List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court, in M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v. Anugya Gupta & Another (2026), held that an objection to subject-matter jurisdiction raised under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) must be decided before an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Court upheld the Commercial Court’s order directing that the defendants’ application be decided first, and dismissed the petition. 

What was the Background of M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v. Anugya Gupta (2026) Case? 

• The plaintiff-petitioner filed Original Suit No. 2 of 2025 before the Commercial Court, Varanasi under Section 134 read with Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It sought:  
  • A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark “Sarkari Result” and “sarkariexam.com”. 
  • A mandatory injunction against the use of the domain “sarkariresult.com”. 
• On 23rd March 2026, the defendants applied under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC for return and rejection of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. 
• While that application was pending, the plaintiff moved an application on 9th August 2026 to amend the plaint. 
• By order dated 13th August 2026, the Commercial Court directed that the defendants’ application be decided first. 
• The plaintiff challenged this order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It argued that:  
  • The Commercial Court had jurisdiction, and only a formal amendment disclosing the specified value of the suit (₹5,00,000) was needed. 
  • A plaintiff whose plaint is returned or rejected can file a fresh suit under Order VII Rule 13 CPC, so the amendment should be taken up first to avoid that situation. 
  • Four High Courts had taken this view. 
• The defendants opposed the petition. They argued that:  
  • The plaint nowhere disclosed the specified value needed to attract the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction. 
  • The court also lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC, and the plaint disclosed no cause of action. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the Jurisdiction of Commercial Courts: 

• Under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a Commercial Court can try only commercial disputes of a “Specified Value”. 
• Under Section 2(1)(i) read with Section 12, the specified value must not be less than ₹3 lakh. 
• The Court noted that the specified value was admittedly not disclosed when the suit was filed, and the plaintiff sought to amend only after jurisdiction was questioned. 

On the Order of Deciding the Applications: 

• Amendment applications are ordinarily dealt with liberally. 
• In this case, however, the objection went to the jurisdiction of the court itself. 
• Where subject-matter jurisdiction is raised, it must be addressed before the amendment application is taken up. 

On Reliance on Earlier Decisions: 

• Relying on Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., the Court noted that the Supreme Court has distinguished subject-matter jurisdiction from territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, and held that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. 
• It also referred to Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Lalit Bhasin, where a co-ordinate bench held that a court cannot confer jurisdiction on itself by allowing an amendment. 

On the Nature of the Proposed Amendment: 

• An amendment that supplies the very facts on which jurisdiction depends is not a mere cure of a defect. 
• It changes the nature of the dispute and makes the amended plaint different from the plaint as filed. 

On Lack of Inherent Jurisdiction: 

• Subject-matter jurisdiction goes to the root of the case. 
• Once a court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it cannot pass any order allowing amendment of the plaint to bring the suit within its jurisdiction. 
• In view of the above, the Court held that the Commercial Court had rightly directed the application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC to be decided first and dismissed the petition.

What is the Law Governing Amendment, Return and Rejection of Plaint under the CPC? 

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down the procedure for amendment of pleadings and for return or rejection of a plaint: 

• Amendment of Pleadings (Order VI Rule 17): The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. All amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy shall be allowed. Under the proviso, no amendment is allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court concludes that the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. 
• Return of Plaint (Order VII Rule 10): The plaint shall, at any stage of the suit, be returned to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. 
• Rejection of Plaint (Order VII Rule 11): The plaint shall be rejected:  
  • Where it does not disclose a cause of action. 
  • Where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the court. 
  • Where the relief is properly valued but the plaint is insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time fixed. 
  • Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 
  • Where it is not filed in duplicate. 
  • Where the plaintiff fails to comply with Order VII Rule 9. 
• Fresh Plaint after Rejection (Order VII Rule 13): Rejection of a plaint on any of the grounds mentioned does not by itself prevent the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint on the same cause of action. 

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court, in X v. Y (2026), disposed of a contempt petition filed by a husband alleging that his wife had not complied with a Family Court order on his meeting with their child on the child’s birthday.  

• The Court held that since the wife had produced the child, there was no wilful disobedience, and an unsatisfactory meeting alone does not amount to contempt. The husband was given liberty to approach the Principal Family Judge. 

What was the Background of X v. Y (2026) Case? 

• The husband and wife were in a matrimonial dispute before the Family Court. 
• The Family Court recorded an arrangement for the husband to meet the child on the child’s birthday. Under it:  
  • The wife was to bring the child to the Children Meeting Room at noon on 10th September. 
  • The husband was to collect the child from there. 
  • The husband was to return the child to the wife at about 5 pm the same day. 
• The husband filed a contempt petition before the High Court, alleging non-compliance with the order. He submitted that:  
  • Though the wife brought the child as directed, she prevented him from taking the child. 
  • She insisted that the birthday be celebrated within the court premises. 
  • He approached the Family Court Judge, who tried to counsel the child and the wife, but effective compliance could not be achieved. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Wilful Disobedience: 

• The Court noted that, from the husband’s own submissions, the wife had produced the child as required by the order. 
• The circumstances therefore did not show any wilful disobedience of the Family Court’s order that would justify contempt proceedings. 

On the Nature of a Meeting with a Child: 

• The Court observed that a child is not a commodity who can be compelled or forced to have an effective meeting with a parent. 
• A child needs to be nurtured, and the parent has to develop a bond with the child to be able to have effective meetings. 

On Dissatisfaction with the Meeting: 

• Merely because the meeting was not to the husband’s satisfaction, he could not claim that the wife had committed contempt. 

On the Remedy Available: 

• The husband was given liberty to approach the Principal Family Judge. 
• The Family Court may counsel the parties and ensure that effective meetings take place in terms of its orders.

What is the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? 

About: 

• Contempt of court is conduct that disobeys or shows disrespect to a court of law and its judges, and undermines the authority, dignity and administration of justice. 
• It includes disobeying a lawful court order, disrupting proceedings through misconduct, showing disrespect to the judge, and publishing material likely to prejudice a fair trial. 
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted to define and regulate the law on contempt of court. 
• Since punishment for contempt affects the right to personal liberty and the freedom of speech and expression, the law has often been criticised as vague and uncertain. 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• Article 129: The Supreme Court is a court of record and has the power to punish for contempt of itself. A court of record is one whose acts and proceedings are recorded and preserved as evidence that cannot be questioned. Similarly, Article 215 makes every High Court a court of record with the power to punish for contempt of itself. 
• Article 142(2): The Supreme Court has the power to secure the attendance of any person, the production of documents, and to investigate or punish any contempt of itself. This power must still be exercised consistently with the right to personal liberty. 

Types of Contempt (Section 2(a)): 

• Civil Contempt (Section 2(b)): Wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 
• Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c)): The publication of any matter, whether by words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations or otherwise, or the doing of any act which:  
  • Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower, the authority of any court; or 
  • Prejudices or interferes, or tends to interfere, with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or 
  • Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. 

Essentials of Contempt: 

• There must be a valid order of the court, and the respondent must have knowledge of it. 
• In civil contempt, the disobedience of the court’s judgment, decree or order must be wilful. 
• In criminal contempt, there must be a publication or act, by words, signs or visible representations, falling within Section 2(c). 
• The contemnor’s act must be deliberate and in disregard of the court’s order. 

Punishment (Section 12): 

• Contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to ₹2,000, or both. 
• The accused may be discharged, or the punishment remitted, if he makes an apology to the satisfaction of the court. 
• An apology shall not be rejected merely because it is qualified or conditional, if it is made bona fide. 

When Contempt is Not Punishable (Section 13): 

• Section 13 was substituted by the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006. 
• Section 13(a): No court shall impose punishment for contempt unless it is satisfied that the contempt substantially interferes, or tends to substantially interfere, with the due course of justice. 
• Section 13(b): The court may permit justification by truth as a valid defence, if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest and the request to invoke the defence is bona fide.