UAE jails 57 Bangladeshis over protests against own government

Protests are effectively illegal in the UAE, where foreigners make up almost 90% of the population.

A court in the United Arab Emirates has handed 57 Bangladeshis long prison terms for holding protests in the Gulf state against their own country’s government.

Three of the unnamed defendants were sentenced to life for “inciting riots in several streets across the UAE on Friday”, while 53 others were jailed for 10 years and one for 11 years.

'Permanent Alimony Is Awarded To Ensure Decent Living Standard For Wife' : Supreme Court Lists Out Factors To Be Considered

Read Judgment

'Permanent Alimony Is Awarded To Ensure Decent Living Standard For Wife' : Supreme Court Lists Out Factors To Be Considered

The Supreme Court on July 15,2024 while ordering the dissolution of marriage, observed that the award of maintenance or permanent alimony should not be penal. It should be for the purpose of ensuring a decent living standard for a wife.

The Court, in the present case, ordered the husband to pay Rs. 2 Crores to his wife as permanent alimony.

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra relied upon a thread of precedents to reach the one-time settlement amount. The decisions included Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal., (2012) 7 SCC 288. It was observed that permanent alimony is to be granted after considering largely the social status, conduct of the parties, the parties' lifestyle, and other such ancillary factors.

These factors include but are not limited to:

i. Status of the parties, social and financial.

ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children.

iii. Qualifications and employment status of the parties.

iv. Independent income or assets owned by the parties.

v. Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home.

vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.

vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.

viii.Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

Status of parties significant factor

"The status of the parties is a significant factor, encompassing their social standing, lifestyle, and financial background. The reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children must be assessed, including costs for food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical expenses. The applicant's educational and professional qualifications, as well as their employment history, play a crucial role in evaluating their potential for self-sufficiency. If the applicant has any independent source of income or owns property, this will also be taken into account to determine if it is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living experienced during the marriage. Additionally, the court considers whether the applicant had to sacrifice employment opportunities for family responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring for elderly family members, which may have impacted their career prospects," the Court stated.

Besides this, in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another., (2020), the Court had laid down several factors for calculating the maintenance amount. These factors included independent income or assets owned by the parties, maintaining the standard of living as in the matrimonial home, and so on and so forth.

“The Court shall examine the husband's actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award.,” the Court opined in the instant case.

Building on these observations, the Court weighed the relevant factors. It noted that both parties are educated and employed, have high standards of living, and have dependants to be taken care of. It observed that while the husband's monthly income was over Rs. 8 Lakhs, the wife's monthly income was Rs.1,39,000.

Apart from this, the Court brought its attention to the responsibilities of both parties against their dependents. The husband was responsible for the medical expenses and stay of his parents. On the other hand, his wife was responsible for her parents as well as for her minor daughter.

“It is evident from their submissions that though both of them are well qualified and gainfully employed, the respondent-husband earns approximately five times the monthly income of the appellant-wife. Respondent-husband has certain obligations towards three dependants, his own expenses, and certain bank loans, but he also evidently has the financial capacity to maintain his former wife.,” the Court said.

It may also be noted that the wife had demanded Rs. 5 to 7 Crores as a one-time settlement. However, the husband was willing to pay only Rs. 50 Lakhs.

Considering the above facts, circumstances, and relevant factors, the Court reached a fair and balanced amount of Rs 2 Crores. The Court added that this amount would also cover all pending and future claims.

Brief Background

The Division Bench was hearing an appeal, preferred by the wife, against the Delhi High Court judgment. The challenged judgment rejected her prayer to seek attachment to her husband's bank account and complete payment of interim maintenance to her.

The factual background is marred by several legal proceedings initiated by both parties. It may be noted that within one year of marriage, the appellant-wife registered a complaint, inter alia, of cruelty and demand for dowry.

When the case reached the Top Court, it was heard in chambers (in private and not in open Court). The Court noted at the outset that the parties had been living separately for the last nine years. Apart from this, even though they were referred to mediation by different Courts, at several stages, there was no reconciliation.

Taking note of the same, the Court concluded that their marriage had irretrievably broken down. To exercise its discretion for dissolving the marriage, the Court relied upon the catena of judgments. This included the recent case of Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri., (2022) 15 SCC 754. Therein, the Court had observed that upon considering the cumulative effect of all necessary factors and that the marriage has perished due to long-standing differences between the parties, and thus no useful purpose would be achieved by prolonging the suffering of the parties, the Court can pass an order for dissolution of marriage.

In another case, Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375, the Court discussed the factors that examined this irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The factors encompassed a period of cohabitation after marriage, the nature and gravity of allegations made by the parties, orders passed in previous or pending legal proceedings, attempts at reconciliation or settlement and their outcomes, period of separation and other similar considerations.

Taking a cue from this, the Court brought its attention to the factual matrix of the case. It noted that the parties cohabited after marriage for less than a year and the allegations made by the wife are grave and serious.

“Multiple attempts at reconciliation between the appellant and respondent have been made by the Courts at different stages but all efforts have been futile. Multiple legal proceedings are pending between the parties and do not appear to possibly conclude in the near future.,” the Court added.

Based on this, the Court, while exercising its discretionary power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, dissolved the marriage. The timeline given to the Husband for payment of this amount was of four months. The Court also made it clear that all the pending proceedings between the parties shall be disposed of.

State Can't Alter Schedule Caste List Published Under Art. 341', Supreme Court Strikes Down Bihar Govt Resolution To Merge EBC Community In SC List

Read Judgment 

The Supreme Court on July 15,2024 struck down the resolution issued by the Bihar Government in 2015 which had merged one community in the Backward Castes list with another community in the Scheduled Caste list. 

The Court said that the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution. 

“The State may be justified in deleting “Tanti-Tantwa” from the Extremely Backward Classes list on the recommendation of the State Backward Commission, but beyond that to merge “Tanti-Tantwa” with 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr' under Entry 20 of the list of Scheduled Castes was nothing short of mala fide exercise for whatever good, bad or indifferent reasons, the State may have thought at that moment. Whether synonymous or not, any inclusion or exclusion of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within the castes, races or tribes has to be, by law made by the Parliament, and not by any other mode or manner.”, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra said.

In 2015, the Bihar Government issued a notification merging one community in the Extremely Backward Castes list i.e., “Tanti-Tantwa” with another community in the Scheduled Caste list i.e., 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr' for extending the benefit of Schedule Caste List to the Tanti-Tantwa community.

This notification was challenged in the High Court. However, the High Court upheld the notification. Challenging the High Court's judgment, certain organizations appealed to the Supreme Court

Agreeing with the Appellant's contention that the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to add a caste or sub-caste to any entry in the Scheduled Castes list notified under the Presidential Order under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, the Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed that any amendment, addition, deletion or modification to the list published under the Presidential Order can be made only by law enacted by Parliament and not otherwise. 

“Having considered the submissions advanced, we have no hesitation in holding that the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 was patently illegal, erroneous as the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution. The submission of the respondent-State that Resolution dated 01.07.2015 was only clarificatory is not worth considering for a moment and deserves outright rejection. Whether or not it was synonymous or integral part of the Entry-20 of the lists of Schedule Castes, it could not have been added without any law being made by the Parliament.”, the court said. 

Depriving the benefits granted to the members of the Scheduled Castes is a serious issue 

The Court lamented the approach of the Bihar Government to extend the benefit of the scheduled caste lists to the particular community of another Caste List and said that the State cannot take away the benefit granted to the Schedule Castes by extending the benefit to another community of different Castes. 

“In the present case, the action of the State is found to be mala fide and de hors the constitutional provisions. The State cannot be pardoned for the mischief done by it. Depriving the members of the Scheduled Castes covered by the lists under Article 341 of the Constitution is a serious issue. Any person not deserving and not covered by such list if extended such benefit for deliberate and mischievous reasons by the State, cannot take away the benefit of the members of the Scheduled Castes. Such appointments would under law on the findings recorded would be liable to be set aside.”, the court said. 

State Has No Authority To Accept Recommendation Of Commission for Extremely Backward Classes To Include EBC Community in Schedule Caste Lists 

“The submission that the recommendation of the Commission for Extremely Backward Classes was binding on the State, is not a question to be determined here, inasmuch as, even if we accept the submission, such recommendation could relate only to the Extremely Backward Classes. Whether or not to include or exclude any caste in the list of Extremely Backward Class would be within the domain of the Commission. The Commission would have no jurisdiction to make recommendation with respect to any caste being included in the Scheduled Castes lists and, even if it makes such a recommendation, right or wrong, the State has no authority to proceed to implement the same when it was fully aware that the Constitution does not permit it to do so. The Provisions of Article 341 sub Clause 1 and sub-Clause 2 are very clear and discrete. There is no ambiguity or vagueness otherwise requiring any interpretation other than what is mentioned therein. The State of Bihar has tried to read something in order to suit its own ends for whatever reason, we are not commenting on the same.”, the Court said.

However, the Court refrained from invalidating the appointments of the members of "Tanti- Tantwa” community in the SC quota from 2015. Instead, the Court directed :

"We are of the view that all such posts of the Scheduled Castes reserved quota which have been extended to the members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community appointed subsequent to the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 be returned to the Scheduled Castes Quota and all such members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community, who have been extended such benefit may be accommodated under their original category of Extremely Backward Classes, for which the State may take appropriate measures."

Supreme Court Dismisses Karnataka Dy CM DK Shivakumar's Plea To Quash CBI's Disproportionate Assets Case

The Supreme Court July 15,2024 dismissed Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar's petition challenging a High Court order, whereby his plea to quash the Central Bureau of Investigation's disproportionate assets (DA) case against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) was rejected. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.

The investigation has commenced without obtaining the sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. , further contended that the issue whether Section 17A applies to offences allegedly committed before the 2018 amendment (which inserted Section 17A) is referred to a larger bench [Ref. Chandrababu Naidu case]. 

The Income Tax authorities cannot prosecute under the PC Act, the judge added. Notably, the bench also expressed its disapproval of the High Court's order for staying the sanction accorded to CBI. "How can High Court stay sanction? This is unheard of...", Justice Trivedi said. On this aspect, counsels for Shivakumar informed that the Karnataka government has withdrawn the consent accorded to CBI. To recap, the Income Tax department had carried out a raid in August 2017 at various premises of Shivakumar in New Delhi and other places. It collected a total of Rs.8,59,69,100, out of which Rs.41 lakhs were allegedly recovered from Shivakumar's premises. Subsequently, a case was registered against Shivakumar before the Special Court for Economic Offences under provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Based upon the income tax case, ED also registered a case and Shivakumar was arrested on September 3, 2019. On 09.09.2019, ED issued a letter to the Karnataka government under Section 66(2) of PMLA. Following the same, sanction against Shivakumar was accorded and the matter referred to CBI for investigation. Shivakumar moved the Karnataka High Court challenging the sanction and proceedings against him. In April, a single judge bench dismissed his petition, but during the course of the hearing, granted the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee chief temporary relief by staying the CBI probe on multiple occasions. The single judge's dismissal led Shivakumar to file an appeal before a division bench.

The interim orders were challenged by CBI through a special leave petition, but the Supreme Court in July refused to entertain the agency's plea arising out of 'purely interlocutory' orders. Subsequently, in October, the top Court issued notice on a plea by CBI challenging Karnataka High Court's June 2023 order which stayed investigation against Shivakumar in the disproportionate assets case. This plea was ultimately dismissed on 10th November, however, the High Court was requested to consider the application filed by CBI for vacating the stay granted and the appeal pending before it preferably within 2 weeks. 

Subsequent Suit For Rent Arrears Maintainable After Suit For Possession; Both Different Causes Of Action: Supreme Court

Read Judgment 

Observing that the suit for recovery of possession is different from the suit for arrears of rent and damages, the Supreme Court held that there's no bar to file a separate suit for arrears of rent and damages after a suit for possession. 

The Court said a second suit filed on a different cause of action would not be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 

Order 2 Rule 2 prevents the fragmentation of claims into multiple lawsuits. It mandates that a plaintiff must include their entire claim related to a specific cause of action in one lawsuit. If the plaintiff intentionally or unintentionally omits a part of the claim, they cannot file a separate suit without the court's permission.

In the present case, the plaintiff/respondent filed two suits i.e., one for the possession of the property and another for receiving the arrears of rent and damages from the defendant/Appellant. 

The defendant objected to the filing of the second suit for arrears of rent and damages by the plaintiff by contending that the plaintiff should have filed only one suit containing all the claims. The subsequent suit for receiving arrears of rent and damages could not be entertained due to the specific bar contained under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.

Rejecting the appellant/defendant's contention, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale observed that the second suit preferred for receiving the arrears of rent and damages would not be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. 

Since both the suits were filed on different causes of action, and there was no intention on the part of the plaintiff to relinquish his claim for arrears of rent and damages, therefore, the filing of the subsequent suit for arrears of rent and damages was upheld by the Court.

Upon arriving at the decision, the Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath relied on its recent decision in M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. ATM Constructions Pvt Ltd wherein it was held that since a suit for possession and a suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action, therefore a second suit filed claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises would be maintainable after a suit for possession.

"...suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action. There being different consideration for adjudication, in our opinion, second suit filed by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable," the Court observed.

Interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal -SC

Read order

While granting interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on  July 12,2024 in the case registered by ED under PMLA over the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam, the Supreme Court today directed that Kejriwal shall not visit the CM office and Delhi Secretariat during the period of interim release. The judgment, passed by Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, imposed the following conditions on Kejriwal:

(a) he shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent; 

(b) he shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat; 

(c) he shall be bound by the statement made on his behalf that he shall not sign official files unless it is required and necessary for obtaining clearance/approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; 

(d) he will not make any comment with regard to his role in the present case; and 

(e) he will not interact with any of the witnesses and/or have access to any official files connected with the case. 
It was further clarified that the interim bail may be extended, or recalled by the larger Bench, to which certain legal questions arising in the case have been referred. 

Notably, the bench remained unsure of whether it could issue a direction to Kejriwal, a duly elected Chief Minister, to step down from the post of Chief Minister, Delhi. As such, it left it upon the AAP chief to take a call.
"We are conscious that Arvind Kejriwal is an elected leader and the Chief Minister of Delhi, a post holding importance and influence. We have also referred to the allegations. While we do not give any direction, since we are doubtful whether the court can direct an elected leader to step down or not function as the Chief Minister or as a Minister, we leave it to Arvind Kejriwal to take a call",

Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance From Husband Under S.125 CrPC : Supreme Court

In a notable MuslimwomenJudgement delivered by the Supreme Court regarding the right of the Muslim woman to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court has adverted to the vulnerability suffered by married women in India particularly 'Homemakers' who do not have an independent source of income and the problems faced by them in routine life due to not having access to monetary resources in their matrimonial home.

The Court has asked Indian married men to become conscious of this fact and financially empower their wives by making available financial resources, particularly fulfilling her personal needs.

“In the case of a woman who has an independent source of income, she may be financially endowed and may not be totally dependent on her husband and his family. But what is the position of a married woman who is often referred to as a “homemaker” and who does not have an independent source of income, whatsoever, and is totally dependent for her financial resources on her husband and on his family?” Justice BV Nagarathna in her separate Judgment said. 

The Court believed that an Indian married woman is considered to be an epitome of love, care, and affection towards her wards and husband, and doesn't expect anything in return except a sense of comfort and respect from her husband and his family which are towards her emotional security. 

Highlighting the good quality of the Indian homemaker to save money on household expenditures, the Court said that the Indian homemaker tries to save as much money as possible from the monthly household budget to avoid making a request to the husband or his family for her personal expenses 

“Most married men in India do not realise this aspect of the predicament such Indian homemakers face as any request made for expenses may be bluntly turned down by the husband and/or his family. Some husbands are not conscious of the fact that the wife who has no independent source of finance is dependent on them not only emotionally but also financially.”, the court said. 

“An Indian married man must become conscious of the fact that he would have to financially empower and provide for his wife, who does not have an independent source of income, by making available financial resources particularly towards her personal needs; in other words, giving access to his financial resources. Such financial empowerment would place such a vulnerable wife in a more secure position in the family.”, the court added. 

The Court also acknowledged the steps taken by those Indian married men who make available their financial resources for their spouse towards their personal expenses, apart from household expenditure, possibly by having a joint bank account or via an ATM card.

"Those Indian married men who are conscious of this aspect and who make available their financial resources for their spouse towards their personal expenses, apart from household expenditure, possibly by having a joint bank account or via an ATM card, must be acknowledged."

Financial Security and Security of Residence of Indian women have to be protected

Following observation of the Court is also noticeable: 

“Both 'financial security' as well as 'security of residence' of Indian women have to be protected and enhanced. That would truly empower such Indian women who are referred to as 'homemakers' and who are the strength and backbone of an Indian family which is the fundamental unit of the Indian society which has to be maintained and strengthened. It goes without saying that a stable family which is emotionally connected and secure gives stability to the society for, it is within the family that precious values of life are learnt and built. It is these moral and ethical values which are inherited by a succeeding generation which would go a long way in building a strong Indian society which is the need of the hour. It is needless to observe that a strong Indian family and society would ultimately lead to a stronger nation. But, for that to happen, women in the family have to be respected and empowered!”

SC directs TN to allow all-India permit buses to pass through state without obstruction

The petitioners had said they operate a large number of buses to ferry passengers from neighbouring Kerala and other states and the vehicles have to ply through Tamil Nadu due to the topography of the area.

The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu government authorities on 25/6/24 to allow All India Tourist Permit (AITP) vehicles to pass through the state without any hindrance or obstruction.

The petitioners, inter-state bus operators who possess the AITP, have sought quashing and setting aside of the state government's directives dated November 6, 2023 and June 18, calling for compulsory registration of all buses registered in other states with the regional transport authorities in Tamil Nadu to enable plying within the state.

In its interim order, the bench said, "In the meanwhile, the vehicles belonging to the petitioners having the All India Tourist Permit shall be allowed to pass through the state of Tamil Nadu without any hindrance or obstruction." The petitioners have said they operate a large number of buses to ferry passengers from neighbouring Kerala and other states and the vehicles have to ply through Tamil Nadu due to the topography of the area.

Bombay High Court Directs Bar Council to Act Against Lawyer For Dress Code Violation

Dress Code for Advocate

In a noteworthy ruling, the Bombay High Court has called on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take disciplinary action against an advocate

Justice Prithviraj K Chavan highlighted the advocate’s non-compliance with the formal dress requirements, noting, “He is not in proper attire, in the sense, he is without bands and advocate’s gown as prescribed by the Rules.” The observation was made public through the court order dated June 14.

The lawyer in question, Jagdish M Ahuja, appeared in the 2018 criminal writ petition without the standard bands and gown, prompting the court’s decision. This move underscores the judiciary’s strict stance on maintaining decorum and professionalism in the courtroom.

Bank of Baroda to refund Rs. 76,90,017 to a company and its director who lost the amount in a cyber fraud incident involving unauthorized electronic banking transactions for which no OTP was sent.

Read Judgment 

The Bombay High Court has directed the Bank of Baroda to refund Rs. 76,90,017 to a company and its director who lost the amount in a cyber fraud incident involving unauthorized electronic banking transactions for which no OTP was sent.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition seeking refund of the amount observing – 

“both as per the RBI Circular and the said Policy of Respondent No.2 (bank), the liability of the Petitioners in respect of the said unauthorized transactions would be zero as the unauthorized transactions have taken place due to a third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with Respondent No.2 nor with the Petitioners...In these circumstances, as per the RBI Circular and as per the Policy of Respondent No.2, the Petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount from Respondent No.2.”

The petitioners, Pharma Search Ayurveda Private Ltd and its director Jaiprakash Kulkarni had maintained a bank account with Bank of Baroda's Worli Branch for the past 15-20 years. On October 1, 2022, beneficiaries were added to their account without any One-Time Password (OTP) being sent to the petitioners' registered mobile number or email. The next day, October 2, 2022, the company's accountant discovered that Rs. 76,90,017 had been debited from their account in multiple transactions.

Upon realizing the fraud, the reported the transactions to the Cyber Cell at Worli Police Station and the bank manager within 30 minutes to an hour. They lodged a formal complaint with the Cyber Crime Police Station under Section 379 of the IPC, 1860, and Sections 43A and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They also requested the bank to investigate the matter and refund the debited amount as per the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017, titled "Customer Protection-Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions."

The Petitioners did not receive the refund. A complaint filed with the Bank Ombudsman was rejected on January 10, 2023, on the grounds that the transactions were authenticated using valid credentials known to the account holder.

The petitioners approached the high court contending that there was no negligence on their part, and the bank failed to follow the procedures outlined in the RBI Circular, resulting in the unauthorized transactions.

Bank of Baroda argued that there was no deficiency in its service, a stance initially supported by the Banking Ombudsman. It argued that the transactions were completed after proper authentication, including the input of an OTP and credentials known only to the account holder. It contended that the petitioners or their personnel had compromised these credentials, leading to the fraud.

The court ordered an investigation by the Cyber Cell, which revealed that no SMS notifications were received on the registered mobile number when the beneficiaries were added on October 1, 2022. The OTPs necessary for adding beneficiaries were not delivered. Further investigation by the Cyber Cell showed that emails purportedly sent by the bank about these transactions were also not received by the Petitioners. The three reports also confirmed no collusion between the petitioners and the fraudsters.

The Cyber Cell's reports, corroborated by mobile service provider Airtel and email provider Rediffmail, established that no SMS or email notifications were received by the Petitioners regarding the addition of beneficiaries.

The court found that the bank, along with the petitioners, had been victims of fraud by third-party fraudsters. “This Petition deals with a Cyber Fraud and is an example of how increasingly the innocent persons are becoming victims of Cyber Fraud”, the court remarked.

The court referred to the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) Circular dated July 6, 2017, which outlines the conditions for zero liability of customers in unauthorized electronic banking transactions. The circular stipulates that customers are entitled to zero liability if the unauthorized transaction occurs due to contributory fraud, negligence, or a third-party breach where neither the bank nor the customer is at fault, provided the customer reports the transaction within three working days. 

The court noted that the bank has its Consumer Protection Policy, which aligns with the RBI Circular. This policy stipulates that customers have zero liability if unauthorized transactions from third-party breaches are reported within seven working days.

The court noted that the petitioners reported the unauthorized transactions within the stipulated time. The court found that Banking Ombudsman had not adequately investigated whether the transactions were authorized by the petitioners.

Thus, the court quashed the decision of the Banking Ombudsman dated January 10, 2023, and directed the bank to refund the amount of Rs. 76,90,017/- to the Petitioners' bank account, along with interest and compensation as per the RBI Circular.

Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Due To Non-Appearance Of Accused Before Court: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that the non-appearance of the accused party is no grounds for cancellation of bail.

The three-judge Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a criminal appeal arising out of the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court cancelling bail.

The High Court had noted that, on several occasions, it directed the accused person to appear personally before the Court. However, the Court, while cancelling the bail, had observed that neither the accused nor his lawyer was present. It recorded that this non-appearance 'exposes an insolent stance of opposite party No.2 to evade the process of law.' Against this backdrop, the matter came up before the Top Court.

Therein, the appellant's counsel apprised the bench of the reason for such non-appearance. He submitted that there was a traffic jam due to VIP movements and therefore, the appellant could not attend the Court. Besides, the Counsel also averred that the appellant's lawyer was not present on the concerned date, as his Vakalatnama was withdrawn.

After recording the submissions, the Court observed that if bail has been granted, the same can be cancelled if any conditions are violated or liberty is misused.

“..we find that merely because the appellant did not appear personally could not have been a ground for cancellation of bail. The parameters for the grant of bail and cancellation of bail are totally different. The bail already granted may be cancelled, if it is found that the person who has been granted the benefit of bail has violated any of the conditions or misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.”

The Court observed that the impugned judgment does not contain any of the above-mentioned reasons. Thus, the Court set aside the same.

When Maintainability Of Suit Is Questioned, Court Should Prima Facie Decide Jurisdiction Before Granting Interim Relief : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that if the maintainability of a civil suit is questioned and the grant of interim relief is opposed on that ground, then the trial court, before deciding to grant the interim releif, must at least make a prima facie satisfaction regarding the maintainability of the suit.

"Where interim relief is claimed in a suit before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law", observed a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar.

"It would be inappropriate for a court to abstain from recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability, yet, proceed to grant protection pro tem on the assumption that the question of maintainability has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV, CPC. That could amount to an improper exercise of power," the judgment added.

If the court thinks at the stage of hearing the application for interim relief that the suit is barred by law or is otherwise not maintainable, it cannot dismiss it without framing a preliminary issue after the written statement is filed but can most certainly assign such opinion for refusing interim relief.

At the same time, if there is an extraordinary situation where a decision on the maintainability will delay the grant of interim relief which can cause irreparable harm, the Court may pass an appropriate order after assigning proper reasons.

"However, if an extraordinary situation arises where it could take time to decide the point of maintainability of the suit and non-grant of protection pro tem pending such decision could lead to irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order in the manner indicated above justifying the course of action it adopts. In other words, such an order may be passed, if at all required, to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non-interference by the court,” the Court explained.

Also from the judgment - Order 8 Rule 10 CPC | Suit Can't Be Decreed Merely On Defendant's Failure To File Written Statement If Plaintiff's Case Isn't Proved : Supreme Court

Case Title: ASMA LATEEF & ANR. V. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS.

Notice Under S.138 NI Act Invalid If Omnibus Demand Is Made Without Specifying Cheque Amount : Supreme Court

Read Judgment

Finding the demand raised in a notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to be omnibus in nature, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case for the dishonour of a cheque. The appellant-notice holder filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for quashing of summoning order passed by the Magistrate taking a plea that the notice had made out an omnibus demand without specifying what was due under the dishonoured cheque. Hence, it was argued, that the notice has failed to meet the legal requirement as per the dictum of the Supreme Court passed in Suman Sethi vs. Ajay K.Churiwal and Anr.

The Delhi High Court, which found no merit in the petition, in para 4 of the order observed that: “The respondent in his notice did not ask for the total amount due but simply asked for the amount of cheque and compensation of same amount plus Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment. The amount of compensation and harassment are severable and to my mind would not invalidate the legal notice dated 02.12.2013.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar while referring to the case Suman Sethi, in para 6 noted that: “A bare perusal of the decision referred (supra) would reveal that a demand in addition to the cheque amount in a demand notice by itself would not make it invalid. In other words, as held therein, in the demand notice, demand has to be made for the 'cheque amount' and therefore, notice sans such demand would fall short of legal requirement. At the same time, we will reiterate the position that if in a notice while giving the break up of the claim the cheque amount interest, damages, etc. are separately specified and these additional claims would be severable, such demand would not invalidate the notice. In short, in a notice of demand made under the N.I. Act demand shall not be omnibus, there must be a clear demand for the cheque amount lest notice will be invalid. This law laid down as above has to be applied to decide the validity or otherwise of Annexure P-2-demand notice.”