State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M/S Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. & Anr. (2012)

By

-

August 28, 2024

This article has been written by Ziya ur Rahaman Karimi. The case law discussed in this article is related to the principle of repugnancy as provided under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The primary issue of the case is the point of time when repugnancy arises. Therefore, this article explains the principle of repugnancy and comprehensively discusses the position of law as to the starting point of time when repugnancy arises in light of constitutional provisions and judicial precedents on the topic. Thus, this article covers everything related to the case of the State of Kerala vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. (2012).

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The case of the State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M/S Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. & Anr (2012) primarily deals with the principle of repugnancy as provided under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The principle of repugnancy says that when state legislation is in a direct irreconcilable conflict with central legislation on the same topic, then the state law will be repugnant to the central law. Consequently, the state law will become void.

The key issue in this case is whether repugnancy may arise immediately after the enactment of the central law before such central enactment is enforced in the respective state. The Apex Court elaborately discussed the different aspects related to the issue and held that as soon as the President gives his assent to a bill which has been duly passed by the legislature, it becomes law for the purpose of Article 254 of the Constitution and its commencement becomes irrelevant for establishing repugnancy.

Details of the case

Name of the case: State of Kerala & Ors. vs M/S Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Name of the court: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Date of the judgement: 8 May 2012

Appellant: State of Kerala
Respondent: M/s. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd.
Equivalent citations: AIR 2012 SC 2375, 2012 (7) SCC 106

Type of the case: Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 2005
Important Provision: Article 254 of the Constitution of India
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Ranjana Prakash Desai, D.K. Jain, S. H. Kapadia, JJ.

Facts of the case

The State Legislature of Kerala enacted the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) with the objective of providing a regulatory mechanism for dealing with chitties (a short note such as voucher or pass; another name for chit) within the state. Section 4 of the Act provided in detail the prohibition of chits that are not registered or sanctioned under the Act. The problem arose when a number of private chitty firms registered themselves outside Kerala and continued to operate within the state without being subject to the regulatory framework provided under the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975.

The protection of investors in chit funds is crucial, but in the given scenario, the state government was unable to provide enough protection to the investors as the chit funds companies were registered outside the state. To address the lacunae, the Kerala government amended Section 4 of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 by Finance Act 7 of 2002. By this Amendment, sub-section (1a) was inserted in Section 4.

This amendment aimed at bringing chitties registered outside Kerala with a minimum of 20% or more of its subscribers usually residing in Kerala within the purview of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975. Private chitty firms challenged this amendment, arguing that it was repugnant to the Chit Funds Act, 1982 under Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. It is also important to note that the Chits Funds Act,1982 which received the assent of the President on August 19 1982 was not enforced in the state of Kerala till the date when the state government enacted the impugned law.

Issues raised in the case

The questions that arose before the Apex Court are as follows:

Whether the mere enactment of the law is enough or its commencement is also relevant to decide the repugnancy.
Whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies only to express repeals and not to implied repeals.

Arguments of the parties

The counsel for appellants contended that the question of repugnancy arises only after the enforcement or commencement of the Act and in the present case, as the central government has not notified the enforcement of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 in the State of Kerala, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 will continue to operate in the state till the enforcement of the Central Act.

The counsel for respondents on the other hand argued that the commencement or enforcement of the Central Act is irrelevant for applying repugnancy under Article 254. Further, the Parliament by enacting the Chits Funds Act, 1982 intended to cover the entire field of the subject matter, if we hold that the repugnancy is conditional with the commencement of the said Central Act then it will amount to bypassing the will of the Parliament.

Arguments of appellant

The counsel for the appellant made the following submissions while arguing in favour of the State of Kerala:

The word “made” used in Article 254 is only for the purpose of identifying the law; the Parliamentary law or the State Legislatures’ law.
The language of Article 254 makes the declaration of repugnancy conditional with the operation of law.
The question of repugnancy arises only after the enforcement or commencement of the Act.
Article 245 applies only in cases where repugnancy exists in fact and does not depend on a mere possibility, as observed by the Apex Court in Tika Ramji vs. the State of UP (1956).
If Parliament merely enacts a law on a subject which falls in list III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, it does not mean that all laws of states on that subject become void because of repugnancy.
The Kerala Chitties Act 1975 cannot be said to be repugnant to the Chits Funds Act, 1982 as the latter was yet to be enforced by the centre in the State of Kerala.
The words “if any provision of law” and “to the extent of the repugnancy” used in Article 254 of the Constitution make it clear that It is not correct to declare the entire state enactment as repugnant to the law made by the Parliament on the same subject.
A purposive interpretation of Article 254 should be adopted which does not create a total legislative vacuum as to date the Act of 1982 has not been enforced by the Centre in the State of Kerala.

Arguments of respondent

The counsel for respondents presented the following arguments:

The commencement or enforcement of the Central Act is irrelevant for applying repugnancy under Article 254.
The words “law made” refer to the enactment of the law. The same words have been used at seven places but there is no mention of the commencement in Article 254.
The repugnancy arose when the president gave assent to the Chits Funds Act, 1982. Therefore, the Kerala Chits Funds Act, 1975 became void when the Chits Funds Act, 1982 received the assent of the president on 19-8-1982.
The Parliament by enacting the Chits Funds Act, 1982 intended to cover the entire field of the subject matter, if we hold that the repugnancy is conditional with the commencement of the said Central Act then it will amount to bypassing the will of the Parliament.
It was also submitted that neither the previous operation of Kerala Chitties Act 1975 nor any rights or privileges acquired under this Act shall be affected by the virtue of Article 367.
As the Kerala Chits Act, 1975 was impliedly repealed on the passing of the Chits Funds Act, 1982, there cannot be any amendment to the Act of 1975. Hence, Section 4(1)(a) of the Act which was added by the Kerala Finance Act, 2002 is void.

Laws involved in State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M/S Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. & Anr. (2012)

Article 254 of the Constitution

Article 254 of the Constitution of India primarily contains the principle of repugnancy. The article says as follows:

If a law or any provision of law made by the State Legislature is in conflict with the law or any provision of law made by the Parliament, then the law made by the Parliament will prevail over state law, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State. The law made by the State Legislature will become void to the extent of inconsistency.
Where the president gives assent to a state enactment which has been in consideration by the President, then the law made by the State Legislature will prevail in that state.

However, the provision as contained under clause (2) of the Article shall not prevent the Parliament from making any law at any time with respect to the same matter.

In the present case, the primary issue was whether the Chit Funds Act, 1982 will prevail over the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 in view of Article 254(1) of the Constitution.

Doctrine of Repugnancy

The principle of repugnancy says that if a state law is in conflict with the central law, the former will be void as repugnant to the Parliament enactment. There are three tests to apply this principle. The three-pronged tests were formulated by Professor Nicholas Aroney and these tests were adjusted for the Indian context in Deep Chand vs. State of U.P.(1959) by Justice K Subba Rao:

“Repugnancy between two statutes may thus be ascertained on the basis of the following three principles:

Whether there is a direct conflict between the two provisions;
Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and
Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field…”

It was also submitted on behalf of this case that the three tests as discussed above do not require the commencement of the Act for repugnancy between two conflicting legislations.

In this case, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 was in direct conflict with the Chit Funds Act, 1982, the Parliament intended to cover the entire subject matter by enacting the Chit Funds Act, 1982, furthermore, both the laws occupy the same field. Therefore, the question of repugnancy arose in the present case.

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Pt. Rishikesh and another vs. Salma Begum (Smt) (1995)

In the case of Pt. Rishikesh and Another vs. Salma Begum (Smt), the Supreme Court held that as soon as the President gives his assent to the enactment of the Parliament, it will be considered as the law made by Parliament in view of Article 254 of the Constitution. The commencement of the Act may be provided either in the Act itself or the Legislature can delegate this power to the Executive. Where no such provision is made in the Act then the Act will commence from the date of the assent of the President as provided under Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, the question of the commencement of the Act is totally irrelevant when it comes to deciding the validity of the Act on the basis of repugnancy in the view of Article 254. Therefore, if a law made by the State Legislature is repugnant to an existing central legislation, then the state legislation will be void by virtue of Article 254 irrespective of the fact that the central legislation is still not enforced in that state.

The court further observed that the legislative function of making laws involves a lot of valuable public time and huge expenditure, it cannot be made dependent solely upon the volition of the executive to notify the commencement of the Act.

T. Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe and another (1982)

In T. Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe and Anr., the Supreme Court discussed the principles laid down in Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that when there is a direct conflict between the law made by the State Legislature and the law made by the Parliament the latter will prevail. Apart from conflict between the laws, repugnancy may also arise when the law made by the Parliament is intended to cover the entire field of the subject, for example, both laws provide for the punishment for the same offence but the prescribed punishment differs in nature of degree, in such a case also the enactment of the Parliament will prevail.

I.T.C. Ltd. Etc vs. State of Karnataka & ors (1985)

In I.T.C. Ltd. Etc vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court discussed two situations where state law becomes void due to repugnancy. First, where the central and state enactments are on the same subject then the former will prevail. Second, where both the laws collide and there is no possibility of harmonious construction, then also the central legislation shall prevail.

M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India (1979)

In M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the test for determining the repugnancy. The court after quoting Article 254 of the Constitution observed that the scheme of the Constitution is the equitable distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and State Legislature. First, Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on the matters contained under List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Secondly, state legislatures are alone and competent in making laws on the matters in List II. Thirdly, it is the Concurrent List where disputes arise more commonly as the Parliament and the State Legislatures both are competent to make laws on matters in List III.

The power to make laws on the Concurrent List is subject to the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution which talks about the principle of repugnancy. The repugnancy in such matters may arise from the following circumstances:

1. Where centre and state enacted the law on a matter in Concurrent List and both the laws are absolutely inconsistent and irreconcilable. In such a case, the central law will prevail and the state legislation will become void because of repugnancy.

2. Where the State Legislature has enacted a law following the procedure as provided under Article 254(2) of the Constitution then the state legislation will prevail in that state despite being inconsistent with an existing central law. However, Parliament can make a law at any time to amend or repeal the state legislation made under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.

3. Where an enactment of the State Legislature which substantially falls within the scope of State List incidentally touches upon the matters of Union List then the state legislation will be upheld as constitutional by the virtue of the Doctrine of Pith and Substances. Provided the encroachment must be inconsequential and ancillary.

The court further observed that it is a well-settled rule that the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of a statute duly passed by the competent legislature. The onus is on the person assailing the legislation to prove it as unconstitutional. The court also laid down certain conditions for repugnancy in the present case, they are as follows.

Conditions for repugnancy

The following conditions must be fulfilled to prove the repugnancy:

Direct inconsistency between central and state enactments.
The inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.
The inconsistency is of such a nature that results in direct collision with each other which leads towards a situation where a person has to disobey one enactment to obey the other.

The Apex Court quoted Colin Howard’s Australian Federal Constitutional Law, 2nd Edn, the author of this book described the nature of inconsistency between two legislations as follows:

“An obvious inconsistency arises when the two enactments produce different legal results when applied to the same facts”

Therefore, where there is no inconsistency between the two legislations on the same subject, as they seek to separate and distinct offences then both the legislations will continue to operate and no question of repugnancy will arise in such cases.

Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc vs. the state of Uttar Pradesh and others (1956)

The facts in Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc vs. the state Of Uttar Pradesh are that the State Legislature enacted the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. The Act was aimed to empower the state government to regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane within the State.

The issue arose that the state enactment was in conflict with The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 which is a central legislation. Section 18G of the Act of 1951 empowers the Central Government to regulate the distribution of the finished articles manufactured by the scheduled industries at fair prices. The question before the court was whether “Sugarcane” is covered under the Act of 1951.

The court held that the basic object of the Central Act of 1951 was to regulate the distribution of finished/manufactured articles, not the raw material and sugarcane being a raw material is not covered under the central legislation. Therefore, there was no repugnancy.

The court further observed that even assuming that sugarcane can was an article relatable to the sugarcane industry as a final product comes within the scope of Section 18G of the central legislation, it is important to note that no such order was issued by the central government and in absence of such notification, the question of repugnancy could not be raised because repugnancy must exist in fact and must not be a mere possibility.

State Of Orissa vs. M. A. Tulloch and Co. (1963)

The facts of the State of Orissa vs. M. A. Tulloch and Co. are that the state legislature of Orissa enacted the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952. This Act empowered the state government to impose a fee for the development of “mining areas” within the state. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged on the ground that the Act was in conflict with the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, which is a central legislation.

The State of Orissa argued that the purpose of the state legislation is different from that of the central legislation, but this contention was rejected by the court. The court observed that in order to declare a state legislation as repugnant to a central law it is not necessary that the rules be made and enforced under the Act. If the intention of the Parliament was to cover the whole area of the subject matter, then it is sufficient ground to declare state legislation as repugnant to the central law.

In the present case, the Apex Court held that it is apparent from Section 18(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 that the intention of the Parliament was to cover the entire field related to the development and regulation of mines. Therefore, the court held the state legislation as repugnant to the central law, even though no rules were framed or enforced.

State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh (1954)

In the case of the State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh (1954), the prosecution was started against Mohar Singh under Section 7 of the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948. In the year 1948, when the offence was committed, the Act of 1948 was not enforced, at that time, the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance of 1948 was in operation. The Ordinance was for a temporary period and it was substituted by this Act. It is important to note that the Ordinance was a temporary law which was repealed before the expiry of the term of the Ordinance.

In the above circumstances, the court interpreted Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court held as follows:

“We cannot agree with the proposition that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is not applicable in cases where an enactment is repealed and replaced by fresh legislation. The correct position is that Section 6 remains applicable in these cases unless the new enactment manifestly indicates a contrary intention or shows incompatibility. Such incompatibility must be ascertained by considering all relevant provisions of the new legislation and the mere absence of a saving clause by itself is not material.

Judgement in State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M/S Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. & Anr. (2012)

Determination of the point of time when repugnancy arises

The Supreme Court held that repugnancy arises in the making and not at the commencement of the law. Thus, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 became repugnant to the Chit Funds Act, 1982 on 19.08.1982 when it received the assent of the President.

The rationale behind this judgement was that the expression “law made” used in Article 254 does not refer to the commencement of the Act, it only denotes the enactment of the law by the legislature. Commencement is immaterial in the view of Article 254 of the Constitution. The court mainly relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in Pt. Rishikesh and Another vs. Salma Begum (Smt) (1995).

The definition of the expression “laws in force” in Article 13(3)(b) and Article 372(3), Explanation I, as well as “existing law” in Article 366(10), indicate that laws passed by a legislature before the commencement of the Constitution of India and repealed are regarded as “law in force”, notwithstanding that any such law may not be in operation at all. These definitions negate the argument that a law is not considered “made” for the purpose of Article 254 unless it is enforced. The expression “existing law” finds its place in Article 254.

Further, the Central government with the enactment of the Chits Funds Act, 1982 intended to cover the entire field relating to or with respect to Chits under entry 7 of List III of the Constitution, and in existence of a Central Legislation on the same subject matter, the State Legislature was denuded of its authority to enact State Finance Act No. 7 of 2002, inserting Section 4(1a) into the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, particularly on the failure of the State to follow the procedure as provided under Article 254 of the Constitution.

Hence, on both counts; firstly, the existence of irreconcilable inconsistencies and secondly, the intention of the Parliament to cover the entire field, the two Acts cannot stand together and therefore, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 was held to be repugnant to the Chit Funds Act, 1982.

Effect of repeal on the operation of Kerala Chitties Act, 1975

The Apex Court held that the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982, though has not come into force yet in the State of Kerala, is a valid and existing law. Accordingly, by virtue of Article 367 of the Constitution, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will be applicable in the present case. Consequently, the previous operation of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 is not affected nor any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the repealed Kerala Chitties Act, 1975.

If and when the Central government decides to enforce the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 in Kerala by a notification under Section 1(3) of the Act, the state law will be repealed by virtue of Section 90(1) of the central legislation and Section 90(2) of the Act will come into play. This Section ensures that the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, shall continue to apply to those chits only that were already in operation before the commencement of the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982. This means that the rules of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 will be applicable for those existing chits in the same manner as they were before the Central Act was enforced.

Analysis of the case

The case State of Kerala & Ors vs. M/S. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. & Anr (2012) addresses a crucial question related to the principle of repugnancy as enshrined under Article 254(1) of the Indian Constitution.

In this case, the key issue was the determination of the exact point of time when repugnancy arose, whether the state legislation would be repugnant to the central legislation immediately after the Central Act received Presidential assent or whether repugnancy would depend upon the commencement of the enactment.

The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in this case made it clear that it is the time of the assent of the President which is relevant while deciding the repugnancy. The court emphasised that the repugnancy arises from the enactment itself and the commencement of the Act is irrelevant in this regard.

The decision in this case directly impacts the chit-fund companies, investors, and state regulatory bodies. As the impugned Section 4(1)(a) of the state legislation which was challenged in this case was aimed to provide protection to investors from the fraud of the private chitty firms operating in Kerala but operating in Kerala. Therefore, this decision was welcomed by the chit-fund companies.

The judgement has been criticised as it created a legislative vacuum by declaring the State Act repealed while the central legislation regarding the same was yet to be enforced by the State. But, according to Sections 85(a) and 90(2) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, though the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 is repealed, it will continue to apply within the State till the commencement of the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 and in the meanwhile, if State Legislature intends to make law on the same topic, then the State can do so by following the procedure as provided under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. Hence, there would be no legislative vacuum.

Conclusion

The decision of the Apex Court in this case is a landmark judgement on the topic of repugnancy. The judgement is pivotal in determining the point of time at which repugnancy arises. The comprehensive analysis of this case made it clear that mere enactment of central legislation can render a state law repugnant regardless of the commencement of the central law in that particular state. Therefore, in the present case, the court considered the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 repugnant to the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 immediately after the enactment of the central legislation regardless of the fact that the central enactment was not enforced in the State of Kerala.

References

Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892)

By

Diganth Raj Sehgal

-

August 27, 2024

0

This article was written by Ms Sankalpita Pal and has been further updated by Gauri Gupta. The article provides a detailed analysis of the landmark judgement of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892). The author aims to provide a brief background of the case, facts of the case, important issues raised, contentions made by the disputing parties, and crucial points highlighted by the Court of Appeal in the UK. Further, the author has tried to explore the significance of the judgement and discussed in detail the necessary provisions and judgements referred by the court while delivering the judgement.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The English contract law is considered milestone legislation in laying down crucial judgements that have shaped ideas and situations that challenge the preconceived notions of the judges. One such case is the infamous case of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892) before the Court of Appeal in the UK. It establishes a core principle that an advertisement containing a promise that is conditional upon some kind of performance can constitute an offer of a unilateral contract.

In the case of Weeks vs. Tybald (1605), the court suggested that an offer must be made to a definite person. This case arose from the affirmation of the defendant to the public wherein he provided that he would give 100 Euros to any man who would marry his daughter after obtaining his consent. The claimant alleged that he did so and sued the defendant for 100 Euros. However, the court, in this case, observed that it cannot be averted that the words were spoken to him. In other words, it was not definite whom the words were spoken to. This raised several questions, the most crucial one being whether a proposal of this nature, which is made to multiple parties, be approved. Further, whether the offeror would be legally obligated to multiple agreements?

This judgement was overturned within a short span of time, leaving the contemporary view that an offer can be made to the entire world. It is crucial to note that in such cases the contract is only established with those who take steps and comply with the requirements of such a proposal. This principle has been stated in Anson’s law of contract as “An offer need not be made to an ascertained person, but no contract can arise until it has been accepted by an ascertained person.”

Details of the case

Title of the Case: Carlill vs. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Date of Judgement: December 8th, 1892
Claimant: Carlill
Defendant: The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Equivalent citation: (1892) EWCA Civil 1, (1893) 1 QB 256
Type of case: Civil Appeal
Court: Court of Appeal (UK)
Bench: Lord Justice Bowen, Lord Justice Lindley and Lord Justice A L Smith

Facts of the case

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company manufactured the ‘Carbolic Smoke Ball’, which was designed to prevent users from contracting influenza or similar diseases. The company claimed that the medicine would cure influenza and other other diseases related to sore throat and other cold flu which had killed almost 1 million people between 1889 to 1890. The product was made with rubber which was attached to a tube filled with carbolic acid.

The user had to insert the tube in the nose and squeeze the ball to release the vapours. The company was very confident of the usefulness of the product. They made claims regarding the ability of their product to not only cure influenza but also ensure the prevention of any other type of common flu. The company advertised their product in various newspapers, including the Pall Mall Gazette, on November 13th, 1891.

The advertisement stated that the company would award 100 pounds to any person who contracted the increasing epidemic of influenza, cold, or any other disease related to cold after using the carbolic ball three times every day for two weeks. The person was asked to follow the directions printed on the products. Furthermore, the company deposited 1000 pounds in the Alliance Bank on Regent Street, thus showing how sincere they were towards this matter.

The claimant Mrs. Carlill, believed the advertisement to be true and purchased the Smoke Ball. She used it three times from November 20th, 1891 to January 17th, 1892. Following this, she contracted influenza, thus making the advertisement untrue and vague. After this incident, her husband, a solicitor, wrote letters to the company on multiple occasions stating the ill health of her wife despite using the carbolic smoke ball and claimed the amount as promised by the company in their advertisement.

The company replied by stating that the product was not utilised as per the instructions and refused to accept the claim of the claimant, thus denying them 100 pounds. The claimant brought an action against the company before the court of Justice Hawkins and a special jury which decided in favour of the claimant. The claimant won the case in the court, wherein the Hon’ble court stated that there was a contract between the claimant and the defendant. Following this decision, an appeal was filed by the defendant.

Issues raised

The following four issues were raised before the Court of Appeal (UK):

Whether the contract had a binding effect on the disputing parties?
Whether a formal notification of acceptance was required from the claimant?
Whether accepting the terms of the offer is sufficient to form a contract?
Whether there was any consideration on the part of the claimant in exchange for the reward of 100 pounds as offered by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company?

Contentions of the parties

Arguments of the claimant

The claimant, Mrs Carlill, contended that the promise made through the advertisement was not vague in nature. The construction of the offer was such that it was evident that in case the product was not effective the company would award a certain amount of money to its user. Furthermore, the deposition of a large amount of money in the Alliance Bank was to facilitate the same and showed intention on the part of the company. Thus, the intention of the company to form an agreement was evident in this case. Furthermore, the claimant contended that there was consideration in the form of the sale of the product along with the money she paid for buying the carbolic smoke ball.

The advertisement put forth by the company was not an empty boast. Instead, it was attributed to a contract, more particularly a unilateral contract. As a result, the company was under a mandate to fulfil its part of the obligation.

Arguments of the defendant

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company contended that their offer was not binding in nature and, thus, could not form a valid contract. The rationale provided for the same was that words used in the advertisement did not amount to a proper promise because the advertisement was too vague in its terms to form a contract.

Furthermore, they contended that there was no specified time limit and no means to check how the consumers utilised the product, the carbolic smoke ball, properly and as per the printed directions.

It was also contended that there was no valid contract since the prerequisites for the same require communication of the intention to accept the proposal. In the case at hand, the claimant, Carlill, did not send any acceptance with respect to the property either expressly or impliedly or through the performance of an overt act.

This provides that the advertisement was a marketing strategy and the company had no intention to form a contract while they made an offer at large to the world.

Judgement in Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892)

The judgement was delivered by three judges including Justice Lindley, Justice Bowen and Justice Smith. Their observations are as follows:

Judgement delivered by Justice Lindley

Justice Lindley observed that the advertisement must mandatorily be treated as an express promise, according to which any person who contracts the flu despite using the smoke ball of the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company shall be rewarded 100 pounds as promised by the company. He also stated that it was pertinent to ensure that the product was used as per the printed directions i.e., three times every day for two weeks. Elaborating further on his decision, he explained that the advertisement was not a mere puff or an empty boast. That was because the company had explicitly stated in their advertisement that an amount equal to 1000 pounds was deposited by them in the Alliance Bank. This was sufficient to prove that the company was sincere in offering the reward to the users of the product.

He also observed that the promise made by the company was binding even though there was no specific individual at the receiving end of the same. This is a case of unilateral contract, which does not require explicit acceptance as it is an offer made to the general public at large. It is treated as an offer to any person who performs the terms and conditions (in this case, using the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks), which is sufficient to accept the offer.

Justice Lindley further explained that the advertisement cannot be considered vague in nature. The rationale for the same lies in the words used in the advertisement, which can be construed as a promise. He explained that the language of the advertisement was such that it could lead any potential user to believe that if they contracted the flu after using the product as per the directions, they were entitled to 100 pounds.

With respect to the question pertaining to the notification of acceptance, he explained that the notification of acceptance need not precede performance since the offer made by the company was a continuing offer. Performing the specific conditions is sufficient enough to imply the communication of acceptance of the offer.

With respect to the question of consideration, Justice Lindley observed that it existed due to two reasons. Firstly, the company received benefits in the form of sales, and secondly, a detriment was involved with respect to the direct inconvenience caused to the user who used the smoke ball product as per the directions. Thus, performing the specific conditions is sufficient consideration for the promise.

Judgement delivered by Justice Bowen

He agreed with the reasoning provided by Justice Lindley and observed that an offer which is made to the public at large can ripen into a contract if any individual comes forward and fulfils the conditions of the contract. The performance of the terms and conditions implies their acceptance and is considered sufficient consideration. He also observed that a sufficient notification of acceptance is not required in such cases.

On the question of consideration, he said that there was a sufficient and valid consideration. He stated that the consideration was the profit that the company received from the sale of their product. Furthermore, he explained that the deposition of 1000 pounds in the Alliance Bank for the purpose of making an offer to the public at large was sufficient to ensure sincerity on their part to fulfil their obligations in case the product does not work.

Judgement delivered by Justice AL Smith

Justice Smith went with the rationale and explanation provided by Justice Bowen and Justice Lindley. He explained that the advertisement constituted an offer and the contention of the defendant pertaining to the terms of the offer being vague was not true. A plain reading of the advertisement was sufficient for the public to understand that the company was making them an offer to use their product as per the printed directions, and in case the product does not work, the user would be rewarded 100 pounds as promised by the company in their advertisement.

For the same reasons as that of Justice Lindley, Justice Smith observed that the agreement was not a mere puff as was evident from the deposition of the 1000 pounds in the bank which was sufficient to show the sincerity and intention of the company of entering into a contract with anyone who performs the specific conditions.

On the question of sufficient consideration, it was observed that by using the product as directed by the company, Mrs. Carlill provided sufficient consideration. Apart from that the company received a benefit since using the smoke ball promoted their sale. Thus, he concluded that there was sufficient consideration to support the promise and rejected the contention of the defendant with respect to the absence of sufficient consideration.

All three judges unanimously dismissed the appeal and awarded the claimant, Mrs. Carlill a compensation of 100 pounds.

In a nutshell, the Court of Appeal on December 7th, 1892, unanimously observed that:

The advertisement of the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company was a conditional offer which was made to the entire world. It was not merely an invitation to treat.
The company had waived the requirement regarding the acceptance of an offer to be communicated to it by expressly directing the users that in case they perform the conditions as stipulated, the performance would constitute acceptance. The conditions as put forth by the company were to use the smoke ball as per the printed directions. When the claimant performed these conditions, a contract was created.

Furthermore, the arguments put forth by the company pertaining to the advertisement being a marketing strategy were rejected by the court. The Court of Appeal highlighted that the advertisement, along with the deposit of 1000 pounds in the Alliance Bank, shows that the company made the offer.

Rationale behind the judgement

Justice Lindley makes little mention of the insurance and wagering contract agreements in his judgement. He distinctly talks about five important points. The deposition of 1000 pounds in the Alliance Bank proved that the advertisement was not a mere puff. Further, he explained that the offer is continuing in nature and never revoked. The same was explained by Lord Blackburn in the case of Brogden vs. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877), wherein he observed that if the notice of acceptance is required, the person who makes the offer gets the notice of acceptance contemporaneously with his notice of the performance of the condition. If he receives the notice before his offer is revoked, that, in principle, is all that is required.

The advertisement put forth by the company made an offer to anyone who met the conditions rather than stating “not made with someone in particular.” Further, a contract does not require the communication of acceptance when people demonstrate an intention to contract through conduct. It is also pertinent to note that the vagueness of the advertisement’s terms was no obstacle.

The opinion of Justice Bowen on the contract was structured and has been frequently cited. He explained that the advertisement was in the form of a contract and can be easily interpreted by ordinary people. He also believed that the advertisement was not a puff since the company deposited money in the bank. Furthermore, the contract is not valid with the entire world; it is valid only with those who follow the directions printed on the product. Furthermore, he stated that conduct was sufficient to accept the terms of the offer.

To summarise, the three judges unanimously rejected the contentions of the defendant, and the rationale for the same was:

The advertisement was a unilateral offer made to the entire world.
Fulfilling the conditions of the offer was sufficient to accept the offer.
Purchasing the smoke ball was a good consideration.
The deposition of 1000 pounds in the Alliance Bank shows the intention on the part of the company to be legally bound by the offer.

Critical analysis of the judgement

In the landmark case of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the court was dealing with a situation where an express promise to pay 100 pounds was made in case of certain events. The advertisement clearly stated, “100 pounds will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.”

The court clearly explained that the advertisement was not a mere puff as was alleged by the defendant since the company had deposited money with the Alliance Bank. This shows that the company was sincere when it advertised its product and had the intention of entering into a contract with any user who fulfilled the requirements as mentioned.

The advertisement was an offer made to the entire world, and the company contended that it was not binding in nature. Communicating acceptance was not necessary in cases of contracts where people’s conduct is sufficient to show their intention of entering into a contract. As a general rule, when an offer is made, it has to be accepted to make it a binding contract. However, in case of a continuing offer, there is an exception to the general rule which provides that the communication of acceptance need not precede the performance of the terms of the offer. All cases of general offers that are similar to unilateral contracts demand some act in return for the promise to pay.

Significance of the judgement

The decision in this landmark case is an example of how an advertisement can amount to a conditional offer rather than being just an invitation to offer. The judgement also sets authority for the proposition that an offeror can waive the requirement, which provides that the acceptance of an offer can be communicated by implying the performance of specific conditions that will constitute acceptance. It also demonstrates that it is difficult to rebut the presumption that the parties intend to be legally bound by commercial or business agreements.

The judgement plays a crucial role in deciding that the advertisement was a unilateral offer but was limited only to those who had fulfilled the terms and conditions as specified. It is also pertinent to understand how the judgement defined the essence of a legally binding contract as was explained by Justices Lindley and Bowen where they explained how the reward of 100 pounds was an offer from the company and the claimant buying and using the smoke ball as per the printed directions an acceptance of the offer made by the company. Lastly, the judgement serves as a historical precedence in contract laws not only in Britain but in many other countries. Furthermore, it protects the rights of the consumers and defines the responsibilities of companies. Thus, beyond the key takeaways on intention, consideration, and advertisements as offers, the judgement helps in understanding the nuances of law by serving as a landmark judgement in academic discussions, thus helping legal students and practitioners.

Effect of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company on the law of contracts

This landmark judgement clarifies how unilateral contracts can look like if the advertisers do not take due care and set out offers at large to the general public. This case helps ordinary people fight big companies. The judgement plays a crucial role in the law of contracts, especially in unilateral contracts. Therefore, after this case, the big companies and various other agencies became very careful as to what to advertise to the public at large.

This case is proof that a thoughtless marketing strategy can cause great losses to companies and cause them to become involved in litigation matters.

There are certain other cases of unilateral contracts. For example, if a person or a pet goes missing and the missing person’s family or owner puts up a poster with their picture and name on it and offers a reward in case of any relevant information on the same, this can be treated as a unilateral contract. This is an offer to the public at large. Once the person or pet is found the same shall be implied as the acceptance of the offer. This makes the offeror under the obligation to perform his part of the agreement i.e., to reward the person who found the missing person or pet.

Offer and its elements

A lawful offer and a lawful acceptance of that offer are essential ingredients of a valid contract. An offer is often known as a proposal and the terms are used interchangeably.

The Indian Contract Act of 1872 under Section 2(a) defines the term proposal as “when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.”

Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that when one person communicates their willingness to do or not to do something to obtain the other person’s consent, it is considered to be a proposal. For example, if X offers to sell his bicycle to Z for Rs. 5000, it is a proposal or an offer. A contract is formed once X and Z agree with each other about the sale, and all the details with respect to the same are clearly stated. When Z accepts the offer, pays the agreed amount and receives the bicycle, the contract is considered to be fulfilled or performed.

The definition of offer provides for the following elements or ingredients:

The offer must be an expression of the readiness or the willingness to do or to abstain from doing something. This includes a positive or a negative act.
The offer must be made to another person. If the offer is made to oneself, it cannot be termed as a proposal.
The offer or proposal must be made with a view to obtain the consent of the other person to such act or abstinence. This implies that, for example, a simple statement of intention stating that I may sell my watch if I get a good price for it is not a proposal.

How to make the offer

An offer or proposal can be made by any act capable of being communicated to another person. It can either be an express or implied offer. An express offer is one which is made by the way of words which could be either written or spoken. On the other hand, an implied offer is one which is made by the conduct of the parties or is one which is inferred from the circumstances of the case.

Offer is made to whom

The contract law provides that an offer can be accepted only by the person to whom the offer is made. This implies that the offer must be specific or general in nature.

A specific offer is one which is made to a definite person or a particular group of persons. An example of the same is A offering certain goods to B at a specific price. This is a specific proposal made by A to be B.

However, if the offer is not made to a definite person or a particular group of persons but is made to the public at large or to the world at large, it is known as a general offer.

General Offer

A general offer as explained above is a proposal which is made to the public at large. It can be accepted by any person who is fulfilling the specific terms of the offer. Proposing rewards through advertisement for finding lost articles is the most famous example of a general offer.

A landmark judgement in this regard is the case of Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt (1913)., wherein the plaintiff had filed an appeal against the defendant claiming the reward for finding the missing nephew of the plaintiff. The court dismissed the appeal and stated for the existence of a valid contract, the element of knowledge and consent are required. Lalman Shukla, the plaintiff, had no prior knowledge of the reward before he went out to find the missing nephew of the defendant. As a result, there was no acceptance of the offer made by the defendant. The court, thus, concluded that there was an absence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant following which the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the reward. Furthermore, the Allahabad High court observed that the plaintiff was fulfilling his duties as a servant.

The Allahabad High court observed that two critical aspects form an essential part of a contract:

A complete knowledge of the facts of the proposal or offer
Acceptance of that offer

The case of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company is another landmark judgement in this regard. The rationale behind the same is that the public advertisement issued by the Smoke Ball Company to pay a certain amount to anyone who contacts influenza after using the smoke ball medicine as per the printed directions was a general offer. It was made to the public at large which meant that anyone who would come forward to fulfil the terms of the advertisement (in this case use the smoke ball as per printed directions), would enter into a contract with them. The plaintiff, Mrs.Carlill, after using the smoke ball as per the printed directions contacted influenza and thus, was entitled to receive the reward since she fulfilled the terms as put forth in the advertisement and had entered into a valid and legally binding contract with the Smoke Ball Company. This means that she accepted the offer by complying with the terms of offer as put forth in the advertisement.

Legal rules of a valid offer

A proposal or an offer cannot be regarded as an offer unless the following conditions are satisfied:

The offer must be made with the intention to enter into a legal relationship. A social invitation will not be considered as an offer because it will not give rise to a legal relationship.
The terms of the offer must be certain, definite, and should not be ambiguous and vague.
The law does not permit the making of an agreement in the future.
The offer must be distinguished from a mere declaration of intention. This implies that where a person makes a statement without the intention of entering into a legal relationship, such a statement will not lead to binding obligations. An example of the same is the case of Harris vs. Nickerson (1873) wherein the auctioneer had advertised in the newspaper that he would be selling the office furniture through an auction on a specific date. The defendant with the intention to buy the furniture travelled to the place of the auction, but the auction was cancelled. The court herein observed that the defendant cannot file a suit against the auctioneer claiming the loss of time and expenses since the advertisement put forth by the auctioneer was his declaration of intention to hold the auction.
Offer must be distinguished from an invitation to offer.
The offer must be communicated as is clear from the definition under Section 2(a) of the Contract Act which provides that “when one signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain.” This implies that the offer is said to be complete only when the same is communicated to the person to whom it is being made. It is pertinent to note the case of Fitch vs. Snedakar (1868) herein, wherein the defendant promised a reward to anyone who would find his lost dog. The plaintiff found his dog but had no knowledge of the offer proposed by the defendant. As a result, when he brought an action before the court, claiming the reward, the court explained that the offer was never communicated to him, and thus there was no valid contract.
Offers should not consist of terms wherein non-compliance would amount to the acceptance of the contract.
It is essential to lay down any terms and conditions which are special in nature. Furthermore, the offeror has to inform the offeree that in case he accepts the offer he will be bound by the special terms and conditions contained therein.

Who can accept the offer and how is the acceptance made

It is crucial to note that an offer can be accepted only by the particular person or a group of persons to whom the offer is made. No one else can accept the offer on behalf of such persons. An acceptance has to be either expressed or implied.

Let us note the case of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company here. Mrs. Carlill accepted the offer made by the Smoke Ball Company to the public at large which is also known as a general offer. In such cases, any person can accept the offer merely by fulfilling the terms as provided for in the offer. In other words, if the person has the knowledge of a general offer, he can accept it as is evident from this case. Same is the case wherein rewards are offered to give information about missing individuals or pets or articles. Wherever the person has the knowledge of the offer and provides information on the same will be entitled to claim that reward.

Legal rules of a valid acceptance

An acceptance of an offer can be valid only when the following conditions are fulfilled:

The acceptance is absolute and unqualified in nature. The rationale behind the same is that a conditional offer would amount to a counter offer thus leading to the rejection of the original offer.
The acceptance of the offer must be in the matter as prescribed by the offeror. In other words, where the offeree has prescribed a certain manner in which the acceptance has to be made, the offer has to be accepted in such a manner. If the offeree does not accept it in the prescribed manner it will be rejected.
Acceptance has to be communicated to the offeror. Mentally accepting the offer without the use of words or conduct is not sufficient. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the acceptance must be made by the person who is competent to make that acceptance and not a third party. This means that an acceptance can be made only by the person to whom the offer was made and not any other party. A famous case in this regard is the case of Brogen vs. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) Herein, the company made an offer to the railways to supply coal which was accepted by the manager of the railway company. He wrote the word “accepted” and kept the letter of acceptance in his drawer. The court observed that there was no valid contract between the disputing parties since the acceptance was never communicated to the coal company.
The offer has to be accepted within a reasonable time frame. If the offeror has fixed the time period for accepting the offer, it has to be made within that period. In other cases, it has to be made within a reasonable time period which will vary from case to case. An example of the same is the case of Ramagare Victoria Hotel Co. vs. Montefiore (1866) wherein the offer to buy the shares of the company was made in June but the acceptance for the same was communicated to the offeror in the month of November, Herein, the court observed that the acceptance of the offer was not within a reasonable period of time and thus, the offer is considered to have been elapsed.
Acceptance must be communicated before the offer lapses or it is withdrawn. In other words, the offer must be accepted when it is in force. It cannot be accepted once it has lapsed or has been withdrawn by the offeror.

Invitation to offer

In the case of an invitation to treat, also referred to as an invitation to offer, no specific party has the intention to enter into a contract. The offeror is open to entering into a contract with any member of the public who presents the best offer, which means that the offeror is one who makes an invitation to offer or an invitation to treat.

The fundamental differences between an offer and an invitation to offer can be elaborated through the case Harvey vs. Facey (1893) wherein the court ruled that a simple price quote in response to an inquiry does not constitute a proposal to sell. The price list of a shopkeeper is not an offer but an invitation for potential customers to make an offer. Similarly, the auctioneer does not enter into a contract with all the attendees at the auctions. The auction is an advertisement for sale, and the items are not for sale unless specific conditions are met.

What are unilateral contracts

Unilateral contracts, also referred to as single-sided contracts, consist of an offer which is made to the world at large and does not require formal notification of acceptance. The performance of the specific conditions of the offer is sufficient to imply acceptance.

There are different implications of these types of contracts. One such issue is with its implementation which causes issues due to the doctrine of consideration.

Consideration is an essential element of any contract. An agreement without consideration is not a valid contract under the contract law. Consideration is something which has value. One such example can be a benefit or detriment. When such benefit or detriment is promised in return for the promise made by the promise, an agreement becomes a valid contract under the contract law. Further, it is essential that the consideration is valid and legal as per the law in force. An agreement with an unlawful consideration renders a contract void.

Promises which are backed by a valid and legal consideration are enforceable by law. However, in the case of unilateral contracts, both parties do not have definite obligations towards each other. If the offer made by one party is beneficial, even then, under a unilateral contract, the other party (the one at the receiving end) does not have an obligation towards the other party.

It is pertinent to note that as per the prerequisites of a valid contract, a unilateral contract shall be invalid only due to the lack of a valid and legal consideration.

Parties to a unilateral contract

The parties to a unilateral contract are exactly the same as a bilateral contract and consist of a promisor and a promisee. They are also known as an offeror or offeree. However, it is pertinent to note that in case of a unilateral contract, the promisor undertakes the obligation of providing an incentive which is to be granted on the completion of an obligation. On the other hand, the promisee can perform his obligations at his discretion after the completion of which the promisee is entitled to claim the incentive as promised by the promisor.

Nature of unilateral contract

A unilateral contract is an executory contract. An executory contract is one where the obligations are not performed by the parties but are scheduled to be performed in the foreseeable future. The performance can be done by the promisee at his own convenience and can be carried out by any person who undertakes to carry on such performance, provided he is eligible to do so as per the conditions as put forth by the promisor.

An important case law pertaining to the same is Masum Ali and Ors vs. Abdul Aziz and Ors (1914). Herein, the defendant promised to pay a sum of Rs. 500 to the claimant to rebuild a mosque. Later, the defendant failed to pay the promised amount of money, and the claimant sued him for Rs. 500 in a court of law. The Allahabad High Court observed that the promise of the defendant was not enforceable since no construction work for the mosque had started. Therefore, the defendant was not liable to pay the money since the conditions of the formation of the unilateral contract were not met.

Furthermore, in the case of Jamuna Das vs. Ram Kumar Ji and Ors (1937), the defendant had promised a charitable society to pay an amount of money which is proportional to the price of goods imported by him. When the claimant claimed the money in court, the Patna High Court observed that the promise was unenforceable in nature and could not be held to be a unilateral contract since there was a lack of consideration in the agreement.

Types of unilateral contracts

Broadly, there are two types of unilateral contracts:

Open Requests: Open requests are a type of unilateral contract which allows the offeror to make broad and optional requests where the payment is made after certain specifications are fulfilled.
Insurance: Insurance is another kind of unilateral contract wherein payments are made only after certain requirements are fulfilled.

Performance of unilateral contracts

In the case of unilateral contracts, the conditions required to be fulfilled by the promisee are the consideration of the contract, whereas the reward that the promisee is entitled to claim upon the fulfilment of such conditions is the reciprocal promise for that contract. The reciprocal promise and consideration of the contract are determined by the promisor in case of unilateral contact. If the promisee agrees to the conditions, the acceptance pertaining to the same is conveyed in the form of actions and not words.

It is pertinent to note that the act of fulfilling the consideration simultaneously amounts to the acceptance and performance of the promise in the case of a unilateral contract.

Obligations of unilateral contracts

In case of a unilateral agreement, the person who undertakes to fulfil the task does not have the same obligations as that of his bilateral counterpart. As both the offer and reward are made unilaterally, no binding contractual obligations exist before the task is completed by the performer. After the fulfilment of the obligations, the performer becomes a promisee as before the completion of the obligations no contractual obligation existed on the part of the promisor.

The performer is neither obligated to fulfil the task nor is he obligated to complete the task once he has started performing it, and even if he stops in between, there are no legal remedies to force the person to complete the task. This is because the contract comes into force only after the fulfilment of the task. Furthermore, the performer is not obligated to claim or accept the incentive that he has been offered for carrying out such a work, even if he has completed such a work on his part.

Revocation of unilateral contracts

Since a unilateral offer is made unilaterally by the promisee, it is often presumed by many that it will be revoked unilaterally. However, this is not always the case. The factors that shall determine whether the offer is revocable will depend on whether the performer has already started performing the task. If he has not, then the offer can be revoked. On the other hand, if he has, the offer cannot be revoked without the consent of the performer.

The court needs to strike a balance between the two parties because if the promisor can freely revoke the promise unilaterally, then he shall be armed with the ability to frustrate the performer at his pleasure. However, if the offer is made to be irrevocable once the performance has been started on the part of the promisor, the promisor shall be bound by his promise, irrespective of whether the performer has stopped performing such an obligation or not.

In the case of Errington vs. Errington and Woods (1951), the father, who owned the house where his son and daughter-in-law resided, promised the couple that if they would pay off the mortgage on the house that was due, then the ownership of the house would transfer to them. However, after the couple started paying off the mortgage in instalments, he expressed his desire to revoke the offer. The court observed that the offer of the father was a unilateral contract. Furthermore, the payment of instalments by the couple marked the commencement of the obligation on their part, as a result of which, the offer cannot be revoked.

Commercial uncertainty and unilateral contracts

The flawed implementation of the doctrine of consideration in case of unilateral contracts leads to commercial uncertainties which could be easily ruled out otherwise. One example of this is the implied terms, which specify the variations in remuneration in cases of commercial contracts, which lead to commercial uncertainty. Similar is the case with unilateral contracts due to the absence of specific parties to the contract. This implies that such contracts are not certain about privacy until the conditions are performed by someone else, which could be anyone from the general public, as was evident in this case.

This brings us to the question pertaining to the certainty of the commercial parties regarding the conditions that are to be adhered to. The answer to the same lies in the fact that the terms and conditions of such contracts are narrow in scope. Thus, they are limited to situations wherein the commercial certainty would be violated due to the failure of performance.

Conclusion

One of the most popularly cited cases of English Contract Law, the judgement of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, highlights the policy considerations taken into account by the courts while determining the existence of an offer and acceptance. This is particularly true in cases that involve the interest of consumers against misleading advertisements. Cited as a precedent for unilateral contracts, the case also points out issues associated with unilateral contracts. It established the principle providing that an advertisement containing a promise which is conditional upon the performance of the terms and conditions can constitute an offer to form a unilateral contract.

This case also helps in understanding the basic essentials of normal contracts as this is a case of exception to these principles owing to lack of need for acceptance of offer and consideration. The commercial uncertainties created due to such a vacuum in unilateral contracts also affect the concept of privity of contracts. Thus, this case has become a foundation case for Contract law. Altogether, the judgement was well put together, however, the underlying implications of the judgement have become an evergreen subject of debate in commercial circles.

Serving as a cornerstone of contract law, the judgement has established key principles in unilateral contracts and consideration. It has clarified that advertisements can constitute an offer if they clearly demonstrate an intention to enter into a legal relationship with others. This landmark case will have a lasting impact not only on contract law but also on consumer protection law by ensuring that businesses honour the claims they make to the public at large. Furthermore, it will continue to influence the transactions and promotional offers that take place through online and offline modes, thus laying down a foundation for legal education and practice.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is a general offer?

A general offer refers to an offer which is made to the public at large. It can be accepted by anyone who fulfils the terms and conditions as put forth in such an offer. The knowledge of the offer and fulfilling its terms is sufficient and amounts to acceptance of the general offer. The landmark judgements in this regard are the cases of Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt and Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.

How is an offer different from an invitation to treat?

Offer and invitation to offer are two different concepts. An offer is a clear and specific proposal that is made by one party to another when they enter into a legally binding contract. On the other hand, an invitation to offer is an expression of willingness to negotiate or enter into a contract. An offer can be accepted, rejected, or counter-offered, while an invitation to offer cannot be accepted as it is not a legally binding offer. An offer creates a legally binding contract on acceptance, while an invitation to offer does not create a binding proposal. An offer can be revoked before acceptance, while an invitation to offer cannot be revoked as it is not legally binding in nature.

What is the difference between a unilateral contract and a bilateral contract?

The distinction between a unilateral contract and a bilateral contract lies in the number of parties that are involved in a contract. While the former relies on only one party to create a contract or promise which is for a specific group or general group of people, the latter requires two parties to negotiate, agree, and act upon a promise. In simple words, a unilateral contract is accepted after the action is completed, while a bilateral contract is accepted after the mutual signature.

What are the similarities between a unilateral contract and a bilateral contract?

Although there are various differences between a unilateral and bilateral contract, there are a few similarities too. Both unilateral and bilateral contracts bind the parties legally. This implies that the law enforces the entities to fulfil their contractual obligations, the failure of which will result in legal consequences. The two essential elements of these two contracts are a promise and consideration.

What was the significance of the 1000 pounds that were deposited by the defendant in the Alliance Bank?

The deposition of 1000 pounds by Carlill Carbolic Smoke Ball Company was evidence of the sincerity and the intention of the company to enter into a legally binding contract with any consumer who comes forward and performs the specific directions as printed on the product. The same was held to be sufficient by the court to make the company legally bound by the promise they made by way of an advertisement.

Will the case serve as a precedent in the case of online advertisements?

The principle established in this case will be applicable to advertisements made in the online context as well. However, it is for the courts to ascertain whether the online advertisement was a unilateral contract and whether the performance of the specific conditions was sufficient to make a legally binding contract.

How does the judgement influence contract law in contemporary times?

The landmark judgement of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. has a significant and crucial impact on contract law in modern times. This is because it clarifies the nature of offer and acceptance, particularly in the case of unilateral contracts in the form of advertisements. It provides a foundational principle for the English and Indian Contract Law.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail and Ors (1995)

By

Rachit Garg

-

August 27, 2024

0

This Article is written by Christina Fernandes. This detailed explanation of Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors (1995) thoroughly analyses issues related to property ownership, alienation, gifts and the application of the doctrine of res judicata. Further, this case covers several important legal aspects, such as a dispute over property ownership, the validity of oral and written gifts, the role of parents in property transactions and the concept of fraudulent transactions.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Disputes over property ownership are quite prevalent in India. It involves various properties such as fully contracted or under-construction homes, empty plots, farmlands, etc. These disputes commonly happen between family relations in India. The case, Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors, (1995), decided by the Supreme Court of India on March 23, involves a dispute about land and its sale. The appellant, Mahboob Sahab, argued that he had legally bought the disputed land through sale deeds by Maqdoom, the respondent’s father, to pay off his debts. However, as for the respondents, Syed Ismail, his brother Ibrahim and Smt. Chandi, Syed Ismail’s father, gave oral and written gifts to gift the land, and thus, their father had no right to sell the land any further and without seeking their permission. This case, therefore, raises several important questions of law regarding the sale deeds, the alleged gifts and the conduct of the defendant Maqdoom as a debtor. Further, the case analyses the estoppel principles that do not allow a person to deny something that he or she has sworn before.

The doctrine of res judicata, whereby one cannot relitigate a case heard on merit. This case is significant in assessing how Indian courts deal with contentious issues arising out of disputes over property rights, fraudulent transactions, and rights of creditors and debtors.

Details of the case

Name of the case: Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail & Ors

Type of case: Civil

Date of judgement: 23-03-1995

Name of the court: Supreme Court of India

Equivalent Citations: 1995 AIR 1205, 1995 SCC (3) 693

Bench: K. Ramaswamy (J), B.L Hansaria (J)

Parties to the case:

Petitioner- Mahboob Sahab
Respondents– Syed Ismail, Ibrahim & Smt. Chandi

Relevant Statues & Provisions:

Sections 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter referred to as C.P.C.)
Section 40, 41 & 42 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Facts of the case

The contentions raised in support of the respondents (Syed Ismail and Ors) was that their father had executed a gift deed to gift 15 acres 38 gunthas out of 31 acres 36 gunthas in survey No. 781 of Aland village in favour of both of them and their mother Smt. Chandi, the third defendant.

Smt. Chandi orally gifted her share to Syed Ismail on April 1958 on the occasion of his marriage. It was stated that being minors, their father (Maqdoom), the second defendant, had taken possession of their properties and cultivated the lands. Further, they had fraudulently joined hands with the Patwari and executed sale deed Ex-D-1 in favour of the appellant. Upon realizing the same, Syed Ismail and Ors. filed the suit because their father had no right, title or interest therein to alienate those lands.

All the sales, therefore, in favour of the appellant were invalid and inoperative and do not represent any legally enforceable binding on them. The appellant’s defence was that Maqdoom entered into a sale agreement on April 12, 1961, and agreed to sell 12 acres of land for valuable consideration and also executed the sale deed on May 12, 1961, aimed at extinguishing previous debts. Likewise, an agreement of sale of 4 acres of land for 2,500/- was drawn, and the appellant sought permission from the assistant commissioner on 4 August 1964 to sell the same. Mahboob Sahab and Smt. Chandi never executed the sale deed, which led to the filing of a suit for specific performance.

Initially, the Trial Court stated that the decree arising out of a previous case, OS No. 3/1/1951, could not be regarded as res judicata, but after that, it went on to consider the case on merit. Nevertheless, in the second appeal (R.A No. 211/1970), the Additional Civil Judge of Gulbarga reversed the findings of the Trial Court and, thus, dismissed the suit. The Judge reasoned that Maqdoom had indeed transferred the property as his name was on the records of revenue till the appellants substituted it with their names after they acquired the house.

The court observed that no original gift deed or even certified copy of the alleged gift deed executed by Maqdoom was produced before the court. Also, during the appeal, it was seen that only a letter from the Sub-Registrar showing the loss of the deed was considered an inadequate means to show the execution of the gift. Also, it was stated that the mother could not act as a property guardian as long as the father was alive. The oral gift by the mother to the respondents was considered as falsely given since there was no evidence of the acceptance or delivery of possession of the lands by either the father or the mother. The evidence also failed to show that the father or any other person acted as a guardian when the mother knowingly transferred her share to one of the respondents as an oral gift or the respondents took possession from the wife under the oral gift deed.

Additionally, it was noted that due to Maqdoom being a constant debtor, he had placed certain documents which included purported gifts to children and wife as well as fake mortgages to third parties to con his creditors. Nevertheless, the decree from the previous case (OS No. 3/1/1951) was not relied upon as res judicata before the appellate court in support of the decree passed by the Trial Court.

Syed Ismail, his brother Ibrahim and Smt. Chandi then appealed to the High Court. The High Court, in effect, thereby overruling the findings of fact made by the appellate court, set aside the judgment of the appellate court on the ground of res judicata holding that the earlier decree in the related OS No. 3/1/1951 operated as res judicata against the appellant.

The appellant, Mahboob Sahab, then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court examined the legal principles involved, specifically the application of res judicata and the validity of the gift deeds and sale transactions.

Issues raised

The following issues were raised in this case:

Whether the gift deeds executed by Maqdoom in favour of his sons and wife were valid or fraudulent?
What were the parties’ rights to the disputed land and whether or not the sale to Mahboob was legal?
Whether or not Maqdoom was involved in fraudulent activities?
Whether the decree that passed in the previous suit in OS No. 3/1/1951 capable of being used as res judicata in the present one?

Analysis of the contentions

Appellants

The counsel for the appellant stated that there had been an agreement of sale between the appellant and Maqdoom to sell the land for valuable consideration. This, in a way, suggests that both the parties to this appeal, namely Maqdoom and the appellant, agreed to the sale of the property in question. When the appellant stated that the sale was for valuable consideration, it meant that there was either money consideration or other valuable consideration given for the property. This is an essential component of a valid contract, and it eliminates any argument that the sale was a gift or a gratuity. The appellant’s counsel contended that Maqdoom executed the sale deeds to pay prior debts. This, therefore, means that the sale of the land was conducted to clear previous debts that Maqdoom owned. Indeed, the funds generated from the sale were to be utilized in servicing these debts, which Maqdoom considered as his liabilities. To justify the extent of the transactions, the appellant argued that the transactions were meant to discharge the debts and that the transactions were made under the sale agreement to warrant the purported sale deeds and transactions.

The counsel for the appellant argued that the alleged gifts were fake and were fabricated by Maqdoom to defraud or deceive the appellant. This was to imply that the appellant knew that Maqdoom’s gestures proposed to her were not a worthy act but an intention to precipitate harm to the appellant. They also pointed out that no original document as the gift deed or certified copy thereof, was produced in court. The failure to provide documentary records in support of the alleged gifts is inconclusive, and therefore, the gifts cannot be considered legal. This means that without adequate documentation, the existence and conditions of the gifts are hard to prove. Additionally, the counsel of the appellant argued that there was no proven acceptance or delivery of possession of the oral gifts. It is therefore important to note that acceptance by the donee and transfer of possession are necessary ingredients in a gift.

According to the counsel of the appellant, Maqdoom had a history of being a bad debtor, which meant that he tended to be in and owing debts most of the time. In defence of the appellant’s case, the appellant’s counsel began to assert that Maqdoom was involved in manufacturing false claims of gifts and bogus mortgages. The appellant’s counsel pointed out that the claimed gifts were not legally enforceable since they were fraught with Maqdoom’s fraudulent conduct.

The appellant further argued that no witness was produced to testify about the alleged gifts as received from either the mother or the father of the respondents. The appellant was also trying to argue that some key witnesses who could have given evidence regarding the gifts were not called, indicating that there was inadequate material evidence to support the allegations of gifts by Maqdoom. The appellant, for this reason, noted that the gift deed was not established in the objection petition. This means that without the gift deed, the authorities and, indeed, the court are alerted to the possibility of false gifts in this and perhaps other cases. By questioning the lack of testimony from the parents and the missing gift deed, the appellant suggested there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Maqdoom’s gifts were real and that he owned them. As a result, it becomes hard to rely on the previous court judgment as final through the doctrine of res judicata in the absence of hard evidence of the gifts.

The appellant had challenged the decision of the High Court regarding the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata to the decree passed in OS No. 3/1/1951. Thus, by pointing out the absence of evidence regarding the alleged gifts and the absence of other documents that might be considered crucial, the appellant aimed to deny the legitimacy of having the previous judgment deemed binding for the current proceedings. The appellant pointed out that the appellate court, as the final authority on factual matters, had dismissed the suit because the purported registered gift deed was not presented in either the current suit or in OS No. 3/1/1951. He further argued that since Maqdoom mortgaged the house, there was no basis that the claimed gifts were valid.

One of the respondents, Ibrahim testified the sale deed was executed by their father. Affirming a legal document such as the sale deed often means that the witness physically signed the document and is swearing to its authority. Ibrahim signed the sale deed as a witness, thus putting his signature on the document and implying his role in the transaction as well as his recognition of the agreement’s terms. To support their argument, the appellant pointed out that Ibrahim never had any doubts about the sale deed when it was prepared. Such a failure to object may be deemed to mean that Ibrahim was present at the time of the sale transaction.

Laws involved in Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail and Ors (1995)

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural law and deals with the administration of civil proceedings in India. CPC not only defines and amends but also consolidates the law of the civil procedure. Section 11 under this code explains the concept of res judicata. It states that no court should hear a case or issue if the same matter was already directly and substantially involved in an earlier case between the same parties, or their representatives, in a court that was competent to decide it, and it has been heard and finally decided by that court. The main focus of Section 11, in this case, was to assess conditions of invoking res judicata between the co-defendants and whether or not these conditions were as per the facts of the case. Focusing on these requirements, the court evaluated the effect of the previous decree on the present dispute and concluded that the decree did not operate as res judicata in this case.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Indian Evidence Act came into force on 1st September 1872. All definitions, methods, and how the law of evidence is consolidated are included in this Act. Law of Evidence is mostly procedural law, but it also has some part of substantial law.

Section 40

Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872 deals with the applicability of a judgement or an order or a decree which prevents the court from taking cognizance of a suit or withholding a trial. It is relevant when deciding whether a court should go ahead with a suit or a trial depending on the existence of such a judgment.

In this case, the court relied on section 40 to address the issue of fraud in the obtaining of a judgment. The Section was probably referred to determine if the judgement in question, which was being appealed, was a result of fraud or deceit.

Section 41

Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872 covers the relevancy of certain judgements. It states that a final judgment, order, or decree from a competent court in matters of probate, marriage, admiralty, or insolvency, which gives or takes away any legal status from a person or declares a person to have such status or to own something absolutely (not against any specific person), is relevant when the existence of that legal status or ownership is important.

Such a judgment, order, or decree is conclusive proof that:

The legal status it grants started when the judgment, order, or decree took effect.
The legal status it declares someone to have began at the time specified in the judgment, order, or decree.
The legal status it removes ended at the time the judgment, order, or decree said it ended or should end.
Anything it declares someone to own was that person’s property from the time specified in the judgment, order, or decree.

To address the relevancy of the judgements, orders or decrees which prevent any court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, the court relied on Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in this case.

Section 42

Section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872 covers the relevancy and effect of judgements, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 41 It states that any judgment, order or decree that is not included in section 41 is relevant if it is in connection with a public matter of the enquiry, but they are not conclusive proof of what they state.

The court referred to Section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in this case, to determine the status of the judgement or orders which are relevant under Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. Judgements, orders and decrees are covered in Section 42 of the Evidence Act, where such things are admissible if the existence of a judgement affects the admissibility of other evidence.

Constructive possession

If a donor conveys the principal part of the property of a property, but retains the right to use it and remains in physical possession of the property, it is determined that there has been a gift if the recipient begins to pay taxes for the property to the government after the gift has been made. This payment proves that the recipient has what may be deemed as constructive possession of the property.

In Mohammad Abdul Ghani Khan vs Fakhr Jahan Begam, the court approved a gift deed under Sunni law for the simple reason that the donee did not have actual physical possession of all or any of the properties in question, but constructive possession was enough. The Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail & Ors case, on the other hand, held that the alleged gifts were not valid due to a lack of transfer evidence of the possession of lands. Definite possession was missing, and constructive possession also could not be proven by the respondents in Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors, which was the essential ingredient in the continuation of the gift held in Mohammad Abdul Ghani Khan. Therefore, it became clear from the decision of the court in the case of Mahboob Sahab that one has to provide adequate evidence about possession to substantiate a case of gift under Muslim law.

Relevant judgments referred to in the case

SM. Sadat Ali Khan vs. Mirza Wiquar Ali, AIR 1943

The court referred to the case of SM. Sadat Ali Khan vs. Mirza Wiquar Ali, AIR 1943 to determine when and on what basis res judicata applies between co-defendants. The essentials that must be fulfilled for the principle of res judicata to be applied between two co-defendants, as laid down in Sadat Ali Khan vs.Mirza Wiquar Ali, were referred to by the Mahboob Sahab case. This reference explains that while deciding the Mahboob Sahab case, the court followed and relied upon the principles of the Sadat Ali case. In the Mahboob Sahab case, the court relied on the Sadat Ali Khan case as a precedent regarding the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata between the parties of the dispute over the possession of the land and mesne profit.

Shashibushan Prasad Misilra vs. Babuji Rai & Ors., 1969

Another case that the court referred to was the case of Shashibushan Prasad Misilra vs. Babuji Rai & Ors., 1969. This case was cited in connection with the leading decisions on the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants. Thus, by referring to this case, the court attempted to rely on legal authority and prior judgements to provide orientation and framework for the assessment of essential questions, such as the problems of res judicata binding co-defendants in the specific dispute at issue. In both the cases at hand, some property claims were dismissed by the Supreme Court because of a lack of adequate proof. The compensation for the Shashibushan case was not paid as the plaintiffs never provided documentary evidence confirming their ownership of the land, and there were several controversies over the payment of a cost by a guardian. Likewise, in the Mahboob Sahab case also, the court saw no substance in the alleged property gifts and two errors in the applicability of res judicata were pointed out. Both rulings underline the importance of proper evidence and adhering to the laws governing property issues.

Iftikhar Ahmed & Ors. v. Syed Meharban Ali, 1974

The court took the reference of the case of Iftikhar Ahmed & Ors. v. Syed Meharban Ali, 1974, to support the principles that were related to the application of the doctrine of res-judicata between the co-defendants. In the Mahboob Sahab case, the issue related to conflict of interest with other codes, whereas in the Iftikhar Ahmed case, the necessity to analyse the existence of conflict between codes and co-defendants and the requirement to address the conflict to benefit a plaintiff under the doctrine of res judicata was also applied. This reference suggests that the court in the Mahboob Sahab case relied on the guidelines evolved in the Iftikhar Ahmed case to decide whether the doctrine of res judicata operates in co-defendants in the proceedings before the court for the particular dispute. Both cases highlight the importance of correctly applying the doctrine of res judicata to ensure legal consistency and finality. However, while the Mahboob Sahab case dealt with misapplication, the Iftikhar Ahmed case reaffirmed the doctrine’s correct use to resolve property disputes.

Judgement in Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail and Ors (1995)

The court examined the evidence that was given and the law that applied in the case. The court concluded that the decree passed in the earlier suit- OS No. 3/1/1951- could not come into the category of res judicata in this case. The court added that where co-defendants want to raise res judicata, there must be a conflict of interest, which must be necessary to determine the relief sought by the plaintiff. The issue ought to have been tried between the co-defendants, and the co-defendants were proper parties to the earlier suit.

In reaching the decision the court observed that there was no evidence of the gifts and mortgages as advanced by the parties. Specifically, it was pointed out that false oral gifts or phoney mortgages were being used in the case to defraud creditors. The court also noted that the High Court had wrongly assumed res judicata without probably taking into consideration the no cause between the co-defendants in the earlier suit.

Therefore, the appeal was granted, the judgement and decree of the High Court were quashed, and the decision of the appellate court was upheld. This led to the dismissal of the suit filed by respondents with costs. The judgement clarified the legal principles that needed to be followed when interpreting and applying the doctrine of res judicata, protection of law from fraud and the principles of natural justice and equity in the administration of justice.

In the case of Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail & Ors., the following Sections i.e. S.147, S.148, 149, 150 and 152 of the Principles of Mahomedan Law by Mulla 19th Ed. (edited by Chief Justice M. Hidyatullah) were also referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Following is a brief about the relevant extracts from the authoritative text –

Section 147 of the principles of Mahomedan Law

Section 147 of the Mahomedan Law states that Donations can therefore be made by word of mouth and they do not have to write down the gift as being either movable or immovable property. Under Mohammadan Law, writing is not essential for the validity of a gift, whether it is a gift of movable or immovable property. There are three essentials of a gift under Mohammadan Law, namely,

A declaration of gift by the donor;
An acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee; and
Delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee.

If these conditions are fulfilled, the gift is complete.

In the case of Kamar-un-nissa Bibi v. Hussaini Bibi, ‘the Privy counsel upheld a verbal gift’. The court held that the gift of the estate from Mehdi Ali to Hussaini Bibi to his wife was effectively made. The court decided that Mehdi Ali was mentally capable of making a gift and that he had knowledge of issues surrounding such an action, which would transfer his estate to his wife. The transfer of the estate, as recognized by the gift, was considered sufficient to establish the gift even without consideration. The court also stated the special conditions of the dower, which can also be seen as property, and that there is no need to determine it before marriage for the gift.

The relevancy of Section 147, in this case, is that it highlights that in Mohamedan Law, writing is not essential for the validity of a gift, whether the gift is movable or immovable. This section highlights that the donor must waive all rights over the object of the donation for it to be considered valid.

Section 148 of the principles of Mahomedan Law

Section 148 states that the validity of a gift is that the donor should relinquish all rights over the subject matter of the gift. This particular section in the case is relevant in the given scenario because it underlines the criteria for a valid gift, i.e., the donor must completely waive dominion over the item given as a gift. This section further highlights how a gift can be qualified under Mahomedan Law. It states that the donor must waive all his/her rights over the gifted property.

Section149 of the principles of Mahomedan Law

Section 149 covers three essentials of a valid gift. It is essential to the validity of a gift that there should be:-

A declaration of the gift by the donor,
Acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee; and
The delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee.

The Chhattisgarh High Court, the High Court of Kerala, the High Court of Patna, the High Court of Madras and the Allahabad High Court have all held that the essentials mentioned above must be met for the gift to be valid under Muslim Law as follows:

In the case of Sher Ali And Ors. vs Saiyad Israr Ali And Ors. (2006), the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the deceased had made an oral declaration before witnesses in a mosque on the eve of Eid and after that, ordered a memorandum of gift. The donee took physical possession of the donated property as per this oral gift. The court concluded that all legal requirements for a gift under Muslim Law had been fulfilled, and it was stated that the donor could make the gift during that period. Thus, the court upheld the gift as rightful legal action under the rules of Muslim Law and thus dismissed the plaintiffs’ case.

In another case titled Fatmabibi W/D Abdulkarim Haji vs Abdulrehman Abdulkarim (2001), the Gujarat High Court held that recognition of the gift by the donee (wife) based on the declaration of the donor (husband) and the nature of their relationship, means there is no more need to give any more proof of acceptance in these cases.

The Karnataka High Court has made a distinction between a gift deed and a settlement deed. In the case of Abdur Rahman And Ors. vs Athifa Begum And Ors. (1997), the court discussed the three requirements of a gift under Muslim Law. These three requirements are-

Declaration
Acceptance; and
Delivery of possession of the gifted property.

In Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors, the Supreme Court decision repeated the principles which were defined in Abdul Rahman’s case where the gift deed was held as invalid on the ground that there was no actual or symbolic delivery of the keys. Likewise, in the case of Mahboob Sahab, the respondents have not been able to show that possession has been transferred or accepted for the gifts from their father, Maqdoom. This made the gifts ineffective under the Muslim Law, and this gives credence to the appellant’s assertion that the sale deeds made in his favour were legal.

Section150 of the principles of Mahomedan Law

Section 150 talks about the delivery of possession.

S.150(1) says that there must be a delivery of such possession as the subject of the gift is susceptible to Sadik Husain v. Hashim Ali.’ As observed by the Judicial Committee, ‘the taking of possession of the subject matter of the gift by the donee, either actually or constructively, is necessary to complete a gift.’

Delivery of possession of a gift may be actual or constructive. When physical delivery of the property in possession is not possible, the donor must transfer control in whatever manner the property allows. The donor must fully renounce their ownership to complete the gift.

S.150(2) talks about registration. Registration of a deed of gift does not cure the want of delivery of possession. For example- A executes a deed of gift of a dwelling house belonging to him in favour of B. The deed is duly registered, but possession has not been delivered to B. The gift is incomplete and, therefore, void.

S.150(3) states that if it is proven through oral evidence that a gift was completed according to the law (sections 149 and 150), it doesn’t matter if the donor also signed a gift deed that hasn’t been registered as required by the Registration Act, 1908, Section 17(a). Similarly, in the case of Nasib Ali vs. Wajed Ali (1926), the court laid out the significance of oral evidence to establish the completion of a gift according to the law, even if the deed of gift was executed but not registered as made important by Section 17(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

S.150(4) states that an acknowledgement in the deed of gift that possession has been given operates as an estoppel against the heirs of the donor. However, a declaration of this nature is not a conclusive one and a recital in a deed of gift that possession has been given to a minor nephew without the intervention of a father or guardian was on the facts considered to be inadequate to satisfy the requirement of the gift as against the heirs of the donor. This was laid out in the case of Johara Bibi vs Subera Bibi And Ors. (1963).

The rationale behind this judgement

The judgement in the case of Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors shows that this case was a very careful study of principles relating to res judicata and a study of concurrent findings and validity of gifts under Mohammedan Law. The Supreme Court found the reference made to a previous judgement of the High Court as res judicata erroneous primarily because the earlier suit was collusive and fraudulent. Importantly, the court emphasized the point that according to the Mohammedan Law, the gift is only valid if it has been followed by a declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession, which has not taken place in the given case. The alleged gift deeds were not properly documented and registered, and the mother could not lawfully convey property for the minors as she lacked the legal capacity to do so. Further, the court pointed out that Maqdoom was involved in fraudulent transactions with the intent of deceiving creditors, thus dismissing the respondents. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the appellate instance, pointing out that the findings of the prior judgement were not sufficient for the binding of the parties because of evident fraud and misuse of legal principles.

Analysis of Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail and Ors (1995)

The court’s analysis covered the following aspects:-

The doctrine of res judicata

Res judicata means that a case cannot be tried again after the competent court has resolved it to prevent a constant ruling on the same case. However, in the case of Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail & Ors., the Trial Court, which passed the order under the earlier decision, held that the earlier decision could not operate as res judicata, and the case will be now decided on merit. However, this was reversed by the appellate court by holding that the original owner of the property lawfully transferred it. Hence, the High Court reversed the current decision and opined that contrary to the current contention, res judicata did apply to the previous judgment. Finally, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court was mistaken in its decision because res judicata could not apply in the prior case.

The basics of res judicata mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail & Ors that was delivered on March 23, 1995, consist of some key principles that must be met to apply the application of the doctrine of res judicata. The court considered these essentials to decide on the application of the earlier judgment in OS No. 3/1/1951 as res judicata in the case at hand. There are some essentials of res judicata and these are as follows:-

Same Parties: Both in the prior and subsequent case, the parties involved have to be the same or their proxies.
Same Matter in Issue: To claim that there is a connection of precedent between the current and previous cases, the issue in the current case must be precisely the same as the issue in the previous case.
Matter Finally Decided: The matter has to have been heard and disposed of in the previous case.
Competent Court: The court that presided over the previous case must have had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Conflict of Interest: There must have been a conflict of interest of the parties in the previous case, and this conflict must have been necessary to resolve to grant relief to the plaintiff.

Application of res judicata in this case

Essentials met:

Competent Court: In the previous case (OS No. 3/1/1951), the ruling was made by a competent court.
Same Parties: To establish the subject matter, it is pertinent to point out that the respondents and their parents were parties to the previous suit.
Matter Finally Decided: It was said that there was a final decision in the previous case which may form the ground for res judicata if the other conditions are present.

Essentials not met:

Conflict of Interest: In the previous case, the court stated that they had no substantial reason to believe that there was a conflict of interest between the co-defendants. The defendants had a joint written statement admitting the claims and therefore there was no conflict.
Same Matter in Issue: The question in the previous case involved possessory mortgages not the validity of the claimed gifting, which is what the present case involves.
Necessary Decision for Relief: The decision in the previous case was not necessary to grant the relief sought in the current case. The previous case did not adjudicate on the validity of the alleged gifts but rather on the possessory mortgage.

Validity of claims

The court examined all the evidence produced in the course of the case, especially paying attention to the absence of any documentation referenced by the parties as gifts and mortgages. It was observed that while the discharge of assets, effects, and credits had some processes and formalities, It was noted that, despite some formal processes for discharging assets, effects, and credits, several fraudulent practices were employed to deceive creditors. These included false oral gifts, which existed only in spoken words, and fake mortgages.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the case of Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors (1995) makes a good basis for how the legal principle of res judicata should be applied in cases involving co-defendants. The court highlighted the true conflict of interest between co-defendants, the need for this conflict to be resolved to offer relief to the owner, and the need for co-defendants to be necessary and proper parties in the prior litigation for res judicata to have prospective effect. Further, the case highlighted the risks of fake oral gifts or fake mortgages to creditors to defraud them. This highlighted the court’s focus on legal principles, fairness in law and justice and preventing fraud in the application of legal theories. Thus, the judgment made by the Supreme Court stresses compliance with other important legal principles, including res judicata, and aptly underlines the need to present sufficient evidence when challenging property rights. The case highlights the judiciary’s role in meticulously evaluating the validity of transactions and the application of legal principles.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What are mesne profits?

Mesne profits are those profits or damages which a person who was illegally in wrongful possession of some property owes to the real owner for that period when he was wrongfully using and enjoying it. In simpler terms, it represents the amount of money that the rightful owner lost due to someone else’s wrongful possession of their property.

What is Res Judicata, and what are its three elements?

Res Judicata or ‘a matter already judged’ in Latin, Res judicata pro veritate accipitur, is an important legal principle that aims to prevent the re-trial of issues decided in earlier cases. Its main purpose is to ensure the finality of judgements and conserve judicial resources. Res Judicata has three main and general elements:

Re-litigation: It prevents a party from bringing a claim once that specific claim has received a final judgment in a previous case.
The same cause of action:- It prevents a party from suing a defendant for the same matter or the same cause of action after a final judgement has been made.
Same or closely related parties:- Res Judicata can also apply to parties or entities ‘in privity’ with the original litigants, including agents or subsidiaries.

References

Mulla: Principles of Mahomedan Law, Updated 20th Edition.

Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

By

Rachit Garg

-

August 27, 2024

0

This article has been written by Vishwendra Prashant. It provides a detailed analysis of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which talks about the jurisdiction of Indian courts and time limitation for lodging complaints under Section 138 of this Act. Moreover, the article discusses the amendments made in Section 142, along with the latest judgements.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Imperial Legislative Council enacted the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act). This Act aims to establish and revise the regulations concerning Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange, and cheques.

As business and trade rapidly expanded, the use of cheques increased, leading to a rise in disputes related to bounced cheques. Over the years, there have been several significant modifications in the following areas:

Process of issuing of cheques;
Laws regarding bounced cheques; and
Procedures for resolving cheque-related disputes.

However, Sections 138–142 of the NI Act are designed to enhance the efficiency of banking operations and uphold the integrity of commercial transactions involving cheques. Section 138 regulates offence committed when insufficient funds in the drawer’s account cause a cheque to bounce. Additionally, there are other specified reasons given under the Section which cause cheques to bounce. Moreover, Section 142 deals with the cognizance of offence and jurisdiction of courts concerning Section 138.

Section 138 of NI Act

Section 138 of the NI Act is a punitive regulation concerning the consequences of a bounced cheque. The act of bouncing a cheque is not inherently illegal, however, certain conditions must be met for it to be considered an offence for it to become punishable. These conditions are as follows:

Issuance of cheques: Firstly, the drawers must issue cheques, which can be made out in favour of the payees.
Presentation of cheques: The payees need to present the cheques to the banks within three months from the date of issue of the cheques. Adhering to this timeframe is crucial, as the delayed presentations may weaken the cases.
Dishonoured cheques: If the banks refuse to honour cheques due to insufficient funds or other specified reasons, these are called dishonoured cheques.
Notices to Drawers: The payees must legally notify the drawers within 30 days of receiving information about the dishonoured cheques from the banks. The notices must stipulate that the cheque amounts should be paid within 15 days of receiving the notices.
Failure to make payments: If the drawers do not make the payments within the specified 15-day timeframe, the payees have the right to file complaints.

As far as Section 142, is concerned, let’s discuss the same through this article.

Clause-wise explanation of Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Clause 1

Section 142 deals with cognizance of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, Section 142(1) states that the Code of Criminal Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is not to be considered in the following:

Courts are prohibited from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act unless a written complaint is submitted by the payee or holder of the cheque.
The complaint must be made within one month from the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138, which provides legal protection for payees in cases of bounced cheques, holding the issuers of the cheques (drawers) accountable when the cheques bounce due to insufficient funds or other specific reasons. However, the courts may take cognizance of complaints after the prescribed period if the complainant can prove that there were sufficient reasons for not making complaints within that period.
Offences punishable under Section 138 cannot be tried by courts lower than Metropolitan Magistrates or Judicial Magistrates of the first class.

Clause 2

Moreover, Section 142(2) states that:

The courts with the local jurisdiction shall inquire and try the offence under section 138 only;

If the cheques are delivered for collection through accounts at the branches of the banks where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account; or
If the cheques are submitted for payments by the payee or holder in due course, other than through accounts, the branches of the drawee banks located where the drawers maintain the accounts.

Explanation: For Clause (a), if cheques are submitted for collection at any branch of the payee’s or holder’s bank, they will be considered as delivered to the branches where the payee or holder, in due course, maintains the account.

Meaning of cognizance

It refers to the judicial notice or awareness taken by magistrates or courts regarding the commission of the alleged offence. Section 190 of the CrPC deals with the same. As per this Section, the magistrate can take cognizance of the offences in the following ways:

When a police officer submits a police report to the magistrate about the commission of an offence;
When aggrieved parties file written complaint against the offenders to the magistrate;
In the absence of police reports and complaints, the magistrates may take cognizance based on information from other sources, such as third parties or the magistrates’ personal knowledge.

Cognizance under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section 142(1)(a) and proviso of Section 142(1)(b) deal with the cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The same has been discussed below:

Section 142(1)(a) specifies that CrPC cannot be invoked in cases where the courts are barred from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The courts have to take cognizance based on the written complaint submitted by the payee or holder of the cheque.
Proviso of Section 142(1)(b) states that the court may also take cognizance of a complaint after the expiry of 1 month. But, the parties must satisfy the courts that they have sufficient grounds for not filing complaints within 1 month. Subsequently, the courts would take cognizance of complaints after 1 month also.

Time limit for taking cognizance under the provision

Section 142(1)(b) postulates that the time limit for filing a complaint under Section 138 is one month from the date when the cause of action arises. But, the courts may take cognizance of the complaint even after 1 month from the date when the cause of action arises when the complainants fulfil the condition mentioned in the proviso of this Section.

In Sudesh Kumar vs. State of UP and another (2024), the respondent presented the petitioner’s cheque dated 18th September 2019 to the bank, which was returned on 17th December 2019 due to insufficient funds. Subsequently, on 4th January 2020, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner about the cheque being returned, and the petitioner received it on 8th January 2020. The complaint was filed on 20th February 2020.

The Counsel representing the petitioner contended that the limitation for filing the complaint should commence from 8th January 2020, i.e., the date when the legal notice was received by the petitioner. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent was argued to be liable for rejection.

The Allahabad High Court noted that the complaint, filed on 20th February 2020, fell within the one-month time limit as per clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 142, from the date of the underlying cause of action on 23rd January 2020. Therefore, the court was justified in taking cognizance of the offence, following Section 142.

This Court ruled that since the petitioner received the notice on 8th January 2020, they had 15 days from that date to make the payment. The cause of action for filing the complaint under Section 142 arose at the end of these 15 days.

Additionally, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the payees or cheque holders have to file complaints under Section 138 when the drawers fail to pay the due amounts to them within 15 days from the dates of legal notices.

Moreover, in Amjad Ali Khan @ Guddu Khan vs. State of Bihar (2022), two cheques issued by the petitioner to the complainant’s firm bounced due to insufficient funds. The complainant then sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 17th March 2018, but as no payment was made, a complaint case was filed against the petitioner on 25th April 2018 under Sections 420, 406, and 120B of the IPC, along with Section 138 of the NI Act.

The petitioner objected to the magistrate’s decision to take cognizance of the complaint and also challenged the Additional Sessions Judge’s dismissal of the revision against the magistrate’s order.

The petitioner argued that the lower court had taken cognizance of a complaint that was time-barred. The Patna High Court observed that under clause (c) of section 142(1), an offence punishable under Section 138 cannot be tried by a court lower than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

In this case, the cause of action arose on 17th March 2018, and the complaint was filed on 25th April 2018, which means there was a delay of 7 days. Therefore, the magistrate wrongly took cognizance.

Jurisdiction under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Sections 142(1)(c), 142(2)(a) and 142(2)(b) deal with the jurisdiction of the courts that are authorised to conduct trials for the offence falling under Section 138. The same can be explained in the following manners:

No court lower than Metropolitan Magistrates or Judicial Magistrates of the first class can hear cases falling under section 138 [Section 142(1)(c)].
Section 138 specifies that the case will be investigated and adjudicated by a court located within the following local jurisdictions:

If the cheque is submitted for collection through an account, the court where the bank branch is situated, where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account, will have jurisdiction [Section 142(2)(a)].
If the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, or through an account by someone else, the court where the branch of the drawee’s bank is situated, where the drawer maintains the account, will have jurisdiction [Section 142(2)(b)].

For deciding the jurisdiction to register the cheque bounce cases, there is no need to determine where the cheques got bounced. For clause (a), if a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then it shall be deemed that the cheque has been delivered to the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account, as the case may be.

In Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nirmala Padmanabhan (2023), the accused provided a cheque to the complainant following their agreement. According to the agreement, the complainant is a permanent resident of Mumbai. The accused delivered the cheque in Kannur, drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd., Kannur.

The complainant presented the cheque for collection through a bank in the Alappuzha district, and it was reportedly dishonoured. The complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused at the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC), Alappuzha district. In the proceedings, the complainant stated that he is currently living in Alappuzha. The Kerala High Court contemplated the question related to the jurisdiction of courts that would consider the complaints filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. Additionally, the court ruled that the courts, where the presentation of cheques would take place through the payees’ or cheque holders’ accounts, have the authority to consider these complaints.

Relevant amendments to the provision

The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 had added two more provisions in Section 142 of the NI Act. These provisions are as follows:

Section 142(2); and
Section 142A.

Section 142A(1) states that all cases regarding Section 138 pending in any courts before the NI (Amendment) Act must be transferred to the courts having jurisdiction under Section 142(2) as if that subsection was applicable at every time.

If complainants wish to file any subsequent complaints arising out of Section 138 against the same drawers, Section 142A(2) casts an obligation on the complainants to file these complaints before the same courts where the initial complaints filed against the same drawers are pending.

The intention of the legislature behind inserting Section 142A becomes more clear when one reads Section 142A(3), according to which, on the date of the commencement of the NI (Amendment) Act, if more than one case filed by the complainants against the same drawers is pending before different courts then every such subsequent court, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice, shall transfer the cases pending before it to the courts having jurisdiction under Section 142(2) as amended by the NI (Amendment) Act before which the first case was filed and is pending.

In Kedar Bhausaheb Malhari vs. Axis Bank Limited (2024), the Supreme Court has contemplated whether a court can transfer complaints related to dishonoured cheques to the courts where the drawers’ banks are situated. The court, deeming the matter important and requiring the Union of India’s stance, decided to involve the Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services) and the Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) and asked the Attorney General for India to handle the issue.However, the matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Constitutional validity of the amended provisions

The provisions such as Sections 142(2) and 142A of the NI Act, 1881 (amended by the NI (Amendment) Act, 2015) were challenged in the courts, contending that they are in violation of the Constitution of India.

In Vikas Bafna vs. Union of India (2016), the petitioners filed a writ petition to challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 142(2) and 142A of the Act. The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed the validity of these provisions. The court dismissed the petition by further ruling that such amendments do not infringe upon any fundamental rights of the offenders. The offenders still maintain the right to defend themselves.

Moreover, in Refex Energy Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019), a company (Refex Energy Ltd.) filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, requesting a writ of Declaration to declare Section 142(2) of the NI (Amendment) Act, 2015 as violative of Article 14.

The counsel representing the petitioner argued that the amendment violates the Supreme Court ruling in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra (2014), which held that a complaint can only be filed in two places:

The location where the drawer has his account; or
The location where the payee has his account.

Additionally, the Supreme Court referred to K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) in which it was held that the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Act depends on the occurrence of several acts. The acts constituting the said offence are as follows:

Writing the cheque,
Submitting the cheque to the bank,
Receiving the unpaid cheque back from the drawee bank,
Notifying the drawer in writing to pay the cheque amount,
The drawer’s failure to make payment within 15 days of receiving the notice.

All of these five acts don’t need to take place in the same location. Each of these five acts can occur in different locations. The jurisdiction of any court in one of the five local areas allows for the trial of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, if any of the five different acts were conducted in those areas. This means that the complainant has the freedom to select any of the courts with jurisdiction over any of the local areas within which any of the five acts took place.

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case is a landmark judgment that resulted in the amendment of 2015. Before this decision, various cases had ruled differently, creating significant ambiguity. After the enforcement of the NI (Amendment) Act, 2015, two Sub-sections i.e., (1) and (2), were inserted in Section 142 of the NI Act, 1881.

In Refex Energy Ltd.’s case, the Madras High Court upheld that Section 142(2) of the NI (Amendment) Act, 2015, does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. This court disregarded the writ.

Important precedents

M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh (2015).

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase ‘as if that subsection had been in force at all material times’ in Section 142A(1) of the NI Act provides retrospective application to Section 142(2). The court further ruled that the Judicial Magistrates would have territorial jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 138 following the enactment of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015.

M/s. A.K.R. Transport vs. M/s. Kamakshi Shipping (2015).

In this case, the appellant filed a complaint before JMFC, Pamgarh under Section 138, but the court returned the complaint stating that the dishonoured cheques were drawn in Visakhapatnam. Therefore, JMFC Pamgarh did not have jurisdiction, citing the precedent set in the case of Dashrath Roop Singh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra. The revision petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Subsequently, the appellant sought relief from the High Court after the dismissal of the revision petition.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that amendments in Section 142 of the NI Act are amendments of procedural laws and not substantive laws. Therefore, these amendments in the Section have retrospective effect. However, retrospective effect means that the new law would encompass the matters that took place before the enforcement of these laws.

Pawan Kumar Goel vs. State of U.P. & Another (2022).

In this case, the High Court nullified a magistrate’s summoning order in a cheque bounce case. The court’s rationale was that a company director could not be prosecuted under Section 138 of the NI Act without the company also being charged. The appellant (Pawan Kumar Goel) filed an appeal against the High Court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court ruled that the additional offenders can not be prosecuted after filing complaints related to dishonoured cheques. Moreover, the prescribed period under Section 142(1)(b) should not lapse.

M/S. A. Seating & Others vs. M/S. Nandini Modulars (2022).

In this case, the revision petition was filed by M/S. A. Seating and others, urging the Karnataka High Court to overturn the trial court’s judgment that convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioners also requested the High Court to set aside the Appellate Court’s judgment, which remanded the case to the trial court.

The complainant operated an industry under the name M/s. Nandini Modulars. The accused assured the complainant that he would settle the amount of Rs.13,58,921 within 15 days and issued four cheques as security for the loan amount payable to the complainant. Upon presenting these cheques, they were dishonoured due to ‘funds insufficient’. Cognizance was taken, and a complaint was filed, securing the petitioners who did not plead guilty. After considering oral and documentary evidence, the trial court convicted the petitioners.

On appeal, the accused argued that the complaint was time-barred and no application was filed before the trial court, suggesting that initiating the proceedings against the petitioners was erroneous.

The Karnataka High Court stated that in case parties opposing the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act do not bring up the legitimate reasons for the delay in lodging the complaints before the lower courts, the Appellate Courts have the authority to send the cases back for a new review on the matter of condoning the delay under Section 142(b).

The Appellate Court sent the case back for a fresh review, allowing the complainant to apply for condonation of delay. It directed the trial court to prioritise and decide on this application before proceeding with the matter following the law. As a result, it overturned the trial court’s conviction and sentence order.

Yogesh Upadhyay vs. Atlanta Limited (2023).

In this case, four out of the six cases were initiated by a company before the Dwarka courts in New Delhi, while the other two cases were awaiting resolution in the Nagpur courts in Maharashtra. The accused parties (petitioners) have approached the Apex Court to request the transfer of the two cases from the Nagpur court to the Dwarka court.

In response to this plea, the complainants (respondents) argued that the non-obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the NI Act would take precedence over Section 406 CrPC. They stated that it would not be within the court’s authority to transfer these complaint cases in the exercise of power under this clause.

The Supreme Court observed that despite the non-obstante clause in Section 142(1), this Court still maintains the authority to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 CrPC, particularly in cases involving offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, if it is deemed necessary for the interests of justice. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled that, as per Section 406 CrPC, it has the authority to relocate cheque bounce cases from one state to another.

Arvind Singh Rajpoot vs. M/s Intersight Holidays Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2023).

In this case, the director of the company, Intersight Holidays Pvt. Ltd., filed a complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, this company was a third party to the complaint, and the cheques were in the name of Intersight Tours and Travel Pvt. Ltd. The Kerala High Court ruled that the drawers or issuers of cheques can not be prosecuted by third parties for the offence under this Section. The court observed that as per Section 142(1)(a), only ‘payees’ or ‘holders in due courses of the cheques’ would file written complaints of the offence punishable under Section 138. Moreover, the courts must take cognizance of such complaints. Therefore, the court disregarded the complaint.

Right choice Marketing Solutions Jlt & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024).

In this case, the Delhi High Court elucidated that Indian courts are authorised to decide the cases of dishonoured foreign cheques under Section 138. However, these courts should be located where foreign cheques were deposited for encashment in India.

Ashok Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another (2024).

In this case, Uttarakhand Engineering Products Private Limited supplied products to M/s Trimurti Concast Pvt. Ltd., but the cheque provided by M/s Trimurti Concast Pvt. Ltd. bounced due to insufficient funds. Consequently, the complainant lodged a complaint. As the owed amount remained unpaid, the complainant pursued legal action under Section 138 of the NI Act with the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Muzaffarnagar. The complainant submitted evidence in the form of an affidavit with all relevant documents, leading the court to issue a summons. After the issuance of the summons, Ashok Sharma, the signatory of the cheque, filed an application under Section 482 CrPC, in which this court issued notices and halted the ongoing proceedings of the complaint case. As a result, the trial could not be progressed for the past 8 years.

The Allahabad High Court ruled Section 142 of the NI Act does not specify who can file complaints on behalf of companies as per Section 138. Moreover, when companies are payees, the complainants must be lodged in the names of companies.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, this article concludes that Section 142 of the NI Act has been inserted to provide legal proceedings to be followed against the offenders punishable under Section 138 of the Act. However, Section 138 postulates that dishonouring cheques due to insufficient funds is a criminal offence, and the offenders may face a maximum imprisonment of two years or maximum fines of twice the amount of cheques or both.

Moreover, Section 142 talks about the jurisdiction of the courts, which may decide the cases of Section 138. It also discusses the stipulated period for lodging complaints regarding bounced cheques.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What do you mean by negotiable instruments?

Section 13 of the NI Act defines the term ‘negotiable instruments’ as promissory notes, bills of exchange, or cheques that can be transferred to another party.

It is possible for negotiable instruments to be made payable to multiple payees together, or it can be made payable to one of two, or one or some of several payees as an alternative.

Who are drawers, drawees and payees? In which condition the drawers and payees can be identical?

Drawers are the individuals who sign the cheques and instruct the banks to make the payments. The banks or any persons who are directed to pay the specified amounts written on the cheques are known as the drawees. The recipients of the specified amounts are known as the payees.

The drawers and payees can be identical when the drawers write self-cheques. However, when individuals want to withdraw funds from the banks for personal use, they fill out self-cheques. Such cheques can only be cashed at the account holders’ or the drawers’ banks.

What do you mean by cheques and dishonoured cheques?

Cheques are written commitments made by the payers (the person issuing the cheque) to the payee (the person receiving the cheque) against a sum of money. In an ideal situation, the payer’s bank transfers the funds from the payer’s account to the payee’s account.

The payers who issue the cheques make written promises to the payees to provide a certain amount of funds. Ideally, the payers’ banks transfer the funds from the payers’ accounts to the payees’ accounts.

When banks decline cheques submitted by individuals, such cheques are referred to as dishonoured cheques. This refusal can be due to insufficient funds in the account, mismatched signatures, or post-dated cheques.

The dishonoured cheques indicate that some obstacles are preventing the processing of transactions for which the cheques were issued. In India, dishonouring cheques due to insufficient funds is considered a legal offence, and the individual who issued the cheque may face legal consequences under the NI Act, 1881.

Who are the holders of negotiable instruments and holders in due course under the NI Act?

According to Section 8 of the NI Act, 1881, the term ‘holders of negotiable instruments’ refers to individuals who have the authority to have the documents in their own names and to receive or claim the amounts owed from the parties responsible.

Moreover, Section 9 of the Act states that the individuals who legitimately acquire negotiable instruments in exchange for some values when payments are still outstanding are known as holders in due course.

What are the differences between Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act?

Section 138 talks about on which grounds the courts take cognizance of offence. It talks about some conditions on which the payers can hold the drawers criminally liable. On the other hand, Section 142 talks about how courts would accept cognizance of offence. It talks about how complaints are to be registered and the time limitations for the payer to hold drawers criminally liable.

What is the nature of the offence under Section 138 of the Act?

The offence under this Section is non-cognizable and bailable.

References

https://blog.ipleaders.in/nature-section-138-negotiable-instruments-act-1881/#Few_important_points_relating_to_dishonour_of_the_cheque.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-138-142-negotiable-instruments-act-1881/.
Khergamvala on The Negotiable Instruments Act, LexisNexis, 23rd Edition, 2021.

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

Shufa (pre-emption) under Muslim Law

By

Rachit Garg

-

August 27, 2024

0

This article is written by Shafaq Gupta. The article deals with the right of Shufa, also known as the right of pre-emption under Muslim law. It deals with the various aspects of it in detail, like, the conditions and the formalities which must be observed for claiming Shufa. The article also throws light on the various sources of it and its development in modern day India.

Table of Contents

Introduction

With the advent of Mughal rule in India, the law of Shufa was introduced. Gradually, it became applicable to all people, including the Hindus. However, Muslims follow their own set of regulations in certain matters such as the right of pre-emption, and are governed by personal laws rather than general laws. When the Britishers came to India in 1600s, the right of preemption, also known as Shufa, already existed as part of Muslim law or as part of customs or by way of contracts.

Pre-emption, which is referred to as Shufa under Muslim law, basically means a ‘first opportunity to buy or purchase.’ The pre-emptor stands in a privileged position as compared to other buyers as he should be given first priority in matters of sale of the property. The right of pre-emption comes into being when there is joint property and it is owned by more than one person i.e. multiple co-owners. It may also come into being on the basis of consanguinity (blood relationship) etc.

In the case of Kunwar Digamber Singh vs. Kunwar Ahmad Sayeed Khan (1914), Sir John Edge threw light on the history and origin of the right of preemption. In British India, it referred to the right of a group of people to take over the village property and had its origin in Mohammedan Law. Gradually, it developed in the form of customs in some areas and these rights were embraced or nurtured by the village community. The villages either had their unique customs or derived them from the Muslim law of pre-emption. Sometimes these rights were exercised by way of agreements or by acts of legislature. In case of conflict between any customs or agreements, they need to be proved. The main objective behind the right of pre-emption was to prevent the outsiders from joining the village as sharers and not let them hold or acquire property. As we all know, the transfer of property is an essential pre-requisite for the growth of an economy and no one would want any stranger to enter upon and hold their property as the owner.

In this article, we will be dealing with the right of Shufa under Muslim law, its constitutional validity, and its associated rights.

Meaning of Shufa (pre-emption) in Muslim Law

Shufa is an Arabic word that refers to conjunction. It is the right of the owner of the property that is adjacent to or in conjunction with another immovable property. The word ‘right’ implies haq. The haq-Shufa connotes the right to acquire the neighbouring property at a later stage from the fresh purchaser.

In the words of Mulla, the Shufa or right of pre-emption is a right obtained by the owner of an immovable property by purchasing another immovable property that has been sold to others. It gives the person priority over the property already being sold by the owner and can be claimed by paying the same price as would have been paid by any other buyer.

For example, if A, the owner of an immovable property, wishes to sell his land and B is the owner of the adjoining property, then A is under a legal obligation to first ask B for it. If B refuses to buy that land or is not interested in it, then A may make an offer to sell his land to any other stranger C. When a situation arises that A sold his land to C, without even asking B, then B can exercise his right of pre-emption and dislodge C from that property by paying an equal amount paid by C to A.

The Muslim law of pre-emption should be seen in the light of the Muslim law of succession. As per Muslim law of succession, after a person dies, his property is divided into fractions. Now suppose that his property is offered for purchase to a stranger without asking the other co-sharers, it would automatically create inconvenience. Therefore, the law of pre-emption limits the right of transfer of ownership of property to any other person without asking the co-heir or co-owner first.

The right of pre-emption was also recognized by the Romans but in a different manner. The vendor (the owner of the immovable property to be sold) was under an obligation to sell the immovable property to a determined person if he agreed to purchase it on the same conditions as that of the vendee (the stranger who came to buy the property). But, according to Romans this right of pre-emption could only be exercised before the completion of sale of immovable property. It is not the same as in India. In India, Shufa can only be exercised after the completion of valid sale of property and even affects the fresh purchaser i.e. the vendee. A decree has to be passed by the court with regards to it and can be considered as acquisition by way of compulsory purchase.

In the case of Mohd. Rashid vs. Abdul Rashid (1955), the Allahabad High Court defined pre-emption under Muslim law as the right that gives preference to the pre-emptor who lives adjacent to the property being sold. It can neither be inherited nor transferred.

In the case of Indira Bai vs. Nandkishore (1991), the Supreme Court defined the right of pre-emption, which arose out of Muslim personal law, as a feeble and weak right that could be defeated by the law of estoppel. Estoppel puts checks and balances on the conduct of the person and prohibits the person from claiming an advantage of his own wrong. The earlier statements made by him cannot be denied at a later stage and strike at the fairness of justice.

Historical background

The history of the right of pre-emption can be traced back to the sixth century AD which was known as the pre-Islamic dark age in relation to the Arab countries. No particular norms were followed. Anyone could enter upon another’s property without any permission. On a regular basis, the women of their families were mistreated by the male dominated society. To find a solution to this problem, Prophet Mohammad, the founder of Islam, organised a campaign by putting the teachings of the Quran into practice. In the words of the Prophet – “It is unlawful for a partner to sell his share without the permission of his partner. If the latter likes, he would buy or would let go of it. If one partner sells with his partner’s permission, the latter is more entitled to it.” The purpose behind this practice was to build harmony and peace among people. The law of pre-emption became applicable to every jointly owned undivided property. It prevented any inconvenience and disturbance caused by the strangers. As a result of this practice, the co-owners could acquire a jointly owned property for their own family benefits and they all developed an amicable relationship among themselves.

Shufa was mainly practised as a part of Muslim personal law only. They used to obey it as the common law of the lands which were under the influence of the Mughal rulers. But when the other communities felt the need to make such laws for themselves too, they started following it as part of customs. As a customary law, it became applicable to all the properties that came within those areas where that custom was followed, regardless of the religion, nationality, or the domicile of the property owners. After that, when the Britishers came to India, they enforced the right of pre-emption on the basis of justice, equity, and good conscience. Later, they codified these laws into acts of legislature in a few parts of the country.

Objective of Shufa (pre-emption)

The objective behind the right of Shufa is to prevent annoyance or disturbance that may be created by giving rights over property to a stranger. It gives preference to a person who already shares a certain relationship with the owner of the immovable property who wishes to sell it. He is given priority over property as compared to third parties. The practice of Shufa basically dislodges the stranger from entering his neighbourhood.

In the case of Bhoop vs. Matadin Bhardwaj (1990), the Supreme Court held that the right of pre-emption is purely a personal right. According to the Apex Court, this right may be founded in a statute, custom, or personal law but in every case, the sole object of this right is to keep away an objectionable stranger from the neighbourhood.

Parties involved

Shufa which means the right of party adjacent, involves three parties:

The Vendor: The owner of the immovable property who wishes to sell it.

The Vendee: The third party or the stranger who wishes to buy it.

The Pre-emptor: The party living adjacent to or neighbour, co-owner, or co-heir of the property.

So generally, if A (vendor) is selling land that is adjacent to B’s house, he must first ask B (pre-emptor) whether he wishes to purchase it or not. Only if B denies, he must sell it to any person C (vendee).

Essential elements of Shufa (pre-emption) under Muslim Law

These are basically the essential elements of Shufa:

The right of pre-emption is only available to the owner of immovable property. He must have full ownership of that immovable property.
There must be sale of the immovable property and it must not belong to the pre-emptor.
There should be a certain relationship between the seller and the pre-emptor.
The buyer is subject to the same conditions as would have applied to any other buyer. He is liable to pay an amount equal to the amount paid by any other buyer.
The right is given by law for the quiet enjoyment of the property.

Nature of the right of pre-emption

In the case of Sk. Kudratullah vs. Mohini Mohan Saha (1869), the High Court of Calcutta stated that the sale of immovable property which is subject to the right of pre-emption passes on the full ownership to the purchaser. The right arises after the completion of the sale of that property. They opined that the right of pre-emption is a mere right of repurchase.

After 16 years of the above judgement, the nature of the right of pre-emption was explained in the case of Inayatullah vs. Gobind Dayal (1885). It was held that the right of pre-emption is exercised in the same way as the property had been sold to any other person. The co-owner (pre-emptor) claimed the property had to pay the same amount as would have been paid by any stranger or the vendee, to the vendor. The sale of the property itself is not the cause of pre-emption as the right arises after the sale, but the circumstances surrounding that property. The right exists independent of the sale and gives a preferential right to the pre-emptor.

In the case of Bishan Singh vs. Khazan Singh (1958), Justice Subba Rao of the Supreme Court of India summarised the right of pre-emption in the following pointers:

The right of pre-emption can be exercised against the property which is offered to be sold and not against the already sold property. Therefore, a primary right.
The pre-emptor holds a remedial right to follow the thing sold.
It is not a right of repurchase, but rather a right of substitution as the pre-emptor himself bargains by stepping into the shoes of the original vendee.
Through it, the whole immovable property which is to be sold is acquired, not merely a part of it as the pre-emptor may choose the best part for himself.
The pre-emptor must have a superior right over the property than a vendee because the right of pre-emption is based on preference.
It is a weak right that can be defeated by lawful methods. Like, the vendee may allow a person who is in superior or equal authority over the disputed property, to be substituted in his place.

Who can claim the right of Shufa (pre-emption) under Muslim Law

The pre-emptors have been classified into various kinds based on the person who can pre-empt. They are as follows:

The Shafi-i- Sharik – Co-owners of the property.

If there is more than one owner of an undivided property, the co-owner has the right to claim that property before others. It cannot be exercised on a property which is leased or mortgaged. The vendor must be the full owner of the property in dispute. Under Shia law, the right can be claimed on the basis of Shafi-i-Sharik when the co-owners of the property are limited to two only.

The Shafi-i-Khailat – The participator in immunities and appendages.

The right of Shufa can be exercised by the person who is a participator in immunities and appendages. Immunities basically mean the pre-emptor has the right of easement over the disputed land and appendages refer to the land attached to the land of the pre-emptor. So, it basically means that the pre-emptor has the right of easement over the land attached to his property and is in dispute. For example, the pre-emptor may be exercising an easementary right of way or right to discharge water from the disputed land.

In the case of Ladu Ram vs. Kalyan Sahai (1963), it was held by the Rajasthan High Court that the right of Shaif-i-Khailat cannot be claimed against the right of easement of light or air. It can only be claimed against the right of way and the right to water. As it is a right in rem, it cannot be claimed against the right to draw water from the government water course.

The Shafi-i-jar – The owner of an adjoining property.

It can be exercised by the neighbour or the owner of the adjoining immovable property which is to be sold. It cannot be claimed by the tenant as he is not the full owner of the property. Similarly, the Wakif or Mutawalli do not have the right to pre-empt as they hold property in the name of God and not themselves. They are not the owner of the property entrusted to them. It was not used to extend to larger properties such as zamindaris and jagirs but was restricted to small properties such as houses, gardens, etc.

In the case of Sakina Bibi vs. Amiran (1888), it was held that Shufa is exercised against the owner of the property. It is immaterial whether he has the possession of property or not.

Shufa (pre-emption) and schools of Muslim Law

The different schools of Muslim law recognize the rights of Shufa differently. They all do not follow it in a uniform manner.

Shafi law – They recognize the right of pre-emption only to co-sharers of property. The right of pre-emption of the same class is in proportion to their share in the property. Among the pre-emptors of the same class, no differentiation is made.

Hanafi law – They recognize it to the fullest extent. All three types – i) Shafi-i-Khailat ii) Shafi-i-Sharik iii) Shafi-i-jar are recognized by them. The pre-emptors of the same class have the right to pre-empt in equal proportions, even though they own unequal shares.

Ithana Ashari law – It recognizes the right of pre-emption only in case of co-sharers but the number of co-sharers must not exceed two. It is not offered to neighbours as it does not recognize the right of pre-emption by Shafi-i-jar.

Fatimidi law – Like many other schools of Muslim law, this school also does not recognize the right of neighbour or participator in appendages. Only the right of the co-sharer is allowed.

Ismaili law – It basically rejects vicinage (when two properties are adjacent to each other) as the basis of the right of pre-emption. Only co-sharer’s rights are recognized.

So, based on the above information, we can see that the right of the co-sharer or Shafi-i-Sharik is the most widely recognized right of pre-emption.

Conditions for exercising the right of Shufa

When does the right of Shufa arise

The right of Shufa arises in two types of transfer of property. They are- sale and exchange.

In case of sale

The property must be subject to a valid sale. In the case of Najm-un-nissa vs. Ajaib Ali (1900), it was declared by the Allahabad High Court that the sale should have been valid, bona fide, and complete. The sale must be for proper consideration. There must be the actual sale of the property concerned and not a mere intention to sell.

The court noted that in some instances, the right of Shufa does not arise. Like in the case of a gift, sadaqah, wakf, inheritance, bequest or lease. Moreover, It cannot arise out of a mortgaged property or a leased property even if it is leased in perpetuity as these are not considered as sale of property.

In the case of Mt. Girraj Kunwar vs. Irfan Ali (1951), the Allahabad High Court delivered the judgement that a waqf estate cannot claim the right of pre-emption against the waqf property as they are not the owner of that land themselves. They hold property in the name of God. The Muslim law doesn’t recognize God as a party to a claim before a Qazi and there is no clear position of law on this point.

In the case of Munni Lal vs. Bishwanath Prasad (1967), the Supreme Court stated that there must be full ownership of the land to be pre-empted and the pre-emptor must also be the full owner of his own land because the Muslim law of pre-emption is based on the law of reciprocity and both should fulfill similar obligations. The sale of a leasehold interest in the property is not a valid sale.

When the sale is complete

The sale of the concerned immovable property must have been complete. In Muslim personal law, the sale is considered complete when the possession of the property is transferred to the vendor. It is not necessary to execute an instrument of sale. But, it is in conflict with Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act,1872 which says that the sale of property of value above Rs. 100 must be registered for it to be considered complete.

The question before the courts was whether the sale must be considered complete as per the Muslim law or the Transfer of Property Act,1872. It was interpreted differently by different courts of law.

In the case of Begum vs. Muhammad Yakub (1894), the Allahabad High Court held that if the sale is complete as per the Muslim personal law, the right of pre-emption will arise. On the contrary, in another case of Jadulal vs. Janki Koer (1912), the Calcutta High Court held that the sale would be considered complete when the parties to it intended it to be considered complete. It wholly depends upon their intention. These different opinions were resolved by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Radhakisan Laxminarayan Toshniwal vs. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi (1960). In this case, it was held that in the instances where the Transfer of Property Act, 1872 was applicable, the sale should have been complete as per the provisions of the Act and the Muslim personal law cannot override the authority of a statute. The right of pre-emption arises only on the completion of a valid sale but must persist as long as the decree is passed by the trial court. So, if the plaintiff sold his self-owned property to anybody else after the suit against pre-emption had been instituted, he would lose his right of pre-emption as he was no longer the owner of the property and wouldn’t be entitled to a decree by the court.

In case of exchange

For the right of pre-emption, the exchange of property between both parties must be certain. There must not be an option to cancel it and take back the property during the lifetime of any of the parties. If such an option exists, the right of pre-emption would not arise.

In cases where the parties belong to different religions or sects

In India, all the religions are considered equal as we believe in secularism. The right of pre-emption involves three parties: the pre-emptor, the vendor, and the vendee. When all the three parties belong to the same religion, it does not cause any conflict. But when some of them belong to different religions, the difficulty crops in. In such cases, the principle of reciprocity is to be applied which states that the people must respond to each other in similar ways and there must be uniform application of the laws on them. It is based on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. So, it would be considered very unfair to apply general principles to all the three parties as some of them may not be subjected to fulfill the similar obligations.

Both the vendor and the pre-emptor must be a Muslim. Even the vendee should be a Muslim because if he is a Non-Muslim, he would take advantage of property as a pre-emptor and won’t have to fulfill any similar obligations as that of a Muslim. If he has to sell his land acquired by the right of pre-emption, he can sell it to anyone and not necessarily to a Muslim. Different views have been taken on this instance by various high courts. There is a difference of opinion with regard to the question of who should be a purchaser i.e. the vendee.

According To the Allahabad and Patna High Courts, it is not necessary that a vendee should be a Muslim. On the contrary, the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts are of the opinion that the vendee should also be a Muslim. In the case of Govind Dayal vs. Inayatullah (1885), the Allahabad High Court was of the view that the religion of the vendee is immaterial for the right of pre-emption to arise.

A situation may arise when all the parties to pre-emption are Muslims but they may belong to different sects i.e. Shia sect and Sunni sect. In the case of Pir Khan vs. Fyizaz Hussain (1914), the appellant (pre-emptor) was a co-sharer in a mahal and belonged to the Sunni sect of Muslims. But the vendor belonged to the Shia sect of Muslims and the vendors, who were strangers to the property, were Hindus. The Shia and Sunni sect of Muslims do not recognize the right of pre-emption in a uniform manner. So, the Allahabad High Court was of the opinion that the right of pre-emption can be claimed only if it is recognized by the laws that were applicable to the vendor. Therefore, in this case, the law of preemption, as applicable to the Shia sect, was held to be valid because the vendor belonged to the Shia sect.

A five judge bench of Hyderabad High Court in the case of Pasha Begum vs. Syed Shabbu Hassan (1956), gave a few points which have been mentioned below.

In this case, the right of pre-emption was claimed on the basis of vicinage(neighbourhood) The majority pronounced the following tests :

If the vendor is Shia and the pre-emptor is a Sunni, then the right cannot be exercised as the Shia law does not recognize the right of pre-emption on the basis of vicinage.
In the reverse case also, the pre-emptor will fail again, as there is no reciprocity between the two schools.
If the vendee and the pre-emptor belong to the same school, then the rules of pre-emption of the school to which the parties belong will apply.

Moreover, under Shia law, the right of pre-emption cannot be claimed by a Non-Muslim pre-emptor where both the vendor and vendee are Muslims. It is because when a Muslim wants to sell his property, he is under an obligation as per Muslim law to sell it to his neighbour or co-sharer first before selling it to others. But a Non-Muslim is not under an obligation to perform such duties. So, if a Non-Muslim is allowed to pre-empt, he will be given a right without any corresponding obligation.

Formalities for claiming the right of Shufa (pre-emption)

The Mohammedan law of pre-emption is very technical and all the formalities must be observed carefully and completely. If no demand is made for claiming it, the right of pre-emption does not arise by itself.

First demand or talab-i-mowasibat

The first demand is referred to as ‘demand for jumping’ and must be made immediately as soon as the pre-emptor hears about the sale of the property being made. There is as such no prescribed form for making the demand. The Hedaya recommends that it can be asserted by saying, “I do claim my Shufa”. The first demand made must be clear and unequivocal and it must be made as soon as the fact of sale becomes known to the pre-emptor.

It need not be made in the presence of witnesses. Moreover, it is not required to be made by the pre-emptor in person. It can be made by his manager or any person who had been previously authorised by him. The first demand is valid only after the completion of the sale. Otherwise, there is no demand.

Second demand or talab-i-ishhad

The second demand is referred to as the ‘demand involving witnesses’. It is a re-assertion made by the pre-emptor that he intends to claim his right of Shufa as previously intimated. It needs to be made in the presence of two witnesses. The second condition is that it must be made in the presence of the vendor (if he has possession of the property) or of the vendee or on the property. It is not necessary for the vendee to hold possession of the property while a second demand is made. If the demand is made on the property, it is not essential to enter the property completely. Even going near it and touching it is enough.

There is no prescribed form for making a second demand. The Hedaya gives a sample of it which may be followed. It states that such a statement may be made: “Such and such person (naming the vendee) has purchased the land, and I have demanded the pre-emption, and now do demand it; bear the witness to this.”

The third demand or talab-i-tamlik

The third demand is referred to as the ‘demand for possession’. If the pre-emptor fails to achieve his right in the first two demands, he can make the third demand by filing the suit in the court. It is the mode of enforcing the right of pre-emption and must be made within one year of the vendee taking possession of the land. This period of limitation can’t be extended on the basis of the minority of the pre-emptor. He may file a suit through his guardian or any other person authorised by law. The whole of the land in question must be claimed. The pre-emptor is not allowed to take a part of it because he may keep the best part of it for himself and leave the rest.

When the right of Shufa (pre-emption) is lost

The right of Shufa is lost under the following cases:

By acquiescence or waiver – The right of Shufa is lost by acquiescence when the pre-emptor fails to follow the formalities for claiming it. Like, he does not fulfil all the three demands in time. If the pre-emptor, expressly or impliedly, waives of his right of pre-emption, he loses it.
By the death of a pre-emptor – When the pre-emptor dies after making the first two demands and before filing the suit for claiming it, the right of pre-emption is lost and his legal heirs cannot file a suit on his behalf.
By misjoinder – When the pre-emptor joins himself as a co-plaintiff in filing the suit with any such person, who is not entitled to it, the right of preemption is lost. It is known as a misjoinder of parties. But, if he joins himself as a co-plaintiff with a person who was entitled to the right but that person did not make the first two demands, his right would not be lost.
By release – The right of pre-emption is lost if the pre-emptor releases the property for consideration to be paid to him. However, the right of pre-emption will not be lost if the property was offered to the pre-emptor before its sale, but he refused to buy it because the right of pre-emption accrues only after the completion of the sale.
By statutory disability – The pre-emptor must necessarily follow the provisions of the law. Anything done contrary to it will result in losing his power of pre-emption.
By loss of right before final decree: The right of the pre-emptor must exist till the date when the final decree is to be passed by the trial court. If he loses his right before the final decree is passed, he would no longer be entitled to it. However, it is not necessary that the right must persist till the date of judgement by the appellate court.

Constitutional validity of Shufa

Before the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978

The right of pre-emption infringed upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. It was a fundamental right to hold, acquire, and dispose of property and no person could be deprived of his property except according to the law. He was bound by the Muslim law of pre-emption or Shufa which was in conflict with the Constitution. But under Article 19(5) of the Constitution, reasonable restrictions can be imposed upon these fundamental rights, and the law of pre-emption which was in violation of these rights, as the owner of the property was not given a free will to dispose of his property, was protected under Article 19(5).

In the case of Bhau Ram vs. Bhaji Nath Singh (1961), the honourable Supreme Court held that the right of pre-emption was illegal as it imposed unnecessary restrictions on the right to dispose of property and was opposed to the public interest. In another case Sant Ram vs. Labh Singh (1965), the right of pre-emption was held to be void by the Supreme Court as it restricted the rights of both the vendor and the vendee to dispose of their property according to their own choice. Moreover, it created discrimination among people based on caste and religion which is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution.

After the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978

The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act came in 1976 and it changed the landscape of property rights in India to a greater extent. Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution were repealed and the right to property was recognized as a constitutional right under Article 300A. There was no fundamental right to acquire, hold, or dispose of property. Though it did not remain a fundamental right, the law of pre-emption was still a legal right and therefore, was bound by restrictions imposed by Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution.

In the case of Atam Prakash vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1986), it was held by the Supreme Court that the right of pre-emption claimed on the basis of consanguinity i.e. blood relationship is unconstitutional. Earlier, this right was exercised so as to maintain family integrity and unity in the rural society which are totally irrelevant today. Section 15 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1923 was held to be unconstitutional as there were no relevant and justifiable classifications of co-sharers who are entitled to claim pre-emption.

In the case of Razzaque Sajunsaheb Bagwan vs. Ibrahim Haji Mohd. Husain (1998), the right of Shufa was claimed on the basis of vicinage i.e. having property adjoining to the property to be sold. The Supreme Court of India declared it to be void and unconstitutional.

In the case of Raghunath(D) by Lrs. vs. Radha Mohan(D) by Lrs. (2020), it was held by the Supreme Court that the right of pre-emption could only be used for the first time when the need arose. After that, it lapses and can’t be claimed at a later stage.

Applicability of Shufa (pre-emption) in India

By Muslim Personal Law

Shufa existed as part of Muslim Personal Law in India as earlier there were no such statutes and customs related to it. It was applicable only to Muslims. In the case of Avadh Behari vs. Gajadhar (1954), it was held by the Supreme Court that Shufa was neither a customary right nor a territorial right, but applicable as part of Muslim personal law. In another case Mohamed Bed Amin Beg vs. Narayan Patil (1915), the Bombay High Court opined that the right of Shufa restricted the freedom of sale of property as per the choice of the owner and it was abrogated as per provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Indian Contract Act,1872.

By Statutes

In some areas of India, the right of pre-emption existed by way of statutes. People were given statutory rights and could go to court in case of their violation. A few examples of it are:

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1915
Agra Pre-emption Act, 1922
Oudh Laws Act, 1876
C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917
Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928
Zabta Shikmidaran in Hyderabad

Rights under these Acts were given to both Muslims and Non-Muslims.

By Customs

In a few areas, where there was no statutory law, it was recognized as part of customs. Customs are those common practices that have been followed since time immemorial and are reasonable, certain, moral, and not opposed to public policy. They have been followed by a large number of people consistently and therefore, enjoy the force of law. The burden of proving the custom lies on the person who asserts it. It was applicable to Hindus who either had their domicile there or were the permanent natives of these areas for a long time. For example, the customary law of pre-emption was followed in all these areas – Bihar Sylhet, parts of Maharashtra, and Gujarat such as Surat, Godhra, and Ahmedabad; parts of Uttar Pradesh such as Banaras, Muzaffarnagar, and Saharanpur; and Bengal.

In the case of Avadh Behari vs. Gajadhar (1954), it was held that the customs form the part of lex loci (law of the place) and are applicable to everyone, irrespective of the religion of the parties concerned. Shufa was also followed as custom in certain areas and it had to be followed by everyone as the law of the land.

By Contract

The right of Shufa could also become applicable to anyone by entering into a valid contract. For example, a contract may be entered into by a Hindu vendee and a Muslim vendor, and the Muslim law of Shufa, as applicable to the vendor, may also be applicable to the vendee in the same manner.

Effect of Shufa (pre-emption)

After the final decree for the suit of pre-emption is passed by the authorised court, the pre-emptor stands in the same position as that of the vendee and becomes liable to pay the same amount as paid by the vendee for the purchase of the property in question. But the original vendee is entitled to some benefits. He has the right to get profits such as rent or other profits for the period between the date of the first sale and the date when the property was transferred to the pre-emptor. The property is considered to be transferred to the pre-emptor when he pays the actual price to the vendor. The death of the vendee or any disposition of property made by him does not affect the right of pre-emption of the pre-emptor. But the pre-emptor cannot transfer the final decree executed in his name.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we see that the right of pre-emption exercised by the co-owners of the property is most widely recognized under various schools of Muslim law. It can only be exercised against a completed sale of immovable property and the Transfer of Property Act,1872 overrides the Muslim personal law. It is a weak and feeble right which can be defeated by way of estoppel. It must be made compulsory to go to alternative dispute resolution before going to court to file the suit as it would reduce the overburden caused by the pendency of cases.

References

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361276540_Right_of_Pre-Emption_Shuffa_Under_Muslim_Law
https://www.manupatra.com/roundup/330/Articles/Family%20Law%20Article.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4249340
https://www.thestatesman.com/features/the-islamic-doctrine-of-shuffa-1487802653.html
Pasha Begum vs. Syed Shabbu Hassan, 1956 Hyd 1 (FB)

Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006)

By

Vanshika Kapoor

-

August 26, 2024

0

The article is written by Vanshika Shukla. It aims at discussing this case at length. It attempts to address all parts of the case, including facts, arguments, provisions, case laws, judgement and the concerns that follow. This article also aims to provide a case analysis based on the rationale that supports the whole case.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 allows either of the spouses to seek divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The definition and application of the term “cruelty” have differed over time because of the evolving nature of humans as well as their endurance to resist it. Several courts have opined and reiterated the difficulties of this issue, emphasising the importance of considering each case’s specific circumstances. In this article, we’ll analyse the case of Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006) to understand the intricacies of cruelty, the types of cruelty and its evolving nature in every era. The term ‘cruelty’ has not been defined within the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to allow the courts the option to interpret the phrase properly as per the situation.

Details of the case

Case name: Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 1687 of 2006

Equivalent citation: 2006 (3) SCC 778

Acts involved: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Important provisions: Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Facts of the case

The appellant (Vinita Saxena) and the respondent (Pankaj Pandit) were married as per Hindu rites and customs on 7th February 1993. As per the appellant, the marriage lasted for only five months and was never consummated since the respondent could not carry out his marital responsibilities. The appellant claims that the respondent’s mother used to treat her with utmost cruelty, both mentally and physically, and the reasoning behind this treatment was the respondent’s mental condition, as he was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The appellant was unaware of his condition as the respondent and his parents had failed to inform her about his mental disorder, that he was being treated, and that he was under heavy medications prior to the marriage. She learned about the respondent’s mental condition after the marriage, as the respondent had been receiving constant treatment and observations from several doctors for the condition even before the marriage. Dr. C.R. Samanta, who was a consultant psychiatrist at Aashlok Hospital, had diagnosed that the respondent suffered from schizophrenia and depression.

On 4th July 1993, the appellant attempted to share the problems she was experiencing with the respondent and her mother-in-law, who strongly disagreed and accused the appellant of attempting to defame the respondent. At her instance, the appellant was viciously beaten by the respondent, which made him so terrified that he swallowed “Baygon Spray” to attempt suicide. The appellant and her brother got the respondent admitted to the hospital, where he was prescribed certain medicines by Dr. C.R. Samanta including Triperidol, which is given in cases of acute and chronic psychoses, anxiety disorders, mania, and schizophrenia. The situation worsened on 8.7.1993 and 9.7.1993. Again, at the encouragement of the respondent’s mother, the respondent viciously slapped and beat the appellant, and she was not even permitted to eat that day or the next morning, i.e., on 9.7.1993. Ultimately, the appellant’s mother-in-law and the respondent shoved and kicked her out of the matrimonial house, and she was not allowed to return.

The appellant filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging mental and physical cruelty and the respondent’s mental illness. The Trial Court, in its order dated 15.5.1993, on the basis of facts, averments made by the parties, as well as the medical documents given on file, came to the decision that a letter of request should be sent to the Medical Superintendent, L.N.J.P. Hospital, to form a panel of doctors in order to examine the respondent and report on his mental state. However, the High Court reversed this ruling in a Revision Petition brought by the respondent. After the marriage ended, the appellant continued her studies and earned an M.S. (Structural Engineering) from IIT Delhi before leaving for her Ph.D. course in the United States in 1996.

The appellant, her father, Dr. D.S. Arora, Medical Superintendent, Aashlok Hospital and Dr. Kuldeep Kumar of Safdarjung Hospital provided recorded statements before the trial court. The respondent, however, had his statement recorded, and purposely skipped his deposition in the witness box before the end of the cross-examination. The trial court dismissed the divorce petition. The High Court further dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant, who was disappointed by this, appealed to the Supreme Court through a special leave petition. In response to this, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent.

High Court judgement

The appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal in Trial Court, filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, ruling that the respondent does not suffer from schizophrenia and that there is insufficient evidence on record to establish the cause of cruelty. The High Court further held that the incidents of cruelty were not so severe as to fall within the definition of cruelty, thus dismissing the appellant’s appeal through an order dated 10.9.2004. The High Court additionally stated that the testimony of the doctors, which the appellant provided as evidence in order to prove that the respondent had schizophrenia, could not be investigated since the respondent was not receiving treatment from those doctors.

Issues raised

Whether the respondent was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia?
Was the appellant subjected to cruelty by and at the insistence of the respondent?
Whether the decree for divorce should be granted in favour of the appellant?

Arguments of the parties

Petitioner

The appellant appealed to the Honourable Supreme Court through her counsel, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal. The counsel reaffirmed the allegations made in the appeal, submitting several grounds for granting divorce to the appellant. Firstly, non-consummation of the marriage in itself constitutes mental cruelty to a married woman. Additionally, the respondent’s attempted suicide will also amount to mental cruelty and harassment. The appellant had resided with the respondent for barely five months and during this short period, she was brutally assaulted by the respondent and his mother.

Regarding the documents and prescriptions submitted by the doctors, the counsel informed the bench that they were official records and no evidence was found to prove them as fabricated. The medical prescriptions and doctor’s evidence clearly indicate that the respondent was getting treated by Dr. Samantha and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

The respondent had purposely failed to complete his cross-examination, in order to avoid testifying in the witness box, thus leading to the conclusion of his testimony. The appellant was denied the marital bliss of physical relations due to the respondent’s incompetency, which itself constitutes cruelty. Furthermore, the respondent’s threat to commit suicide, as indicated by his consumption of “Baygon spray,” would also fall within the ambit of cruelty.

Although Dr. Samantha was not alive to testify, his medical records were authenticated by Dr. D.S. Arora, the Medical Superintendent, who confirmed the respondent’s treatment and diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Similarly, the absence of Dr. Abhyankar should not render the prescription as evidence invalid because another doctor had produced and authenticated the entire record. The most essential factor is the fact that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent lasted only five months, and they have been living separately for the past 13 years.

Respondent

The respondent in this case was Pankaj Pandit, the appellant’s husband and was represented by Mr. Dhruv Mehta. The learned counsel countered the grounds of divorce given by the appellant’s counsel by referencing the findings and decisions of both the Trial Court and the High Court, which were to dismiss the appellant’s appeal. He argued that merely proving that the respondent suffers from a mental disorder cannot be considered a sufficient ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. Instead, the appellant must show that the respondent’s behaviour due to the mental disorder is so severe that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. This cannot be considered to be fulfilled simply by proving that a mental disorder such as schizophrenia exists. It needs to be proven by showcasing the disorder’s seriousness and how it will act as a hindrance in the continuation of the marital relationship.

To support his argument, the counsel cited the case of Ram Narain Gupta vs. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta (1988), which emphasises that the degree of mental disorder must be such that it makes cohabitation unreasonable. Not all mental abnormalities justify the dissolution of a marriage; the disorder must reach a level where living together becomes impossible. This perspective was also upheld by the Karnataka High Court, the Calcutta High Court, and the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Moreover, in the case of Rakesh K. Gupta vs. Ram Gopal Agarwala & Ors. (2005), a custody battle was ongoing between the parents for the child. In this case, the Supreme Court granted custody of the child to the mother even though her husband had alleged of her suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. This indicates that a mere diagnosis of a disease cannot be considered as a sufficient grounds for a divorce decree.

According to the counsel, the evidence given by the appellant was inadequate to establish that the respondent was suffering from a mental illness. The doctors who supposedly treated the respondent were not called as witnesses, instead, the appellant produced prescriptions issued by these doctors, which were validated by the Medical Superintendent of Aashlok Hospital. This approach, the counsel claimed, did not clearly prove that the respondent was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, as required by statute. He emphasised that sub-clause (iii) of Section 13(1) requires proof that the appellant’s mental illness is so severe that he cannot fairly be expected to reside with the respondent. This concept of statutory interpretation assures that every word in the legislation is given full effect by the courts, as the Parliament does not waste words or say something in vain. To support his argument, he cited two decisions, Shin Etsu Chemical Company Ltd. vs. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. (2005) and Union of India vs. Popular Construction (2001).Thus, the counsel stated that since the appellant had failed to fulfil the statutory requirement, the appeal should fail.

As for the allegations of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, the counsel argued that the alleged behaviour must be serious and severe enough to make it unreasonable for the appellant to continue residing with the respondent in a marital relationship. Ordinary disputes and differences between spouses cannot be considered within the ambit of cruelty. For this, he cited the case of A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur (2004), in which it has been stated that for behaviour to be constituted under cruelty, it must reach such a level of intensity that no reasonable person would be able to endure it. After reviewing all the evidence presented, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the conduct complained of did not constitute cruelty and that the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) were not established. The Trial Court had the opportunity to view the respondent’s behaviour , and the decision taken by the court should not be reversed unless it is revealed to be irrational. The lawyer further emphasised the significance of preserving the matrimonial home, citing the case of Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002).

The counsel also addressed the appellant’s claim that she and the respondent had lived separately for 13 years and that this would warrant a divorce order. He argued that the claim was unjustified and should be rejected by the Supreme Court, citing the case of A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur to prove his point. He further stated that both the Trial Court and the High Court issued similar decisions and had rejected the appellant’s divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) of the Act. The counsel argued that as per Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should not intervene with the judgements of both courts unless they are proved to be irrational. The counsel further stated that the decisions were well-reasoned and were made on the basis of a comprehensive examination of the evidence presented. He cited the case of Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, where a similar situation had occurred and the Supreme Court decided not to interfere with concurrent findings of fact to further prove his point.

Laws discussed in Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006)

The case laws and provisions discussed within the case play an important role in reaching the conclusion. In order to understand and analyse the case, these provisions and case laws need to be understood beforehand. The provisions and cases referred to in this case law have been listed as follows:

Provisions

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 13 of the HMA, 1955 deals with divorce. As per this section, any authorised marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, through a petition brought by the husband or wife. The decree of divorce shall be provided for the following reasons:

Voluntary sexual intercourse with any any other person apart from the spouse after the authorisation of marriage
Treated the spouse with cruelty after authorisation of marriage
Abandoned the petitioner for a continuous period of two years or more prior to the petition being presented
Converted to another religion and stopped being a Hindu
has been permanently mentally ill or has suffered from a mental illness to the point where it is not reasonable for the petitioner to live with the respondent.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

This clause states that a spouse shall have the right to file for divorce via a petition, if the petitioner has been treated with cruelty by the respondent after the authorisation of marriage

Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

This clause states that a spouse shall have the right to file for divorce via a petition, if the respondent is suffering from an incurable unsound mind or suffering from a mental disease to the point where it is not reasonable for the petitioner to live with the respondent.

Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Article 136 of the Constitution constitutes the Supreme Court’s special leave to appeal. This means that any court or tribunal operating within Indian territory may be given special leave to appeal from any verdict on any subject at the discretion of the Supreme Court (excluding the military tribunal).

Case laws surrounding Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006)

Rajani vs. Subramonian (1988)

In this case, the Kerala High Court has stated that a charge of cruelty must be considered while keeping in mind a few factors. This includes the parties’ cultural past as well as economic, and social backgrounds. As per the current civilisation standards and the society’s cultural history and customs, a young and well-educated woman (such as the appellant herein), is not expected to bear domestic harassment, be it in any form, i.e., mental, physical, deliberate, or inadvertent. Her feelings must be acknowledged, her ambitions and aspirations have to be considered while making any adjustments, and her fundamental needs and rights have to be met, regardless of any complaints caused by behavioural differences. This belief in itself emphasises the fact that cruelty cannot be judged on its own, it has to be considered by going through the parties’ lifestyles and values.

Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane (1975)

In this case, the Supreme Court stated that its role as judge isn’t based on the criteria of an ideal husband or wife; rather, it is to address the specific issues between the two unique individuals involved. The court has noted the fact that perfect spouses, assuming that they do exist, would unlikely ever require any form of legal intervention in order to solve their marriage troubles. Even if these spouses clashed at times, their ideal characteristics would have allowed them to ignore or overcome their problems without the need for judicial intervention.Through this belief, the court highlighted the reality of dealing with actual, imperfect human relationships that are formed rather than the imaginary, perfect, flawless ones.

Rita Nijhawan vs Balakishan Nijhawan (1973)

In this case, the Delhi High Court has talked about the essential presence of sex in a marriage,and that a marriage would be unsustainable without it. The court emphasised the need for healthy and harmonious sexual engagement in keeping marriage alive. It even improves a woman’s mental and physical health. Lack of sexual fulfilment can hurt a marriage and result in despair and dissatisfaction. In this case, the court has recognised the fact that dissatisfaction in sexual interactions can become a cause of injury in marital relationships, and that sexual harmony is an essential requirement for a good marriage.

Alka vs. Abhinesh Chandra (1991)

In this case, the Court has discussed ‘mental disorder’ as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii). It specified that the mental disorder must be so severe that it makes it unreasonable for the appellant to live with the respondent. Particularly for young couples, if the mental disorder is such that sexual relations and procreation are impossible, this can be a valid reason to annul the marriage. This idea is based on the principle that one of the primary purposes of Hindu marriage is to have children, and the sanskar of marriage is advised for progeny and offspring.

Digvijay Singh vs. Pratap Kumari (1969)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a person shall be considered impotent if their mental or physical behaviour makes it highly unlikely for them to uphold their duties and consummate the marriage. According to the legislation, this condition must exist before marriage and be maintained until legal action is initiated. Therefore, if a spouse wants to secure an annulment decree, he/she has to establish the fact that the other spouse was impotent before the marriage and this behaviour continued even during the period the legal actions were initiated.

Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1988)

In this case, the Supreme Court has accepted that every case of alleged cruelty in marriage is distinct as the human behaviour is very diverse and unpredictable. The court emphasised that there isn’t a particular limit as to what comes within the ambit of cruelty and what doesn’t because new forms of cruelty might be formed. The form of cruelty depends on an individual’s behaviour and a person’s ability to bear the reported cruelty.

The court further highlighted the meaning of cruelty and its evolution in accordance with changing societal standards and personal circumstances. In any case where the spouse complains of cruelty, the court should not go by a fixed standard but rather assess the specific facts and circumstances of that certain case, i.e., the parties’ lifestyles, economic and social background, and cultural beliefs. Judges and attorneys are also required to refrain from imposing their own personal beliefs or relying heavily on the precedents, as there is a possibility of a generational gap between the judge and the parties concerned. Thus, the Supreme Court highlights the importance of recognising the unique circumstances of each and every case rather than taking the same approach to assess the situation in all cases.

Harbhajan Singh Monga vs Amarjeet Kaur (1985)

In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has stated that a spouse’s attempt to commit suicide shall be regarded as a form of cruelty on the other spouse.

Judgement in Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006)

The judgement was given by a division bench comprised of Judges Ruma Pal & Dr. AR. Lakshman.

After assessing the facts, circumstances, and human elements involved in the case, the court came to the conclusion that it had found sufficient grounds to approve the appeal and provide the appellant relief against the respondent. The Supreme Court further held that the decision taken by the lower court and High Court had caused considerable unfairness to the appellant and forced her to stay in a dead relationship with the respondent for more than 13 years. The Court recognised the appellant’s plight and deemed it acceptable to interfere under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, thus overturning the lower courts’ decisions.

The appeal was granted, and the appellant obtained a divorce decree against the respondent. The Trial Court and High Court’s decisions were overturned, with no costs imposed on the parties.

Rationale behind the Judgement

The division bench took into consideration the arguments made by the counsels of both parties, i.e., the respondent and the appellant and decided that the Trial Court had overlooked the appellant’s uncontested evidence, which supported the case on all counts. Medical doctors who had testified as witnesses and provided the respondent’s original medical record demonstrated beyond question that he suffers from a mental condition. Further grounds for divorce based on mental insanity/mental disease are distinct from cruelty. In the court’s opinion, the evidence demonstrated by the appellant beyond doubt proved that the respondent suffered from a mental condition and that the appellant was subjected to cruelty at the respondent’s hands.

The learned single Judge of the High Court had also failed to recognise that, in lack of any evidence presented by the respondent, the appellant’s evidence had to be relied on and that the decree for divorce was bound to be given in favour of the appellant. The appellant had also provided specific instances of cruelty, indicating she had reasonable reasons for her fear that residing with the respondent would be hurtful or dangerous for her.

With regard to legal opinions on the aspects of cruelty, the Court stated that mental cruelty can be more devastating than physical injury, and can become a cause for substantial concern in the wounded person. Mental cruelty has to be assessed by considering all the case facts and the nature of the marriage relationship. For an act to be termed cruelty, there must be deliberate treatment that causes bodily or mental pain, or the threat of such suffering that makes cohabitation hazardous or hurtful under the circumstances. The term ‘cruelty’ hasn’t been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct that is adversely affecting the other spouse. The conduct can be mental, physical, deliberate or accidental. In circumstances where the behaviour is prohibited, its impact on the other spouse does not need to be considered. A simple demonstration or acknowledgement of the action will be sufficient grounds to show cruelty. To further prove this point, the Court cited several cases, as stated above.

The Court has also kept several human aspects in mind before coming to a decision. This includes the fact that the appellant was only 24 years old when she was married and the marriage lasted for a maximum four to five years, after which she was ousted from her marital home. The marriage was never consummated because the respondent could not fulfil his matrimonial obligations.

The parties have stopped living together since 1993 and have had no contact for about 13 years. Both parties have reached a point of no return, any form of mutual settlement between them is not possible. The parties cannot simply forget their past issues and move forward; thus, any form of reconciliation is also not possible

The parties began the legal battle in 1994. The prolonged separation and present situation were a clear indication that the appellant and respondent can never live together as husband and wife and that continuing this marriage would be injurious to the appellant’s health. Another factor to be kept in mind is that the appellant has subsequently finished her PhD, but the respondent, as per the appellant, is unemployed. Furthermore, the respondent has shown disinterest in the legal proceedings by leaving his deposition unfinished and since hasn’t appeared before any court till date.

Given these factors, the court came to the conclusion that the marriage is irretrievably broken, thus necessitating a divorce between the parties in order to preserve the appellant’s well-being.

Analysis of the case

This case is a landmark in order to realise the fact that cruelty shall not necessarily be in the same form for everyone, while for some the instances shall be in the form of physical and for others in the form of mental. The Supreme Court has reinforced the idea that mental cruelty can be as important as physical cruelty and can even be considered an essential ground for divorce.

The case further reiterates that It’s important to consider each case’s distinct facts and circumstances when assessing the alleged claims of cruelty concerning matrimonial disputes. Cruelty differs for every individual and is based upon a lot of factors. These include financial background, cultural background, educational standard, etc. What may constitute cruelty might be termed normal behaviour for another individual. The case emphasises the need to consider the specific facts and circumstances in every case rather than taking a one-size-fits-all strategy.

In this case, the parties, Vinita Saxena (appellant) and Pankaj Pandit (respondent), were married in a Hindu ceremony on February 7, 1993. The marriage lasted for five months and was never consummated because of the respondent’s incapacity to carry out any marital duties. The appellant claimed that the respondent’s mother had subjected her to severe mental and physical abuse because of the respondent’s undisclosed mental illness, paranoid schizophrenia, which was identified and was being treated since before the marriage. The appellant discovered this after marriage, after seeing the ongoing medical treatment as well as the doctor’s prescription. On attempting to discuss her issues, she was brutally beaten by the respondent at the behest of his mother and later consumed “Baygon Spray” in an attempt to commit suicide.

Even after admitting the respondent to the hospital, the instances of physical abuse by the respondent, backed by his mother, continued and finally, it resulted in the appellant’s forceful expulsion from the marriage household on July 9, 1993.

Finally, Vinita Saxena filed for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, asserting mental and physical cruelty as well as the respondent’s mental illness. The Trial court had initially requested a medical examination of the defendant, but this decision was set aside by the High Court. Despite the appellant’s uncontested evidence, including the testimonies of several medical professionals as witnesses, as well as the respondent’s insufficient testimony, the Trial court decided to deny the divorce petition and dismissed her appeal. This decision was also upheld by the High Court. Dissatisfied with the decisions, the appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court via a special leave petition.

The Supreme Court allowed this appeal and a decree of divorce was given in favour of the appellant. The decision of the Trial Court affirmed by the High Court was set aside.

Judicial interpretation of cruelty in recent years

The term “cruelty” does not have a definite definition. The definition was open to interpretation as per the facts and circumstances of a particular case. If we look back over the years, each and every case has noted a distinct and important aspect of cruelty. Some of the important cases have been listed below:

Definition of cruelty is evolving

In the case of Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1988), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the test for determining cruelty is whether the conduct of the respondent is of such a nature that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.. The Court noted that the concept of cruelty is dynamic and cannot be defined with precision, acknowledging that its understanding evolves over time based on changing social norms and individual circumstances.

Cruelty can be both mental and physical

In the case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Supreme Court highlighted that cruelty in marriage can be both physical and psychological. Physical cruelty is judged according to the facts and gravity of the circumstance. For mental cruelty, the inquiry focuses first on the nature of the cruel behaviour and then on how it affects the spouse’s mental health. The main question is whether the treatment raised a reasonable concern that staying with the other spouse would be hurtful or dangerous. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.

Irretrievable break down of marriage will be considered as cruelty

In the case of Shri Rakesh Raman vs Smt. Kavita (2013), the Supreme Court found that a marriage that has become progressively hostile and clashing is cruel to both parties. Continuing such a marriage solely for appearances causes unfairness to both parties. When a marriage is irretrievably broken, it is cruel to both partners, since one suffers from the other. As a result, the court decided that an irretrievably broken marriage is a valid reason for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which includes cruelty as a basis for divorce.

Conclusion

This is an important case with regards to understanding the intricacies of mental cruelty and mental disease as grounds for divorce under Indian law. The case highlights the need of courts to properly examine the specific facts and circumstances of each case, rather than relying solely on precedents or personal beliefs. The changes in society necessitate a change in understanding these terms as well as what all can come within its ambit.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is cruelty as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Cruelty is defined as any marital act by one spouse that causes bodily, emotional, or economic agony on the other spouse. Cruelty is a subjective term and can evolve in accordance with time, location, or person, as well as the facts and circumstances of the particular case. So what we consider cruelty today might not be considered cruelty in the past, and what we do not consider now may become cruelty in the future. As a result, the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, purposely did not provide a definition to the term ‘cruelty’, leaving it within the hands of the Court to decide.

What forms of cruelty exist?

There are two types of cruelty. In the first form, when one spouse commits an act of violence that injures the other spouse’s body, arms, and legs, or well-being, this is deemed physical cruelty. The second form of abuse isn’t defined anywhere. It is left to the courts’ discretion, which is based on the facts and circumstances of each case, i.e., the social values, community, culture, status, thinking process, and surroundings of the person involved. Mental cruelty can take various forms, such as constant humiliation, verbal abuse, harassment, neglect, threats, or persistent indifference towards the well- being of the other spouse.

References

Makhan Singh Tarsikka vs. The State of Punjab (1963)

By

Vanshika Kapoor

-

August 26, 2024

0

This article is written by Monesh Mehndiratta. The article explains the case of Makhan Singh Tarsikka vs. The State of Punjab (1963). The article deals with a case where a person was served an order of detention while he was already in jail for alleged offences. The same order was challenged along with its service first in the High Court; however, the court dismissed the petition and then the appellant moved to the Supreme Court for the same.

Introduction

Have you ever heard that a person who is already in jail has been given another order of detention?

Do you think this is right?

You all must be wondering whether such an order of detention can be served while a person is already in jail.

Well, the answer is ‘no’. A person cannot be served an order of detention when he is already in jail due to pending criminal proceedings against him in an alleged offence. This was held by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the present case. The Supreme Court being the guardian of fundamental rights also paves way for justice where there is a grey area or lacuna in law.

In the present case, the court followed its approach and gave a judgement highlighting the invalidity of such an order. The present article explains the facts of the case, issues involved therein and the judgement of the court, along with the observation of judges. The appellant in the present case was represented by advocates R.K. Garg, S.C. Agarwal, M.K. Ramamurthi and D.P. Singh, while the respondent was represented by the then Senior Deputy Advocate General of Punjab and B.R.G.K. Achar. Let us understand the case in detail.

Details of the case

Name of the case

Makhan Singh Tarsikka vs. The State of Punjab (1963)

Citations

1964 AIR 1120, 1964 SCR (4) 932, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1120, 1964 SCD 201, 1964 SCD 201

Date of judgement

11th October, 1963

Bench

Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, Justice K. Subbarao, Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Justice J.C. Shah, Justice Raghubar Dayal

Name of the Petitioner

Makhan Singh Tarsikka

Name of the Respondent

State of Punjab

Law applied

Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.

Brief facts of the case

This appeal by special leave arose from the dismissal of the writ of habeas corpus filed by the appellant in the High Court of Punjab. The facts of the case provide that an FIR was filed at the Jandiala Police Station on 22nd October 1962, alleging that offences have been committed by some people, including the appellant, under Sections 307, 324, 364 and 367 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant was arrested on 25th October, 1962 and thereafter an emergency was declared by the then President. The appellant was then transferred to judicial custody in Amritsar and was allowed to be interviewed. He was then interviewed by 9 people. An order of detention was passed against him under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. He was then moved to the jail at Hissar and was again brought back to Amritsar. He challenged the said detention order by filing a writ petition on the ground that it was vague, concocted and false.

According to the said order, the appellant was detained due to him being indulged in activities prejudicial to the defence of the country by spreading propaganda against joining armed forces and civil defence forces and requesting people not to contribute and support the National Defence Fund. The appellant further urged that he was confined before the declaration of emergency and that the allegations against him are false and concocted. Another affidavit was filed by him regarding his political activities as a member of the Legislative Assembly being disliked by the higher authorities.

These affidavits filed by the appellant were challenged by the respondent, who argued that the appellant, during his interviews in jail, instigated people to commit certain prejudicial activities. On the other hand, the appellant contested that the order against him was malafide and that a criminal case was pending against him at that time and so the detaining authority cannot detain him under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The learned judge of the High Court rejected the contentions of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues involved in the case

Whether the service of an order of detention to the appellant is valid in the present case?
Whether the plea of malafide raised by the appellant in the present case will be acceptable by the court?

Contentions of the parties

Arguments of the appellant

The following arguments have been put forth by the appellant:

The counsel on behalf of the appellant contested that the service of order in question was illegal and relied on the judgement in the case of Rameshwar Shaw vs. The District Magistrate Burdwan & Another (1963). It was argued that Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1960 and Rule 30(1) of the sail rules are substantially similar and that the said judgement justifies the arguments that service of the order in question when the appellant was already in jail custody is outside the ambit of Rule 30(1).
The appellant also contended that the making of an order while the appellant is already in jail pursuant to pending proceedings against him is itself invalid and not justified.
The appellant, while contending that the respondent cannot take two actions at the same time against the appellant under two different statutes, relied on the case of Maledath Bharathan Malyali vs. The Commissioner of Police (1950). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in this case held that the State cannot pursue both rights at the same time if such rights, i.e., the right to investigate and the right to prosecute a person under ordinary criminal law and to detain under the Preventive Detention Act, 1960, are inconsistent and cannot be exercised together at the same time.

Arguments of the respondent

The respondent put forth the following arguments in the present case:

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that judgement of the court in the said case is not applicable in the present case. This is because even though the operative portion of said provisions is similar, the schemes of both of them are different. The eight clauses provided in Rule 30(1) provide that the detention can be ordered by authority along with different kinds of orders that can be passed. For example, clause (a) provides that a person can be asked to remove himself from India and can also be prohibited from returning to the country.
The respondent further argued that in the case of an undertrial prisoner who is entitled to be interviewed, there are chances for such a person to send messages and information indirectly and carry out prejudicial activities. This can only be stopped if such a person is detained under Rule 30(1)(b) of the said rules. Rule 13 of the Punjab Detenus Rules, 1950, allows interview of a detenu by a close relative in the presence of the police office so to prevent the appellant from missing the interviews and carrying out prejudicial activities through them while he is in jail custody, it was necessary to serve the said order of detention.

Judgement in Makhan Singh Tarsikka vs. The State of Punjab (1963)

Issue wise judgement of the court

Whether the service of order of detention to the appellant is valid in the present case?

With respect to the order of detention, the court held that the service of the order of detention in the present case is invalid and outside the ambit of Rule 30(1)(b) of the said rules. Hence, it was directed that the appellant be released.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that in the case of Rameshwar Shaw’s case, the court considered the question of whether such an order of detention be made against a person who is already in jail custody. It was held that proximity of time has to be considered and the question can be answered only on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. The court stated that it must be proved that if such an order of detention is not served on the person, he is likely to indulge in prejudicial activities.

Whether the plea of malafide raised by the appellant in the present case is acceptable by the court?

The court in this case rejected the contentions of the appellant and his plea of malafide on the ground that the plea was against the chief minister of Punjab and could not be proved satisfactorily by the appellant and could not be justified. It was also held that the plea of malafides must be made through proper pleadings at the stage of trial so that it can be met by the respondent. This is the reason the court refused to express any opinion on the merits of such a plea.

Rationale behind the judgement

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that in Rameshwar Shaw’s case, the court considered the question of whether such an order of detention be made against a person who is already in jail custody. It was held that proximity of time has to be considered and the question can be answered only on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case.

The court in the present case further observed that according to Rule 30(1)(b) of the said rules, an order can be made only where it can be proved that the person concerned is able to carry on prejudicial activities, i.e., he would be free to carry on such activities if the order of detention is not served. However, in the present case, the appellant was already in jail custody and such freedom cannot be predicated here. Thus, the distinction that the respondent tried to make between the rule and Section 3(1)(a) could not be accepted. The court observed that service of such an order of detention on a person who is already in jail custody would lead to double detention, which is outside the ambit of the above provisions and rules.

The court also rejected the contentions of respondents regarding the difference of scheme in Rule 30(1)(b) and Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The court also observed that if the authority is willing to detain any person, it must be shown that if the order is not served, the concerned person can carry out prejudicial activities. The court observed that they were told that the criminal case against the appellant that was pending was transferred from Amritsar to a court in Uttar Pradesh and that the court also allowed his bail. So, the appropriate authority might be under an apprehension that the appellant would proceed with the bail application.

Moreover, when a person is already in jail custody due to pending criminal proceedings, the authority might think that such proceedings would end soon and terminate, leading to the acquittal of the person concerned. In such a situation, the authority can make an order to detain the person if the conditions of detention under the said rules are satisfied and serve the same on the person after he is acquitted in the pending proceedings. The court further discussed the difference between the suspension of right under Article 358 of the Constitution and suspension of enforcement under Article 359 during a proclamation. It was observed that it might seem that the suspension of fundamental rights and suspension of enforceability has the same effect as that of suspension of rights per se, but this is false. In the case of the right to move to court for enforcement which is suspended, the rights still remain alive theoretically.

Analysis of Makhan Singh Tarsikka vs. The State of Punjab (1963)

In simple words, the case pertains to a situation where a person has been arrested for allegedly committing an offence under different sections and detained in the jail. While he is a detenu in a jail, he is interviewed by some people and then served an order of detention by some other authority under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, for spreading propaganda against the country and inciting people to commit prejudicial activities. This order has been served while he is already in jail.

The court in this case rightly held the service of such an order invalid. According to the rules and laws in this regard, such an order can be served if certain conditions are fulfilled. However, in this case, the court rightly observed that if this order had to be served, it must have been served after the acquittal of the appellant. Before serving the order, it must be proved that if such an order is served, the person would carry out prejudicial activities. However, in the present case, the appellant upon whom the order was served was already in jail and could not have carried out such activities while being in jail. The service of such an order upon the appellant while he is already in custody is unfair and this has been correctly pointed out by the court and the service of order was held to be invalid.

Another observation that the court gave was regarding the plea of malafide and the stage when it can be raised. The court, while rejecting the plea of malafide raised by the appellant against the Chief Minister, stated that such a plea must be raised through proper pleadings at the stage of trial. However, in this case, the plea was raised in the present petition before the court and it was not proved satisfactorily by the appellant. The court in the case, following its rightful approach, cleared the confusion between two similar provisions, i.e., Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and also provided the stage at which the plea of malafide can be raised, which marks the significance of the present case.

Aftermath of the case

Personal liberty has become the concern of courts and citizens after such incidents similar to the present case raised to a certain level. It was necessary to take up the issue and cover the grey area. The first test case on the issue of personal liberty and detention is the case of A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras (1950). The Supreme Court in this case gave a landmark ruling on the concept of personal liberty. The court remarked that by incorporating the expression ‘procedure established by law’, the Constitution has embodied the British concept of personal liberty.

While comparing English and Indian system of law regarding the remedy of habeas corpus, one of the eminent jurists opined that this remedy remains available in principle to the Detenues though the power of judges is curtailed in the cases of emergency. On the other hand, the power of judges in India in cases of habeas corpus is limited and cut down to emergency level. In case of a proper emergency under Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution, the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended entirely.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court overturned the decision in the A.K. Gopalan heldGopalan held that the notion of personal liberty under Article 21 is wider in nature and includes many other rights, some of which are incorporated under Article 19. It was held that any law coming under Article 21 must also satisfy Article 19. Thus, any law or procedure depriving a person of life or liberty would be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary. The honourable court further in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) held that any procedure depriving a person of his life or liberty must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary in nature.

The procedure depriving a person of his fundamental rights, must also conform to the norms of fair play and justice. This was held in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985). The scope of personal liberty has been expanded from time to time by the courts through different landmark judgements and rulings. This also widened the scope of Article 21 to include rights such as right to privacy, right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to shelter, right to choose partner, right against illegal detention, right to health and medical assistance, etc under its ambit.

However, during an emergency (national emergency, state emergency or financial emergency), certain fundamental rights can be suspended but not all can be suspended or restricted. For example, Article 20 and 21 cannot be compromised even in cases of emergency. One of the most criticised judgments in this regard was given in the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976). The court in this case held that the rights given under Article 21 can be suspended and courts cannot interfere with the detention of people under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) in cases of emergency. The case was, however, overruled, in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018) where the Supreme Court recognised Right to privacy as a part of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution..

Conclusion

The above-mentioned judgement rightly pointed out the mistake of the appropriate authority in serving the order of detention on a person who has already been kept in jail custody while the order was served. The appropriate authority took the stance that it was necessary to do so as provided under the above-mentioned rules. However, it did not take into consideration that if done so, it would mean that the appellant would be punished twice.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, pointed out the lacuna and also highlighted that the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, are different from each other. We all have heard about double jeopardy, which means that no person can be punished twice for an offence. In the present case, the order of allowed would have led to double detention, which would also lead to a violation of fundamental rights of the appellant. Thus, the Supreme Court has been correct in taking this approach while dealing with the present case.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the objective of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950?

The objective of the Act is to provide preventive detention to people in certain cases in order to prevent them from committing a crime.

What are different types of writs?

The 5 different types of writs are:

Habeas corpus;
Mandamus;
Certiorari;
Prohibition; and
Quo-warranto.

When can the writ of habeas corpus be filed?

The writ of habeas corpus can be filed in the following situations:

Where a person has been detained illegally;
In cases of unlawful arrest;
Where imprisonment has been ordered without following the due process;
Detention exceeds the period for which it was given.

References

IPR and human rights

By

Vanshika Kapoor

-

August 26, 2024

0

This article is written by Gautam Badlani. This article explains the concept of Intellectual Property Rights and human rights along with their importance and significance in todays’ contemporary times. Further, it provides a detailed analysis of the overlapping conflicts between intellectual property rights and human rights.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is one of the most important aspects in today’s advanced and fast-paced world. Individuals, as well as businesses, seek IPR protection for their innovative ideas and works. Various governments across the world have launched several initiatives to boost IPR registrations in their nations. IPR is often termed as a negative right as they prevent individuals from exploiting the innovative works of others.

Human rights are the basic rights that are inalienable (which cannot be taken away) and essential for all living beings. Presently, governments across the world are attempting to strike a delicate balance between the economic aspects of IPR and the ethical aspects of human rights.

Importance of IPR

Intellectual property rights aim to strike a balance between the economic interests of the innovators and the larger interests of society. The underlying principle of IPRs is that the innovators should not only receive recognition for their novel creations, but their right to draw monetary benefits out of such novel inventions should also be safeguarded. IPR rights incentivize the disbursement and publication of information to the public rather than keeping it a secret. The promotion of IPR also boosts the economy and helps create new jobs.

Types of IPR

There are five major forms of IPR protection.

Trademark

A trademark is a sign or symbol which a company uses to distinguish its products or services from those of its competitors. Trademarks may be in the form of a shape, design, symbol, phrase or colour scheme. Trademarks are used to protect a class of goods or services.

The key legislation dealing with trademarks in India is the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It defines a trademark as a mark that is capable of graphical representation and distinguishing goods or services of one entity from those of others.

Patents

A patent is used to protect an invention, which may be a product or a process. The patent gives the patent-holder the exclusive right to exploit the invention economically. One of the essential requirements of a patent is that it must be a novel creation. The Patents Act, 1970 provides that in order to be patentable, an invention must be novel, involve an innovative step and must be capable of industrial application.

Copyright

Copyright is used to protect literary, artistic, dramatic and musical works. It protects tangible creations and is often considered as a bundle of rights as it protects the right to sell, right to reproduce, right to communicate to the public and right to adapt and translate. The Copyright Act, 1957 provides that a copyright is an exclusive right granted to authors in respect of their literary, artistic, dramatic or musical works to perform that work in public, reproduce the work, make copies of the work, make translation of the work or any adaptation of the work.

Trade secret

Trade secrets refer to the confidential information of businesses that are not intended for unauthorised commercial use by others. It often includes business strategies, technical information or manufacturing processes.

In India, there is no specific legislation which deals with trade secrets. However, trade secrets are protected by Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which provides a five-year imprisonment for criminal breach of trust under Section 316. Moreover, corporations may also enter into Non-Disclosure Agreements to protect their trade secrets. The trade secrets are also governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872 under Section 27, which states that parties cannot disclose any confidential information which is contrary to the contract terms (e.g. Non-Disclosure Agreement).

Geographical Indication

Geographical indication is governed by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act,1999. It provides that a geographical indication is an indication which identifies the goods as natural or agricultural goods or goods of a particular geographical origin or goods manufactured in a particular territory. The geographical indication mark is granted in respect of those goods where a particular quality, reputation or other characteristic is attributable to the place of origin of the goods.

Theories of IPR

Some of the key theories of IPR that have developed in the international forum over a period of several years are property rights theory, utilitarian theory, deterrence theory and instrumentalist theory.

Property rights theory

This theory believes that men have the right to own the products of their labour. This gives rise to property ownership. Ownership is defined as a bundle of rights that include several rights, such as the right to use, the right to exclude others, and the right to exploit the product for economic gains. Since intellectual property work is the result of IPR holders’ labour, the registered holder has ownership over the work. This theory also conceptualises that the product of an individual’s labour is actually a manifestation of that individual itself.

Utilitarian theory

This theory provides an alternate perspective to the over-emphasis given on individual benefits by the property rights theory. The utilitarian theory emphasises that the protection afforded by IPR should uplift economic progress along with cultural progress. The IPR acts as a reward for individuals for contributing to the growth of science, art, and technology. This theory focuses on the outcome of the inventions and the impact that it has on the overall welfare of society.

Instrumentalist theory

This theory tries to balance the rights of the IPR holder and the users of the innovation that is protected. It states that the human rights of the users of the protected knowledge should be protected while enforcing the IPR. For example, knowledge related to medicines or climate change should be protected only to the extent that it does not impede the overall good of society.

Ethic and reward theory

This theory provides that IPR is a reward and acknowledgement of the contribution of the creator of the innovative work for contributing something to society. As a part of the reward, others are excluded from using the same work or methodology once it is made publicly available.

Human rights

Human rights, often referred to as natural rights, are the basic rights which every individual is entitled to. These essential rights are entitled to all individuals from birth. The principle of human rights is that everyone is equal in rights and dignity. The concept of human rights gained prominence in the international sphere after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Right, 1948.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines human rights as those rights which relate to life, liberty, dignity or equality of individuals and are guaranteed in the Indian Constitution or are incorporated in international covenants which are enforceable by the Indian courts.

The most influential document concerning human rights in contemporary times is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 27.1 of the UDHR states that all people have the right to enjoy the arts and participate in the cultural life of the community. People have a right to share in scientific advancements and developments. However, Article 27.2 states that all people have a right to secure the moral and economic interests resulting from their scientific, literary, and artistic creations. Thus, an overlap between human rights and IPR is apparent upon a bare reading of Article 27 of UDHR.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR) provides that all people have a right to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families. It includes access to adequate food, clothing and shelter. The ICESCR had established cultural and social rights as a part of human rights. However, Article 15 of the ICESCR states that individuals who make specific intellectual contributions to society must be rewarded. Moreover, another drawback of the covenant is that it lacks a comprehensive definition of cultural and social rights.

The Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind, 1975 provides that all the states should cooperate in the development of scientific and technological capacities of the developing nations with a view to safeguard the economic and social rights of the people of these nations.

Origin of human rights in India

Human rights in Indian society can be traced back to the days of the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda declared that all human beings are equal and are entitled to dignified and respectful treatment. The Atharva Veda also emphasised this principle. These texts stated that it is the duty of every individual to respect the rights of other individuals. Moreover, the Buddha’s teachings also played a key role in the recognition of human rights in India. King Ashoka, by following the principles enshrined by Buddha, built a welfare state for his subjects.

However, human rights in India were severely curtailed during British rule. The British took away many rights of the Indians. Indians were subject to arbitrary arrests and taxes at the hands of the British Government. We can see that the makers of our Constitution have carefully incorporated many human rights in the Constitution in the form of Fundamental Rights. The right to life and liberty is safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution, right to speech and expression is safeguarded under Article 19 of the Constitution and right to equality is guaranteed by Article 14.

Types of human rights

There are various types of human rights such as economic, civil, cultural and political rights.

Civil rights

These include the right to life, liberty and privacy. People have a right to be protected against slavery, torture, arbitrary governance and servitude. No one should be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment.

Political rights

People have a right to participate in the political processes of their nations. They should be entitled to equality before the law and should have the right to seek judicial redress against any arbitrary detention or arrest. Political rights also include the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech and expression.

Economic rights

The state should provide social security, the right to equal pay and the right to form trade unions to all the workers. People should have a right to enjoy an adequate standard of living, food and nutrition.

Cultural rights

Everyone has a right to share in the scientific and technological advancements of the society and to participate in the cultural life of the community. They have a right to protect their moral and material interests arising out of any literary, cultural or artistic work or creation.

Difference between IPR and human rights

Basis of Distinctions	IPR	Human Rights
Definition	Intellectual Property Rights are the rights which are given to a person over his literary, artistic, musical, cinematographic, dramatic or scientific works.	Human rights are the rights which are inherent to all human beings irrespective of their religion, race, gender or nationality.
Coverage	IPR includes the right to use, reproduce, adapt, translate and perform the creative or innovative work over which the IPR protection is obtained.	Human rights include cultural rights, political rights, economic rights and civil rights.
Nature	IPR are negative rights as they prevent other individuals from using or reproducing the works of the IPR holder.	Human rights can be both positive and negative. The positive rights include the right to work, food and nutrition. The state has to take steps to ensure that no person is denied these basic rights. Negative human rights are the right to life and liberty. The state cannot act in an arbitrary manner and infringe the right of others to enjoy a dignified life.

Conflicts between IPR and human rights

After the commencement of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), many conflicts between IPR and human rights came to the forefront. Pharmaceutical patenting and the inflation in the prices of medicines, the patenting of traditional knowledge, the rights of the indigenous people and the increasing prices of food and beverages were some of the few areas where IPR were seen as enabling the breach of human rights.

The conflict between human rights and IPR has largely divided the world into two groups. One group, which is dominated by the industrialised and developed nations, maintains that a strong IPR regime is necessary to encourage growth and development. On the other hand, developing nations contest strong IPR laws on three grounds. Firstly, they argue that the benefits of IPR laws are long-term, but in the short term, they raise the cost of development. Secondly, very few countries have the infrastructure to support a strong IPR regime. Thirdly, most of the patents are secured by developed countries, and a strong IPR regime will serve the interests of the developed nations at the cost of the standard of living of the common men in developing countries.

Resolution of the conflict

In order to resolve the conflicts between human rights and various IPR laws, the international community has evolved a number of mechanisms such as compulsory licensing and the fair use doctrine. These help in striking a balance between IPR and human rights and prevent potential overlapping.

Compulsory licensing

Under the compulsory licence system, the government can authorise a licensee to use or manufacture a patented product without the patent holder’s consent upon the payment of a predetermined fee to the patent holder. This provision is often used by governments to authorise the production of life-saving drugs, where the patent-holders attempt to maximise their profits by restricting the production or are hesitant to grant licences even when they are unable to meet the market demand.

Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement envisages the right of the member countries to grant compulsory licences. Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that states should give due concern to public health while framing laws relating to patents. Section 84 of the Patent Act, 1970, deals with the compulsory licensing of patents.

Compulsory licensing is opposed by the pharmaceutical companies on two grounds. Firstly, these companies spend huge amounts on research and development and are able to manufacture new and effective drugs. If compulsory licences are issued for these drugs, this would undermine innovation as the companies will not be adequately compensated for the costs incurred in research. Secondly, if a rival competitor is allowed to manufacture the drug, then it may reverse engineer the drug and determine its formulae, which will further scuffle competition in the industry.

The developing countries had heavily lobbied for relaxation in the strict norms of the TRIPS Agreement during the Doha Conference of 2001. The arguments of the developing countries were largely related to the rights of poor people who are unable to buy expensive medicines. Ultimately, the Doha Conference resulted in major relaxations and flexibilities in the issuance of compulsory licences.

Fair use doctrine

The fair use doctrine permits limited use of a copyrighted work without the requirement of obtaining the prior permission of the copyright holder. It is through this doctrine that copyrighted work can be used for the purposes of education even without the consent of the copyright holder. Article 26 of the UDHR declares that all individuals have a right to receive education. Thus, the fair use doctrine can be used for reproducing copyrighted material for non-commercial educational purposes.

Emergency

Many countries have enacted laws that allow the government to override patents under certain public emergency circumstances. For instance, Chapter 17 of the Patent Act, 1990 in Australia authorises the Australian government to override patented innovations for Crown purposes. Similarly, in Canada, the government can sell and use patented products in order to deal with public health emergencies.

Impact of IPR on human rights

IPR laws aim to strike a balance between the rights of the IPR holder and the interests of the larger society. Thus, there are several intersections between human rights and IPR. For instance, in the field of medical technology, on the one hand, there is a need to ensure the cost-effective availability of medicines, and on the other hand, there is a need to reward the companies that spend huge amounts of money in developing new life-saving medicines.

Human rights and patent law

Patent law and health

Many pharmaceutical companies secure patent rights over life-saving medicines and drugs. Through patent protection, they gain control over the manufacture and production of the medicines and are thus able to dictate the market prices of the medicines. In many cases, the prices of life-saving drugs are inflated beyond the reach of the common man, and thus, governments are called upon to check the patent-induced dominance of pharmaceutical companies.

The World Trade Organization (WTO), in its Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health, pointed out that the TRIPS Agreement should be interpreted and implemented in consonance with the right of the member countries to protect public health and promote access to medicines. The WTO further declared that in order to protect public health, all member states reserve the right to issue compulsory licences.

Indian context

In India, the right to health is a fundamental right which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, Article 39 states that the State should take steps to encourage that all citizens have an equal right to adequate means of livelihood and that the material resources of the community are distributed in a manner to ensure the common good. Article 47 of the Constitution provides that the raising of the standard of living and public health shall be among the primary duties of the state.

Thus, the state is under a constitutional obligation to safeguard public health. At the same time, the Patent Act, 1970, allows the patenting of pharmaceutical inventions. Many human rights experts believe that strict patent rules could place essential medicines beyond the reach of the common man due to skyrocketing prices.

In the landmark case of Bayer Corporation vs. Union of India (2014), the Bombay High Court had pointed out that patents should not be used as an instrument to impede public health and medicines should be made available to the public at reasonably affordable prices.

Gene patenting

Gene patenting is another issue in which there is an apparent conflict between IPR and human rights. Those who advocate for the patentability of genes argue that the patenting of genes will help foster and advance research in this field.

On the other hand, some people believe that genes represent human dignity, and permitting their patenting will be a violation of human rights. Moreover, gene patenting implies the use of human beings as commodities. Genes are considered to be a common heritage, and no person or corporation can claim a monopoly over them. If gene commercialization is permitted, then it will deter scientists from sharing data within the community, which would hinder the advancement of medical sciences.

The concept of gene patenting was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in the landmark case of Diamond vs. Chakrabarty (1980), in which the court held that a genetically developed bacteria which is capable of cleaning oil spills by degradation of crude oil was patentable. The court held that while nature in its natural state cannot be patented, goods that have been transformed from their natural state through any human intervention can be patented.

Gene patenting is often opposed on the grounds that genes are part of the common heritage of humanity. On the other hand, supporters of gene patentability argue that genes are like any other tangible property and, thus, should be patentable. This line of argument follows that all tangible objects have a natural form as their physical basis, and if their natural form can be patented, then genes should also be patentable in their natural form. They also advocate for an experimental exemption to gene patents in order to resolve the disputes and issues arising out of gene patentability. A religious critique of gene patentability is that patenting would reduce genes to commodities whose value will be determined on the basis of commercial considerations.

Indian status

In India, Section 3 of the Patents Act prohibits the patenting of natural occurrences, whether in living organisms or non-living substances. This Section also prohibits the patenting of plants or animals. Since the patent law exempts only plants and animals as a whole, the question about the patentability of genes was left unclear.

In India, genes can be patented if they are novel and non-obvious. An invention is said to be novel if it has not been published anywhere else. In the case of genes, an invention is considered to be obvious if it is motivated by any prior discovery or a prior invention or knowledge that aided the creation of the new biotechnological invention.

IPR and indigenous rights

At the international level, it has been recognized that the protection of the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities is an issue that needs to be addressed. However, a global consensus on this issue is yet to be reached.

In many cases, large corporations have sought patents for inventions based on traditional knowledge. Thus, they attempt to reap profits from the efforts of the indigenous communities. The corporations do not provide a share of the profit to the indigenous people.

Many countries have enacted domestic legislation to protect the knowledge of their indigenous communities. For example, Peru’s Law 27811 provides for the collection and registration of the traditional knowledge of the indigenous communities.

Human rights and copyright law

Copyright laws also have a significant impact on human rights. Copyright laws can affect the availability of scholarly data for students and the knowledge of the indigenous communities.

Copyrights and education

Copyright laws can have a significant impact on the availability of research data and material for educational purposes. Many academic journals are beyond the reach of the common man because they are highly expensive. Corporations often obtain copyright over scholarly work, and this has the effect of inflating the prices of the work.

Human rights and trade mark law

Trademark legislation has also been influenced by human rights concerns. Under Indian trademark law, any mark can be registered as a trademark if it has a distinctive character. The name of a person may also be registered as a trademark. The Trade Marks Act, unlike the Trade and Merchandise Act of 1958, does not prohibit the registration of a name as a trademark.

However, in some cases, the Trademark Registry may refuse to register a name as a trade mark, particularly if it is a famous name or is similar to the name of a celebrity. Moreover, in other countries, such as the UK, the registry has, in some cases, refused to permit celebrities to register their name as a trademark.

However, the refusal to permit the registration of a name as a trademark may be challenged from the perspective of human rights. Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights, 1950, provides that every natural person has a right to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. A person’s name also qualifies as a possession, and refusal to register the name as a trade mark may be deemed as the denial of the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions.

Conclusion

Corporations across the world are spending huge chunks of money on research and development. The number of IPR applications is also increasing at a drastic rate worldwide. With the development of technology, there will be more areas of potential conflict between human rights and IPR in the future. The rights of the farmers and the indigenous people should be included within the definition of social and cultural rights and should be embodied within the domain of ICECSR.

In order to strike a balance between the commercial interests protected by IPR and the ethical concerns embodied in human rights, various doctrines and principles have evolved within the legal jurisprudence. These provisions aim to safeguard the common good from the potential exploitation by IPR holders.

However, a generic resistance at the international level is apparent on the issue of widening the scope of human rights. This is primarily due to the fact that rights involve a reciprocal duty, and in the case of human rights, the reciprocal duty falls on the state. The states are reluctant to widen the scope of their obligations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are genes a part of common heritage?

The patenting of genes is often opposed on the ground that it is a part of the common heritage of the entire human race. The UNESCO Declaration on the Protection of the Human Genome and Human Rights has stated that the human genome represents the underlying unity of all human beings and also recognizes their inherent diversity. Thus, it is a part of the common heritage of humanity. Moreover, it also states that the human genome, in its natural state, should not be made an instrument of financial gains.

What happens if a nation violates the terms of the TRIPS Agreement?

If a nation is found violating the terms of the TRIPS Agreement, then other nations can file a complaint with the WTO, which will put in motion the dispute settlement system of the WTO. Thereafter, the WTO panels and the appellate body will issue rulings to the defaulting nations, and failure to comply with these rulings may result in trade sanctions.

References

Section 5 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

By

Vanshika Kapoor

-

August 26, 2024

0

This article has been written by Priyanka Jain. It dives deep into the concept of bill of exchange under Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The article explores the meaning, essential ingredients, features, and types of bill of exchange. It also distinguishes bills of exchange from other negotiable instruments like cheques and promissory notes, highlighting their relevance in the modern mercantile landscape.

Table of Contents

Introduction

In the dynamic world of economic transactions, nearly every moment is fueled by some kind of financial transaction or exchange of money. From the morning cup of tea and the daily newspaper to groceries and electronics, and from birth to death, everything requires money to be carried out effectively. In other words, money is the lifeblood that keeps everything running. Therefore, in order to facilitate these transactions or exchanges, we rely on specific tools or documents known as negotiable instruments. These instruments serve as a promise that a certain payment will be made to a specified person, allowing the holder to receive funds in cash or transfer them to any other person.

There are three types of negotiable instruments: promissory notes, cheques, and bills of exchange. This article focuses on the bill of exchange, an important financial document for not only domestic but also international scenarios. Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines ‘bill of exchange’ and highlights its significance. It also discusses the essential compliances necessary to make it enforceable, such as being in writing, signed by the maker, and being unconditional, among others. This article delves into the meaning of ‘bill of exchange,’ its essential ingredients, legal machinery, its distinction from other negotiable instruments, and its practical use in both national as well as cross-border transactions.

Section 5 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881, defines a ‘bill of exchange’. In general terms, a ‘bill of exchange’ is understood as a type of negotiable instrument. It is a written agreement between a drawer and a drawee. Initially and widely used in international markets, it states that the drawee has agreed to pay a certain sum of money to the payee in lieu of the goods or services provided. A bill of exchange is an order to pay. It is a written negotiable instrument that contains an unconditional order to pay a specified amount to the holder of the instrument, as written by the maker of the bill of exchange. In a bill of exchange, the maker/drawer directs another person (the drawee) to pay the ordered amount to the specified person (the payee).

According to Section 5, a ‘bill of exchange’ is an instrument in writing that consists of an unconditional order to pay a specified amount. This is an instrument where one person directs another person to pay the amount of money specified in the ‘bill of exchange’. As specified above, this order must be unconditional and signed by the person making the request. The payment can be made either to a named person, to someone they choose, or to anyone who holds the document.

Features of a bill of exchange

A bill of exchange is a financial document issued by a creditor or beneficiary directing a debtor or buyer in the course of business to pay a fixed amount within a specific time period. The document should be clearly titled ‘bill of exchange’ which should be written on the top of the document. It should also include a unique identification number.

Following are some of the features of a bill of exchange:

It should be in writing;
It must include an unconditional order to pay;
It must be signed by the maker;
It can be an order instrument or a bearer instrument;
The sum payable must be ‘certain,’ i.e., it must be clearly stated in both words and in numerals;
The parties to the bill of exchange should be certain. One party can act as both the drawer and the payee. According to the Section 31 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, in no case can the bill of exchange be made payable to bearer on demand;
The document must specify the agreed timeline for payment;
It should be duly signed.

Essential ingredients

As per the language of Section 5, there are several crucial key terms that form the basis of a bill of exchange. These are its essential ingredients, which are basically conditions that must be fulfilled for a negotiable instrument to be defined as a bill of exchange. These essential ingredients are as follows:

Written instrument: The bill of exchange must be an instrument in writing that includes an order of payment.
Unconditional order: The order must be unconditional in the sense that it directs the payment of a certain amount of money to the relevant person without any additional conditions. The payment is to be made without any further conditions, paperwork, or additional actions. For example, the person in possession of the instrument cannot compel the person who has to pay the specified amount to perform any additional actions like obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC), clearing TDS, or paying further surcharges.

Further, as per the proviso, if the payment or any part of the payment is due after a certain period following the occurrence of an event that is expected by everyone to happen, regardless of the exact timing, then it is not considered a conditional bill of exchange. For instance, if the bill of exchange states, ‘Pay Mr. Alex Rs. 5,00,000/- thirty days after the arrival of 1,000 units of pharmaceutical gloves at the Kandla Port,’ it remains unconditional. Although the exact time of arrival is uncertain, the arrival of 1,000 units of pharmaceutical gloves at the Kandla Port is certain. The payment is due after the completion of thirty days.

Certain person: The term ‘certain person’ as mentioned in this Section and Section 4 refers to the intended recipient of the payment, even if identified by description rather than name, or if their name is misspelt. This term has two meanings:

The person to whom the payment is directed. This could be the person named on the instrument or a third party.
The person who has the obligation to make the payment as specified in the bill of exchange.

On a reading of the proviso to Section 5, it becomes evident that the Section clearly states that if the name of the person is misspelt or if they are directed by way of a description, such as ‘manager,’ and it is clear who should receive the money, then the person so directed is considered a ‘certain’ person.

Bearer of the instrument: A bearer is any person who holds the bill of exchange, regardless of whether their name is specified. They can demand payment from the person directed to pay.
Signed: The instrument must be signed by the maker.
Certain sum: The amount to be paid is considered certain even if it includes future interest or is payable at an indicated exchange rate. In the event of a default in payment, meaning that if one payment is missed, the unpaid balance becomes due immediately.

Parties to a bill of exchange

A bill of exchange primarily involves the following three parties, as per Section 7:

Drawer: The drawer is the party who creates the instrument, i.e., the bill of exchange. They specify the amount to be paid, the date of payment, and the person who will receive the payment.
Drawee: The drawee is the person or entity on whom the bill of exchange is drawn. They are directed to make the payment. When the drawee accepts the bill of exchange, they become the acceptor and are legally obligated to pay the specified amount.
Payee: The payee is the person named in the bill of exchange who will receive the payment once the bill of exchange is executed.

Typically, a bill of exchange involves these three parties. The drawer and payee are often the same person, unless the drawer transfers the bill to a third party. In such cases, the third party becomes the payee. The drawer is responsible for binding the drawee to make the payment to the payee.

In addition to these primary parties, other roles can be involved in the course of business transactions, which are as follows:

Endorser: The endorser is the person who transfers their right to receive payment to another party by endorsing the bill of exchange.
Endorsee: The endorsee is the person to whom the bill of exchange is transferred by the endorser and who now holds the right to receive payment.
Bearer: The bearer is the person who holds the bill of exchange and can demand payment, even if their name is not specified.

Examples of a bill of exchange

Bank draft

A bank draft, also known as a demand draft, is a type of bill of exchange where a bank is the drawer and instructs another bank or its branch to pay a specified sum to the payee. It is used in those business transactions where the payee requires a guarantee of payment for huge transactions to avoid risks.

Trade draft

Trade is the buying and selling of goods. A trade draft is a bill of exchange drawn by a seller (the drawer) on a buyer (the drawee) for the payment of goods or services sold. It is commonly used in both domestic and international trade. It ensures that the seller receives payment after delivering the goods or services.

Sight draft

A sight draft is a bill of exchange that is payable immediately upon sight or presentation to the drawee. It does not specify a future date for payment and is commonly used when the drawer requires immediate payment upon the draft’s presentation. This is often in shipping transactions where payment is required upon delivery. This definition aligns with Section 21 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which states that the expression ‘at sight’ means the instrument is payable on demand.

Kinds of bill of exchange

The term ‘kinds of bill of exchange’ refers to classifications based on essential characteristics and the conditions under which they are issued and paid. These classifications help determine the primary purpose and usage of a bill of exchange. Key factors include timing, nature of transaction, location, payment, and associated documentation to determine the primary purpose of the bill of exchange.

In other words, different kinds of bill of exchange focus on broader classifications based on various factors, which are as follows:

Time of payment: This classification is based on when the bill of exchange is payable. For example, if a bill of exchange is drawn on June 1, 2024 and is payable one month later, the payment date would be July 1, 2024. However, it must be noted that the payment date may be subject to grace periods or public holidays.
Place of making or drawing and place of payment: This classification concerns whether the bill of exchange is to be paid at the place where it was drawn or at a different location, including foreign countries.
Transaction: This classification is based on the nature of the underlying transaction, It can involve the sale of goods or services, or it may be used to provide financial support to the drawee. The bill of exchange may not always involve an immediate exchange of goods or services but may be used to enhance the drawee’s credits.
Documentation: This classification considers whether the bill of exchange is accompanied by supporting documents such as bill of lading or invoice. It can be further divided into ‘document against acceptance’ and ‘document against payment’.
Demand: This classification is used when a bill of exchange is payable only upon presentation and does not have a fixed date of payment. The Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India are the only ones authorised to issue bills of exchange that are payable on demand.
Supply: This classification is widely used in governmental transactions where goods are supplied to the government by a supplier or contractor.

Types of bill of exchange

The following are the types of bill of exchange, categorised based on specific conditions and uses:

Sight Bill: Payment becomes due immediately upon presentation of the bill of exchange.
Time Bill (or Usance Bill): Payment is due at a future date specified on the bill of exchange.
Inland Bill: The place of drawing and the place of payment are the same.
Foreign Bill: The place of drawing is different from the place of payment, often involving different countries.
Documentary Bill: The bill of exchange is accompanied by supporting documents like invoices, bills of lading, etc.
Clean Bill: Unlike a documentary bill, it is not accompanied by supporting documents.
Trade Bill: Bill of exchange drawn between a buyer and a seller during the course of trade to ensure payment for goods so purchased.
Accommodation Bil: As the name itself suggests, it is a bill of exchange used to provide financial support or accommodation, often to assist the drawee’s credit.
Supply Bill: It is often used in governmental transactions to ensure payments for goods supplied, typically drawn by the suppliers.

Practical importance of a bill of exchange

The bill of exchange is used in international trade to reduce the risk of non-payment. In the international market, there are differences in currencies, exchange rates, and mercantile laws; hence, it helps both the buyer and the seller to cope with these disparities. It is called a bill of exchange because it is used in the exchange of goods for money. It indicates the safe and secure handling of money. It can be used to provide loans, purchase goods, collect funds, etc.

Endorsement: One of the most distinctive traits of a bill of exchange is its endorsement. The word endorsement is derived from the French word ‘endosser,’ which means ‘to put on the back’. Since the transfer of the bill of exchange from one person to another is noted on the back of the bill of exchange, the procedure is called endorsement. However, in exceptional situations, the endorsement may be written on the front of the bill of exchange. The endorsement transfers all the rights arising from the bill of exchange. Endorsement can be ‘in blank,’ i.e., only with the signature of the endorser, or ‘in full’ with the description.

Escompt by: This term is of French origin and literally means ‘to discount’. Ordinarily, the bill of exchange has to be paid after the expiry of a certain maturity period. However, the holder may choose to sell or pay before maturity. Thus, the bill of exchange becomes a means for ‘escompted by,’ also known as ‘discounting’ in India.

The bill of exchange plays a major role in the commodity market as a substitute for money. It serves as a means for credit, payment, and pre-maturity payment. By understanding its practical aspects, entities can effectively manage their business operations while reducing potential risks.

Important legal framework under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Following are the most important provisions regarding bills of exchange under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:

Section 26: This Section stipulates that to make, draw, accept, endorse, deliver, and negotiate a bill of exchange, a person must be capable of contracting under the prevailing law of contract. However, a minor (a person who has not reached the age of majority) can draw, endorse, deliver, and negotiate a bill of exchange but cannot be bound by it himself.
Section 27: This Section specifies that an agent of the drawer cannot accept or endorse a bill of exchange in a manner that binds the principal unless the agent has been duly authorised to do so. A general authority to handle business or manage debts does not automatically grant the power to accept or endorse bills of exchange.
Section 30: This Section states that it is the duty of the drawer of a bill of exchange to compensate the holder in case the drawee of acceptor dishonours the bill of exchange, provided that the drawer has been given or has received due notice of dishonour.
Section 33: This Section states that only the drawee of a bill of exchange, or any of several drawees named,or a person designated as a drawee in case of need, or an acceptor for honour, can accept the bill of exchange. No other person can bind themselves through acceptance.

Important precedents surrounding Section 5 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Punjab & Sindh Bank vs. Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. (2001)

In this case, the Supreme Court discussed bills of exchange apart from clarifying the position of a ‘pay order’. The Court opined that the key element of a bill of exchange is that it involves directing a certain person to pay a specified amount. It further emphasised that the requirement in Section 5 that a bill of exchange must direct a certain person to pay does not necessarily imply a third party; it can refer to the bank itself, which issues the pay order.

Ashok Yeshwant Badave vs. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar (2001)

In this case, the Apex Court distinguished between a bill of exchange and a cheque in the following words. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that from a bare perusal of Sections 5 and 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it appears that a bill of exchange is a negotiable instrument in writing containing an instruction to a third party to pay a stated sum of money at a designated future date or on demand. On the other hand, a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank by the holder of an account, payable on demand. Under Section 6 of the Act, a cheque is also a bill of exchange but is drawn on a banker and payable on demand. However, a bill of exchange drawn on a banker but not payable on demand is not a cheque. The Court further emphasised that a post-dated cheque is not payable before the date mentioned and will become a cheque on the said date. Before that date, the post-dated cheque remains a bill of exchange.

Anil Kumar Sawhney vs. Gulshan Rai (1993)

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that under Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a banker and payable on demand. A post-dated cheque is considered a bill of exchange when it is initially drawn. It only becomes a cheque when it is payable on demand, which occurs on or after its specified date. Therefore, before this date, it remains a bill of exchange.

Difference between a bill of exchange and a cheque

Following are the major points of distinction between a bill of exchange and a cheque:

Bill of exchange	Cheque
Definition: It is a written instrument containing an unconditional order, directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money either to a designated person, to their order, or to the bearer of the instrument, and signed by the maker.	Definition: A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and payable on demand.
Parties involved: This typically involves three parties, the drawer (who makes the bill), the drawee (who is directed to pay), and the payee (who receives the payment). Sometimes, the drawee and payee may be the same person.	Parties involved: A cheque always has three parties, the drawer (who writes and signs the cheque), the drawee (the bank), and the payee (the person to whom the cheque is payable).
Legal basis: Defined under Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.	Legal basis: Defined under Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Usage: It is used in commercial transactions to ensure payment for goods or services.	Usage: It is used for withdrawing money from the bank or making payments.
Payment terms: It is payable on demand or after a specified period (time bills).	Payment terms: A cheque is always payable on demand.
Drawing: It can be drawn on any person. However, a bill of exchange drawn on the bearer is only permitted by the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India (for example., a bank note).	Drawing: A cheque is always drawn on a bank.
Crossing and discounting: A bill of exchange cannot be crossed but can be discounted.	Crossing and discounting: It can be crossed to direct the bank to pay into a bank account and not directly over the counter, but it cannot be discounted.
Validity: Its validity depends on the terms agreed upon by the parties involved.	Validity: A cheque has a specific validity period (e.g., three months from the date of issuance).
Acceptance: A bill of exchange requires acceptance by the drawee to be valid.	Acceptance: A cheque does not require acceptance.
Notice of dishonour: It requires formal notice of dishonour to be given to the drawer and any endorsers.	Notice of dishonour: No formal notice of dishonour is required for legal action; the cheque can be presented again.

Difference between a bill of exchange and promissory noteBill of exchangePromissory noteDefinition: A written instrument containing an unconditional order, signed by the drawer, directing a certain person/drawee/payee to pay a certain sum of money to a specified person or the bearer of the instrument.Definition: A written instrument containing an unconditional promise, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money to a specified person or the bearer of the instrument.Parties involved: It involves three parties, the drawer (who creates the bill), the drawee (who is directed to pay), and the payee (who receives the payment).Parties involved: It involves two parties, the maker (who promises to pay) and the payee (who receives the payment).Nature of obligation: Contains an order to pay.Nature of obligation: Contains a promise to pay.Acceptance: It requires acceptance by the drawee to be enforceable.Acceptance: It does not require acceptance by the payee.Drawer and drawee: The drawer and the drawee are usually different persons. However, the drawee and payee may be the same person or different.Maker and drawee: The maker and drawee are the same person.Liability: The drawee is primarily liable upon acceptance.Liability: The maker is primarily liable.Use in trade: Often used in trade and business transactions, particularly in international trade, to facilitate credit.Use in Trade: Commonly used in personal loans and credit transactions, primarily in domestic settings.Transferability: It is easily transferable by endorsement and delivery.Transferability: It is transferable by endorsement or delivery.Dishonour: It can be dishonoured by non-acceptance or non-payment.Dishonour: It can only be dishonoured by non-payment.Notice of dishonour: Notice of dishonour must be given to all prior parties to hold them liable.Notice of dishonour: Notice of dishonour is not necessary to hold the maker liable.

Conclusion

A bill of exchange is an important instrument in both domestic and international mercantile transactions. Simply put, it is a written promise to pay for goods or services. A post-dated cheque is a common example of a bill of exchange. It promotes various financial activities, including taking and repaying loans and ensuring payments. The essential features of a bill of exchange include that it must be in writing, signed by the maker, and contain an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum of money. These characteristics make it a reliable and trustworthy payment method. Its flexibility is enhanced by the ability to be discounted before maturity and endorsed further, which adds to its credibility.

Globally embraced, the bill of exchange is one of the most widely used instruments in facilitating international trade to mitigate the risk of non-payment and ensure that transactions are conducted smoothly. Trade finance, a critical aspect of global commerce, has traditionally relied on paper-based processes. However, with most mercantile activities now digitised, there is a pressing need to accept bills of exchange in electronic form. This change would streamline the process and significantly reduce time and cost.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, defines a bill of exchange and lays down its essential ingredients.

A bill of exchange is defined under Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as a written instrument containing an unconditional order, directing a certain person to pay a specified amount to the bearer of the instrument or a designated individual. This instrument must be signed by the maker.

What are the essential characteristics of a bill of exchange?

A bill of exchange has the following characteristics:

It must be in writing and signed by the maker;
It must be unconditional;
It must order to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person;
Such person may be a specified person or the bearer of the instrument;
It can be payable either on demand or at a specific future date.

What is the difference between a bill of exchange and a cheque?

A bill of exchange is a written order to pay a certain sum of money to a specified person or bearer and can be payable on demand or at a future date. A cheque is a specific type of bill of exchange that is drawn on a bank and is payable on demand.

Whether a bill of exchange be payable to a drawer?

Yes, a bill of exchange can be payable to the drawer himself. This can be made by making the order of the drawer or to the bearer.

Who can make a bill of exchange a bearer instrument in India?

Only the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India are allowed to draw a bill of exchange as a bearer instrument.

What is the historical reason for the usage of the bill of exchange in international trade?

Bill of exchange has facilitated the trade and financial transactions associated to trade and business as follows:

It reduced the need of carrying large sum of money from place to place
It reduced the risk of theft and loss
It provided a reliable way of payment
It provided with technological benefits like credit facility and deferred payments system among others
Facilitated cross-border transaction in a massive way

References

Moro Vishvanath vs. Ganesh Vithal (1873)

By

Vanshika Kapoor

-

August 25, 2024

0

This article, written by Arnisha Das, discusses the partition of a joint family property under Hindu law, specifically before the advent of Hindu law of succession in 1956. It details the inheritance of property in case it is intestated by the original owner to pacify the needs of lawful successive owners of family property in enjoying the rights.

Introduction

Hindu law of succession has been revolutionised through various modifications of old texts and juridical authorities. In Mitakshara School of Law, inheritance is acquired as a birthright, whereas in Dayabhaga School of Law, inheritance is acquired by the death of the predecessor in coparcenary rights. Succession, hence, is governed primarily either through the birth of a son in a joint Hindu family or the death of a prior ancestor to whom the rights of the original owner were devolved. However, in extended ties of families, there are often critical aspects with regards to dividing property between coparceners equally.

In the case of Moro Vishvanath vs. Ganesh Vithal (1873) 57 Bom. H.C. 444, the Hon’ble bench of the Bombay High Court shed a light on the ambivalence of distributing property among the successive heirs beyond four degrees from the original owner or last known acquirer of the property to smoothly accomplish the division of ancestral family assets.

Details of the Case

Name of the Case: Moro Vishwanath vs. Ganesh Vithal
Equivalent Citation: (1873) 57 Bom. H.C. 444
Appellants: Moro Vishwanath & Others
Respondents: Ganesh Vithal & Others
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: West J, Nanabhai Haridas, J
Date of judgement: 29th October 1873

Facts of the case

It was a regular appeal from Suit No. 905 to 1866 in the bench of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Chintaman S. Chitnis of Ratnagirh Court. The plaintiffs and the defendants were the successors of the property owned by Uddhav. Plaintiffs were beyond the fourth degree ancestry, while the defendants were within the fourth degree ancestry of the property of Uddhav. The main contention between the parties was whether the plaintiffs should be entitled to acquire the property of the Joint Hindu Family, being of fifth-degree ancestry from the original acquirer. The defendants here argued that they were legally barred from acquiring the property for reasons such as improper valuation of the property and statutory limitations, and the plaintiffs were apart from the family for apparently fifty years.

The First Class Subordinate Judge, Chintaman S. Chitnis of Ratnagirh, gave its decision in favour of the plaintiff pronouncing their rights over the ancestral property. Now, the decision was challenged by the defendants and brought to the civil appellate jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Following the original plaintiff’s death, the plaintiff’s two sons were represented as the respondents in the appeal.

Issues

The main issues identified by the judges of the Bombay High Court in this appeal were as below:

Whether the plaintiffs have the right to demand a partition of the ancestral property as the members of a joint Hindu family?
Whether the claim is barred by the law of limitation?
What share, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to if they are the members of an undivided family?

Arguments by parties

Appellant

The appellants, on behalf of counsel Rav Sahab Vishvanath Narayan Mandlik, submitted that:

The descendants are beyond three steps of succession after the original or common ancestor, according to Viramitordaya in the passage of Devala. The special Sapinda relationship clarifies the right to claim for partition ceases beyond the great grandson from the true owner of the property.
The appellants asserted that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the law of limitation (which is usually 12 years from the date of right to sue accrued) as the plaintiffs were living separately from the defendants for a long time.
Among the defendants, three admitted to the partition and were not contrary to the rights of the respondents at all. In fact, the defendants who opposed clarified that one of the defendants conspired with the plaintiff to initiate the suit against the defendants.

Respondent

The counsel for the respondents, Dhirajlal Mathuradas, argued that

The plaintiffs fell in the fifth and sixth generations of the original ancestor of the Hindu undivided family; thus, they were entitled to claim for partition as per Mitakshara law from their father.
The decree held on 4th September, 1972, by the Subordinate Judge of Ratnagirh, on remand from the High Court, was precise to bring about that the partition was not legally barred by any law, thus the plaintiffs were rightful owners of the part of their claim for partition.
Moreover, both the divided and reunited and undivided families are deemed as coparceners in the ‘Comments of Devala’. Thus, the plaintiffs were living as a joint family after partition, which could be ruled out in the given circumstance.

Concepts involved in Moro Vishvanath vs. Ganesh Vithal (1873)

Mitakshara school of Hindu law

Mitakshara School of Hindu Law is the form of Hindu inheritance law that is founded on the principle of the right to inheritable property that appears just after birth. The son is entitled to partition or be the co-owner even without the father’s will. In this school, the father cannot absolutely devolute the right over ancestral property and cannot alienate the property on his own. The law is predominantly practised in the whole part of India except West Bengal and Assam.

Apart from that, Mitakshara School has five sub-schools under it, viz., Banaras School, Mithila School, Maharashtra School, Andhra School, and Dravida School based on the region. Usually, other than Mithila School, daughter’s rights in coparcenary property are not common here.

Dayabhaga school of Hindu law

The Dayabhaga school of Hindu law is another form of law that addresses the difficulty of cognates in getting inherited property from the original owner of the family. It disregards birthright and recognises the legacy only after the death of the previous owner. In this school of law, the son cannot inherit or sue for partition without the consent of his father. The father can have the absolute right to alienate the property. This kind of law is mainly in operation in West Bengal and Assam.

This school is further divided as: Bengal School, Mayukha School, Vyavahara Matrika, Dattaka Mimansa, and Nirnaya Sindhu School, based on commentaries and smritis. Daughter’s right to property is considered equal to that of the male of the family in this school of law.

Karta

Karta is known as the head of the family, who is the original owner of the ancestral property. A karta can decide the rights of the family members in the family property and the value of the property. He is entitled to represent any suit or legal challenge with regards to the familial property. After the 2005 amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a woman of a family can be a Karta too.

Sapinda Relationship

Section 3(f) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, prohibits the marriage of two Sapindas. A Sapinda relationship is a relationship between two members of a family who are linked by the same person or ancestor. According to Oblation (Jimutavahana) theory, if two persons are related in a way where one can offer pinda (food offering) to the other after death, they are said to be in a Sapinda relationship. In Vijaneswara theory, when individuals are connected by the same body particle or blood relation, they are Sapindas to each other. A Sapinda relationship stops after fifth in the mother’s line and after seventh in the father’s line.

Clause 13, Section 1 of the Limitation Act, 1859

The Limitation Act, 1859, for partition suits is usually fixed at 12 years from the date when the claim for the property first accrues. In this case, the contention was that the plaintiffs were far beyond the limitation of filing suit for partition, which was later ruled out by the High Court.

Judgement in Moro Vishvanath vs. Ganesh Vithal (1873)

The bench consisting of justices West J. and Nanabhai Haridas adjudged that the plaintiffs were only able to acquire the ancestral property when they were more than four degrees removed from the last owner of the property, regardless of how many degrees the owner was separate from the original acquirer of the property.

The enigmatic texts of Hindu dharma state that the coparceners of a joint Hindu family should not extend greater than the fourth degree or nearer descendants from the original owner of a property. In Sapinda relationships, individuals are connected through the sharing of food offerings (pinda). Thus, in Jimutavahana, the husband or Karta of the family gets the pindas from brothers, sons, or the same folks. Thereby, the right to ownership is granted to the linear possessors of the pedigree according to the Sapinda connection. Here the rights are stopped in the fifth generation through the mother and the seventh generation through the father, inclusively.

In the first issue, interpreting the ‘Comments in Devala’ as represented by the appellant’s counsel, the Court found that Devala urged that inheritance by law applied to undivided as well as divided and reunited families as opposed to Nilkantha, who regarded the word ‘Avibhahtavibhatamas’ as those being undivided after being divided instead of merely divided or undivided families. Thus, it did not support the argument of the appellants.

Secondly, acknowledging that the joint family property, which was divided and then undivided as currently held by both the appellants and respondents, could not be barred by the law of limitation (specifically Clause 13, Section 1, Limitation Law (Act XIV of 1859). Citing the case of Sakho Narayan vs. Narayan Bhikhaji, the Court decided that the descendants were still considered members of the undivided family. On the other hand, under the specific conditions for a divided family where the plaintiffs and defendants are no longer part of the undivided family, the suit could not proceed.

In essence, the Court pointed out that the law of limitation was unnecessary as the family was not divided, making the question of limitation immaterial.

With respect to the valuation of the family property, the Court provided the following illustrations:

In a family estate, A is the original acquirer. If A died, his sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons, and any such defendants below the fourth, would be the proprietors of the undivided family estate. However, A dies, leaving B (son), E (grandson), G (great-grandson), and J (great-great-grandson), with intermediate persons having predeceased A. J, the fifth descendant of the property from A, could not demand a partition according to vested rights in the prevailing laws.

Hence, in this case, the demand of partition is limited to those who have direct or immediate interest in the ancestral property.

A (original ancestor)

|

B, C, D (sons)

|

E, F, H (grandson)

|

G, I (great-grandsons)

|

J (great-great-grandson)

If A, the original common ancestor, dies, leaving B, a son, and C, a grandson; thereafter, B dies, leaving C and D, the great grandson of A; after that, C dies, leaving D and two great-great-grandsons of A, E & F. E & F can be equally interested in the share of the property from their father, D. Now, suppose B & C die, leaving A & D as the owners, and A dies subsequently, then D would be the sole owner of the undivided family. So, E & D are entitled to sue D for partition of the ancestral property.
Also, suppose three members are left, respectively, A, D, and D1, after the deaths of B and C in the family; thereafter, A dies, and the property is automatically delegated to D and D1. If D dies, leaving two sons E & F, they can sue D1 for partition as well as F & G (son of F) if E dies without any suit.

A (Common Ancestor)

|

B (Son)

|

C (grandson)

|

D, D1 (great-grandsons)

|

E, F (great-great-grandsons)

|

G (son of F)

Thus, partition can also take place in a retrospective manner.

The court, hence, came to the conclusion that, considering all the facts and evidence presented before it, it was clear that partition in a Hindu undivided (or divided and reunited) family can be made more than four degrees, not from the original ancestor but from the last known owner of the property. It was irrespective of the fact that the last known owner is remotely connected to the original ancestor.

Analysis of the case

The case centred around whether a descendant beyond the fourth generation from the original owner could claim partition of ancestral property under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. The Bombay High Court ruled that the right to partition extends to the descendants within four degrees from the last owner of the property and not the original acquirer. The Court further interpreted the concept of coparceners within a Joint Hindu Family (HUF) to be limited to four generations from the last owner who held the property. The approach aimed to balance the rights of descendants with the need for clarity in ownership over time. In the recent judgement of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020), the apex court held that a daughter or a woman would be equally entitled to inherit a father’s ancestral property. Overall, the present case served as a guiding light to provide clarity and predictability amongst the descendants of a Hindu Joint Family so that the coparceners of an extended family get the ownership lineages over an extended period of time.

Conclusion

In conclusion, partition of property is a complex task to deal with in the case of extended family property. The above-mentioned case poses as the landmark case that provided some clarifications in the happening of disputes in executing a decree of partition. Whenever a party claims a part in the ancestral property, he must consider the criteria as to the fourth degree of ancestry as well as lineal relation from the last owner of the ancestral property to avoid any disadvantage. He must consider whether the claim is within the specified value added to the property or whether the share must be equitable for distribution. The judgement set a balance between honouring the concept of ancestral property and rational management of assets. In conclusion, it provides a clear understanding of generational limits of property after a specific point of time to establish common benefits amongst the successors.

FAQs

What are the criteria for evaluating partition in an ancestral property?

A partition of an ancestral property depends on a varied degree of criteria for correct evaluation. One must remember the share must be devoluted from the rightful ancestor, who gives the power to a descendant to have the ultimate share of a property.

Can a sixth-degree member of a HUF claim for partition of the property?

The question of whether a sixth-degree HUF can claim for property partition depends on the fact that he is in line of ancestry from the last owner of the joint family property.

Can a daughter be a coparcener beyond the fourth degree of a family line?

Yes, a daughter can be a coparcener beyond the fourth degree of a family property according to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The amendment grants daughters the same rights as sons in coparcenary property. The Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020) ruled that daughters have coparcenary rights by birth and these rights are not dependent on the father’s status at the time of the amendment.

iPleaders

State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M/S Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. & Anr. (2012)

Introduction

Details of the case

Facts of the case

Issues raised in the case

Arguments of the parties

Arguments of appellant

Arguments of respondent

Laws involved in State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M/S Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. & Anr. (2012)

Article 254 of the Constitution

Doctrine of Repugnancy

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Pt. Rishikesh and another vs. Salma Begum (Smt) (1995)

T. Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe and another (1982)

I.T.C. Ltd. Etc vs. State of Karnataka & ors (1985)

M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India (1979)

Conditions for repugnancy

Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc vs. the state of Uttar Pradesh and others (1956)

State Of Orissa vs. M. A. Tulloch and Co. (1963)

State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh (1954)

Judgement in State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M/S Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. & Anr. (2012)

Determination of the point of time when repugnancy arises

Effect of repeal on the operation of Kerala Chitties Act, 1975

Analysis of the case

Conclusion

References

Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892)

Introduction

Details of the case

Facts of the case

Issues raised

Contentions of the parties

Arguments of the claimant

Arguments of the defendant

Judgement in Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892)

Judgement delivered by Justice Lindley

Judgement delivered by Justice Bowen

Judgement delivered by Justice AL Smith

Rationale behind the judgement

Critical analysis of the judgement

Significance of the judgement

Effect of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company on the law of contracts

Offer and its elements

How to make the offer

Offer is made to whom

General Offer

Legal rules of a valid offer

Who can accept the offer and how is the acceptance made

Legal rules of a valid acceptance

Invitation to offer

What are unilateral contracts

Parties to a unilateral contract

Nature of unilateral contract

Types of unilateral contracts

Performance of unilateral contracts

Obligations of unilateral contracts

Revocation of unilateral contracts

Commercial uncertainty and unilateral contracts

Conclusion

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is a general offer?

How is an offer different from an invitation to treat?

What is the difference between a unilateral contract and a bilateral contract?

What are the similarities between a unilateral contract and a bilateral contract?

What was the significance of the 1000 pounds that were deposited by the defendant in the Alliance Bank?

Will the case serve as a precedent in the case of online advertisements?

How does the judgement influence contract law in contemporary times?

References

Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail and Ors (1995)

Introduction

Details of the case

Facts of the case

Issues raised

Analysis of the contentions

Appellants

Laws involved in Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail and Ors (1995)

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 40