3 March 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives of Deceased Party: Supreme Court

• Case- Rahul Verma and Others vs. Rampat Lal Verma and Others
• Date of Order- February 21, 2025
• Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan

Supreme Court Judgment: The Supreme Court reiterated that an arbitration agreement remains enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm.

Case References:

• The Court referred to the judgment in Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel & Anr. (2008), which affirmed that an arbitration agreement survives the death of a party and can be enforced by or against the legal representatives of the deceased.
• The Delhi High Court's judgment in Jyoti Gupta v. Kewalsons & Ors. (2018) was also referenced. It held that an arbitration agreement does not get discharged upon the death of a partner and can be enforced by the legal heirs of the deceased partner.

Appeal in the Current Case: The case before the Supreme Court involved an appeal against a judgment by the Gauhati High Court. The High Court had referred the legal heirs of a deceased partner to arbitration.

Appellants' Argument: The appellants argued that the arbitration clause could not be enforced against them because they were non-signatories to the original agreement.

Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court rejected the appellants' argument.
• It reaffirmed the position that the term "partners" in an arbitration agreement extends to their legal heirs, representatives, assigns, legatees, etc.
• The Court held that legal heirs of a deceased person are entitled to enforce or be bound by an arbitral award, as they are representatives of the deceased party.
• The Court emphasized that the existence of the arbitration agreement is not affected by the death of a party, as per Section 40 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This ensures that claims arising from the partnership agreement, including the right to sue for rendition of accounts, survive the death of a partner.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld that an arbitration agreement continues to be enforceable by or against the legal representatives of a deceased partner.

2. Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Not Illegal Only Because Either Spouse Did Not Live In The District Where Marriage Was Registered For 30 Days: Bombay High Court

• Case- Priyanka Banerji vs. State of Maharashtra
• Date of Order- February 28, 2025
• Bench- Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Advait Sethna

Court Judgment:

• The Bombay High Court ruled that a marriage duly certified under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 cannot be considered illegal or void just because one of the spouses did not comply with Section 5 of the Act, which requires one of the spouses to reside in the district where the marriage is registered for 30 days.

Key Legal Findings:

• The judges held that once a Marriage Certificate is issued by the Registrar of Marriages under the Special Marriage Act, it is conclusive evidence of the legality of the marriage unless quashed by a court of law.
• The court found that any irregularity, such as one party not residing in the district for the required 30 days, cannot invalidate the marriage or render it void.

Marriage Certificate as Evidence:

• The court emphasized that the marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act is conclusive proof of the marriage's legality.
• The judges referred to Section 13 of the Act, which mandates that a marriage certificate be issued and that this certificate is deemed to be conclusive evidence of the solemnization of the marriage.

Case Background:

• The case involved a petition by Priyanka Bannerji who challenged the legality of a communication from the German Embassy. The embassy had rejected her visa application, stating that her marriage to Rahul Verma (solemnized on November 23, 2023) was not legal because they failed to comply with the 30-day residency requirement under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act.

Court's Ruling on the Marriage:

• The bench ruled that the marriage certificate issued to Priyanka Bannerji and Rahul Verma on November 23, 2023, was valid and legal, despite the alleged irregularity.
• The court emphasized that the marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act is legally valid unless it is set aside by an appropriate authority or court.

Outcome:

• The petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, with the court affirming the validity of the marriage certificate and rejecting the embassy's claim that the marriage was invalid.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the marriage certificate, emphasizing that irregularities in complying with procedural requirements like residency for 30 days do not invalidate the marriage once the certificate is issued under the Special Marriage Act.

3. Anticipatory Bail Plea Maintainable Even if Chargesheet Shows Accused As Declared Absconder: Madhya Pradesh High Court

• Case- Deepankar Vishwas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Thr. P.S. Omti, District Jabalpur
• Date of Order- February 27, 2025
• Bench- Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain

Court Judgment: The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that an anticipatory bail plea is maintainable even if the chargesheet filed shows the accused as a declared absconder or proclaimed offender. The court further ruled that an anticipatory bail plea is maintainable even when proceedings under Sections 82 (Proclamation for person absconding), 83 (Attachment of property of person absconding), or 299 (Record of evidence in absence of accused) of the CrPC have been initiated against the accused.

Key Legal Findings:

• The bench held that the filing of a chargesheet showing the accused as absconding or the initiation of proceedings under Sections 82/83 or 299 of CrPC does not bar the maintainability of an anticipatory bail plea.
• However, the court noted that the grant of anticipatory bail would depend on the gravity and seriousness of the offence involved. The court also emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted cautiously and only in extreme and exceptional cases in the interest of justice.

Case Background:

• Offences Alleged: The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant, or agent), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Charge-Sheet: After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed showing the petitioner as absconding.
• Proceedings Initiated: Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC were initiated against the petitioner, and he was declared a proclaimed offender. A perpetual warrant of arrest was issued against him.
• Anticipatory Bail: The petitioner moved an anticipatory bail plea before the trial court, which was rejected. The petitioner then approached the High Court for anticipatory bail.

Legal Issues:

• The Single Judge raised the issue of whether an anticipatory bail petition can be maintained in cases where proceedings under Section 82/83 or Section 299 of CrPC have been initiated or when the accused has been declared an absconder/proclaimed offender.
• The Single Judge referred the case to the Division Bench due to contradictory orders from the Madhya Pradesh High Court on similar cases.

Court's Ruling:

• The division bench overruled the previous judgments that held anticipatory bail applications to be not maintainable when the chargesheet had been filed and the accused was declared an absconder.
• The court clarified that anticipatory bail is maintainable even if the accused is declared an absconder, but it must be granted cautiously, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the ongoing investigation.
• The bench referred to several judgments, including the Apex Court's decisions in Pradeep Sharma vs. State of M.P. and Bharat Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, which supported the view that anticipatory bail can be granted in appropriate cases even after a chargesheet is filed or when the accused is declared a proclaimed offender.

Outcome:

• The court held that the anticipatory bail application is maintainable in cases where proceedings under Sections 82/83 and 299 of CrPC have been initiated or where the accused has been declared a proclaimed offender.
• The bench emphasized that the grant of anticipatory bail should be based on the nature of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation.
• In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that an anticipatory bail plea is maintainable even if the accused has been declared an absconder or proclaimed offender, as long as the court exercises this power cautiously based on the specific facts of the case.