28 January 2025 - Legal Updates

1. When Scope of Appeal is Limited to Delay Condonation, Merits of Matter Can’t Be Considered

Case- Surendra G. Shankar & Anr. vs. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd & Ors.

Date of Order- January 22, 2025

Bench- Justice P.S. Narsimha and Justice Manoj Misra

The Supreme Court of India ruled on a case concerning the scope of appeals related to condonation of delay. Here are the key facts:

Case Background: The complaints were initially filed with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Mumbai, regarding possession of a flat. These complaints were dismissed, and an additional order discharged the developer from the proceedings.

Appeal Process: The orders were challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. An application for condonation of delay was filed because one of the orders was not submitted within the required time frame. However, the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal, which noted that the order was made in the presence of the parties and found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

High Court's Involvement: When the matter reached the High Court, it indicated that it would typically condone the delay but then proceeded to comment on the merits of the case, ultimately dismissing the appeals. This prompted the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Observations: The Supreme Court justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra emphasized that since the High Court's scope was limited to examining whether to condone the delay, it should not have addressed the merits of the case. They noted that even the Appellate Tribunal had not considered these merits.

Court's Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, condoned the delay, and restored them to be heard by the Appellate Tribunal on their merits without prejudice from prior observations made by either court.

2. Can’t use ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ to Cure Self-Suffered Wound

Case- M/s Brahma Maintenance Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (UHBVN) And Others

Date of Order- January 13, 2025

Bench- Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a plea from M/s Brahma Maintenance Pvt Ltd, which challenged an order from the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (UHBVN). Here are the key facts:

Background of the Case: M/s Brahma Maintenance Pvt Ltd was accused of overcharging flat owners for electricity consumption, reportedly charging an extra ₹5-7 lakhs per month. The firm was also alleged to have failed to submit bills regularly to UHBVNL, resulting in additional surcharges for consumers.

Order from UHBVN: The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum directed the firm to provide clear electricity bills showing energy consumed and applicable tariffs, in accordance with regulations set by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC).

Legal Argument: The firm argued that it did not receive notice of the proceedings before the Forum, thus claiming a violation of the principle of "audi alteram partem," which ensures that parties have the right to be heard.

Court's Findings: Justice Kuldeep Tiwari stated that the firm was aware of the proceedings, as its principal had responded to notices from the SDO. The court concluded that the firm could not demonstrate any illegality in the Forum's order or any regulation allowing it to impose additional charges contrary to HERC regulations.

Ruling: The court rejected the firm's arguments regarding natural justice, stating that it was attempting to create a defense after the proceedings had concluded. Ultimately, the court dismissed the plea, affirming that there were no grounds to challenge the order from the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum.

3. Mutual Incompatibility Not Ground To Dissolve Hindu Marriage Within 1 Year Unless There is ‘Exceptional Hardship’

Case- Sri Nishant Bhardwaj vs. Smt. Rishika Gautam

Date of Order- January 15, 2025

Bench- Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved within one year of marriage on the grounds of mutual incompatibility unless exceptional circumstances, such as exceptional hardship or depravity, are demonstrated as per Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Here are the key facts:

Case Background: The case involved a couple who filed for mutual dissolution of their marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Their petition was rejected by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Saharanpur, citing that the one-year statutory period for filing such applications had not elapsed.

Legal Basis: The court referenced Section 14, which prohibits divorce petitions within one year of marriage, except in cases of exceptional hardship or depravity. The couple's claim of mutual incompatibility was deemed insufficient to meet this standard.

Court's Observations: The division bench, consisting of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh, noted that the petition did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would allow for a waiver of the one-year waiting period. They emphasized that routine grounds like mutual incompatibility do not qualify as exceptional.

Rationale: The court highlighted the sanctity of marriage under Hindu law and stated that its dissolution should only occur for legally recognized reasons. It reiterated that the one-year waiting period serves a purpose, allowing couples time to consider their decision before seeking divorce.

Outcome: The appeal against the Family Court's order was dismissed, but the court allowed the parties to file a fresh application for divorce after the one-year period had expired.

This ruling reinforces the legal framework surrounding divorce in Hindu marriages, emphasizing the need for substantial justification when seeking to dissolve a marriage within its first year.