Unlike the Governor under Article 200, the President retains the authority to withhold assent even after legislative reconsideration 
  • This creates an ultimate check on state legislation that has been specifically reserved for Presidential consideration 
• Constitutional Distinction Between Money and Non-Money Bills:  
  • The presidential power to direct return applies explicitly to non-Money Bills, creating a separate procedural track for financial legislation 
  • This article provides an additional constitutional layer of executive review within India's federal system, allowing Presidential scrutiny of certain state legislation while still respecting the deliberative authority of state legislatures. 

Landmark Cases   

Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker (2016)   

• In this significant case, Justice Madan Lokur, writing a separate concurring opinion as part of a five-judge Constitution Bench, established a crucial principle regarding gubernatorial powers.  
• The Court explicitly ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills, establishing a clear limitation on gubernatorial discretion.  
• The judgment mandated that Governors must return Bills to the Assembly with specific messages or recommendations if they have concerns, rather than keeping them pending indefinitely.  

The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Anr. (2023):  

• The case arose when the Punjab Governor refused to summon the Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session and subsequently took no action on four passed Bills, leading the State to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32.  
• The Supreme Court bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, observed that the Governor's power to withhold assent under Article 200 must be read in conjunction with the obligation to return the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration.  
• The Court firmly established that the Governor, being an unelected head, cannot use constitutional powers to obstruct the normal legislative process, and must either grant assent or return the Bill with recommendations rather than keeping it pending indefinitely.  
• This judgment observed and built upon the principles established in the Nabam Rebia case, creating a stronger framework for gubernatorial accountability in the legislative process