Rejection of Plaint due to Lack of Jurisdiction

Rejection of a plaint is a critical argument often raised by the defense under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This ground is frequently invoked in written statements, with the primary prayer often being the rejection of the plaint. While seemingly straightforward, the procedural intricacies involved are essential to understand in the context of litigation.

Jurisdictional Grounds for Rejection of Plaint

A lack of jurisdiction is a valid ground for the rejection of a plaint. However, questions arise about the implications of such a rejection. It is commonly assumed that a fresh suit will be filed in a court with proper jurisdiction. But what about the orders issued by the court lacking jurisdiction? Even if a judgment passed by a court is erroneous, it is binding. So, does the same apply to interim orders issued by a court lacking jurisdiction?

Case Law Analysis

1. Sri. K.Somanath Nayak vs Sri. D.Veerendra Heggade (5 May 2022, Karnataka High Court)

   The Karnataka High Court addressed interim orders in cases where a court's jurisdiction is questioned. The court ruled that while an objection to jurisdiction must be resolved promptly, the court is not instantly disabled from passing interim orders. Such orders are effective until the court decides it lacks jurisdiction. These orders are subject to modification or vacating once the court determines it has no jurisdiction. For example, if a party is dispossessed from the property by a receiver, the court must restore the party to their original position if it later determines it lacks jurisdiction. However, violations of these interim orders before the jurisdictional decision can still be punished. The relevant para of the judgment states:

   "…where an objection to jurisdiction of a civil court is raised to entertain a suit and to pass any interim orders therein, the Court should decide the question of jurisdiction in the first instance but that does not mean that pending the decision on the question of jurisdiction, the Court has no jurisdiction to pass interim orders as may be called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. A mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable the court from passing any interim orders. It can yet pass appropriate orders. At the same time, it should also decide the question of jurisdiction at the earliest possible time. The interim orders so passed are orders within jurisdiction when passed and effective till the court decides that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. These interim orders undoubtedly come to an end with the decision that this Court had no jurisdiction. It is open to the court to modify these orders while holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Indeed, in certain situations, it would be its duty to modify such orders or make appropriate directions. For example, take a case where a party has been dispossessed from the suit property by appointing a receiver or otherwise; in such a case, the court should, while holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, must put back the party in the position he was on the date of suit. But this power or obligation has nothing to do with the proposition that while in force, these orders have to be obeyed and their violation can be punished even after the question of jurisdiction is decided against the plaintiff provided the violation is committed before the decision of the court on the question of Jurisdiction."

2. Suresh Vijayavargiya vs Ashok Kumar (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

   The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that interim orders issued by a court lacking jurisdiction would stand vacated following the rejection of the plaint. The matter was remanded to the appropriate trial court to proceed according to the law.

3. M/S Exl Careers and Another vs Frankfinn Aviation Service Private Limited (Supreme Court)

   The Supreme Court elaborated on the consequences of rejecting a plaint, stating that the matter should be heard de novo, or from the beginning, after the plaint's rejection. This ruling underscores that a fresh start is necessary when a plaint is rejected due to jurisdictional issues.

Conclusion

The procedural law surrounding the rejection of a plaint and subsequent orders is complex and varies based on the court's findings on jurisdiction. Interim orders passed by a court lacking jurisdiction are not permanently binding and can be vacated or modified. Understanding these nuances is crucial for navigating litigation effectively and ensuring compliance with jurisdictional requirements. Further development in this area will be updated in upcoming blogs.

Cold Start Doctrine: A Cold Start with a Cold Heart

 

The Cold Start Doctrine is a concept formulated by the Indian Army, although they officially deny its existence. This doctrine is an offensive strategy against Pakistan, yet it is reasonable to believe that the Indian Army, like any army, always prepares for contingencies and plans to counter potential threats.

Essence of the Doctrine

The core idea of the doctrine is that in the event of a conflict with Pakistan, there is always the risk of nuclear fallout, which would be detrimental to both countries. However, the threat from Pakistan must be addressed regardless. If war occurs, the Indian Army, with the assistance of other armed forces, will mobilize and launch attacks on all fronts. Pakistan would be overwhelmed due to India's larger size and might. In such a situation, the Indian Army can disarm Pakistan before it resorts to using its nuclear arsenal. This summarizes the Cold Start Doctrine: a cold start with a cold heart.

Applying the Doctrine in Legal Defense

I have observed that many advocates, especially in defense cases, use a similar strategy. It is well-known that trials in India are not expeditious and are often messy affairs. Considering these factors, the best-case scenario for the defense is the rejection of the suit. Rejection can be achieved through various methods such as compromise, mediation, arbitration, or conciliation. However, if all these methods fail, we should adopt the Cold Start Doctrine approach: a cold start with a cold heart. The phrase itself is so catchy that I might follow it for its appeal alone.

Lessons from Robert Clive

The gentleman in the image is Robert Clive, a pivotal figure in establishing the East India Company’s rule in India. Clive served as the Governor of Bengal from 1757-60 and again from 1765-67. We often become emotional over colonialism and blame our former kings for India's fall to the British. Many cite Prithvi Raj Chauhan’s decision to pardon Mohammad Ghori, which allegedly opened the floodgates for Islamic invasions in the subcontinent—an entirely separate topic for another blog. Learning from past mistakes is crucial for growth, yet our elites have repeatedly failed to do so. We continue to be governed by the same laws and methods, with distinct shortcomings in various areas.

The Battle of Plassey

When discussing the Battle of Plassey, the narrative often focuses on British cunningness in leveraging Mir Jafar and Siraj Ud Daulah. However, we must consider the perspective of Robert Clive himself. Clive’s success stemmed from his army’s superior discipline, armament, and crucially, better pay. Historians agree that these factors played a significant role in his victories.

In contrast, when the British defeated the Marathas, they discovered vast amounts of wealth in the Maratha camps. Despite having substantial resources, Maratha leaders failed to adequately pay their soldiers, leading to low morale and inefficiency.

"After their victory over the Marathas, the British found vast amounts of cash and treasure in the Maratha camps, which highlighted the fact that, despite having substantial resources, the Maratha leaders had failed to pay their soldiers properly."

— Pramod K. Nayar, The Great Uprising: India, 1857

Economic Disparities: Then and Now

This disparity highlights a persistent issue: the neglect of workers' remuneration. The British respected and compensated their soldiers, contributing to their military success. Today, a similar neglect persists in India. Many workers feel underpaid relative to their labor, a situation exacerbated by poverty, which forces employees to accept any available job.

Case Study: The Hinduja Family

A recent example is the Hinduja family’s conviction in Switzerland for exploiting domestic workers. Employees worked up to 18 hours a day with minimal vacation and received less than one-tenth of the legally mandated pay. Imagine getting paid 1/10th the payment mandated without dignity. This exploitation reflects a broader issue of worker mistreatment and inadequate compensation. Members from Hinduja family got convicted because the matter was in Switzerland, in India I have reasons to believe that many such cases are left buried. 

The Exploitation in Legal Field

In the legal field, exploitation manifests in unpaid internships, with some firms even charging interns for basic necessities. The rationale is that interns are there to learn, but this often leads to harassment under the guise of training. Personally, I have  don't have such experience but I have dodged few bullets in initial interviews itself, but not everyone is as fortunate.

Conclusion

Fair compensation is not just a moral duty but a practical necessity for quality output. Employers who invest in their employees' welfare see better results and fewer complications. The historical lesson from Robert Clive’s victories is clear: respecting and adequately compensating workers leads to success. With great power comes great responsibility, and those in positions of authority must prioritize fair treatment and remuneration of their workforce to foster growth and avoid unnecessary troubles.

Guiding Principles of Res Judicata

 The concept of Res Judicata is described in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The provision states:

No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

A bare reading of this provision gives us the basic idea that a suit cannot be tried again if it has already been tried in a competent court with the same issues in question. However, when we examine the procedural aspects of this doctrine, we find many challenges in its application.

Procedural Challenges

For instance, if a suit is filed for Probate and Succession as per Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, and upon failure to obtain the Letters of Administration, can we not apply to the same Civil Court for the same remedy? If Res Judicata were strictly applicable, we wouldn't be able to do this. However, courts interpret such suits as summary trials, which may be considered exceptions to the doctrine of Res Judicata, though such exceptions are not explicitly mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Relevant Case Law

Sri Venkatalingaiah Murthy vs Smt Nalini @ Mala (2020)

In the case of Sri Venkatalingaiah Murthy vs Smt Nalini @ Mala on January 8, 2020, Justice Nagarathna clarified that:

...the procedure for the grant of probate is quite distinct from the procedure envisaged in a suit when a plaint is filed under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC. Thus, a suit filed within the meaning of Section 90 of the CPC cannot be equated with a petition filed under Section 276 of the Act.

This interpretation suggests that there are exceptions to the Doctrine of Res Judicata, raising questions about its applicability, as this is a critical doctrine in the rejection of a plaint.

Prem Kishore vs Brahm Prakash (2023)

The Supreme Court's ruling in Prem Kishore vs Brahm Prakash on March 29, 2023, is an important decision in interpreting Res Judicata. The judgment states:

The general principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC contains rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality. Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff’s appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit.

Further, the judgment discusses the power of the court while handling matters of res judicata:

The power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of the CPC to decide the suit on the merits for the default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts the remedy of the unsuccessful party for redress. It has to be used only sparingly in exceptional cases. Physical presence without preparedness to cooperate for anything connected with the progress of the case serves no useful purpose in deciding the suit on the merits and it is worse than absence. In any contingency, the discretion is always with the Court to resort to Rule 2 or 3 respectively or to grant an adjournment for deciding the suit in a regular way in spite of default. Rules 2 and 3 respectively are only enabling provisions. In order to decide the suit on the merits, the mere existence of the conditions enumerated in Rule 3 alone will not be sufficient. There must be some materials for a decision on the merits, even though the materials may not be technically interpreted as evidence. Sometimes the decision in such cases could be on the basis of pleadings, documents and burden of proof. Anyhow, it is appreciable for the Court to indicate by the judgment that the decision is for default or on the merits. The only alternative of the Court in cases covered by Rule 3 or the explanation to Rule 2 is not to decide on the merits alone. If such an interpretation is given, it will amount to an unjustified preference to one who purposely absents than to one who presents but unable to proceed with the case. 'Appearance' and 'presence' have well-recognized meanings. They imply presence in person or through pleader properly authorized for the purpose of conducting the case. Rule 3 comes into play only when presence is to proceed with the case, but default is committed in any one of the three ways mentioned in Rule 2 or explanation to Rule 2 is extracted. Those are cases in which some materials are there for the Court to decide the case on the merits and not cases where the decision could only be for default.

Conclusion

A combined reading of these judgments provides a broader interpretation of Res Judicata. If the courts take a different view in future cases, I will update this blog accordingly. For now, this is a comprehensive overview of the concept of Res Judicata and its application in Indian law.

Thoughts on Constitution of India

There are several problems with the Constitution of India, though some agree and many do not. The main issue is that those who dislike the Constitution often fail to present their arguments effectively. I would like to take on this task and put forward my arguments.

Arguments in Favor of the Constitution

Supporters of the Constitution often highlight the freedoms, liberties, and fundamental rights it bestows upon citizens. Some also give emotional reasons, such as its creation by freedom fighters.

My Contention with the Constitution

My main contention with the Constitution is not that it is copied, insufficient, or lengthy. My primary issue is that the Constitution of India should not contain certain provisions. In my opinion, the Constitution should include provisions till the Directive Principles of State Policy, that is from Article 1 to Article 51 and the remaining parts—such as the powers of the President and Governors—should be placed in a separate act called the Government of India Act.

The Role of the Constitution

The Constitution is the law of the land; it must protect its citizens from harm and clearly establish the role of the government in society. However, our Constitution tries to regulate everything in the country. It describes how the taxation system must function, along with various other provisions that need not be in the Constitution. Supporters argue that India's diversity necessitates these provisions, but ask yourself, "Is the system actually working efficiently?" The argument that the Constitution is bulky due to our population and diversity does not hold up, as the same diverse and populous country was ruled by powers without a constitution. We cannot dismiss those colonial powers as inefficient since we still use their systems. So, what steps have we taken to create a good Constitution for ourselves?

The Case for Rewriting the Constitution

In my opinion, it would be best if the Constitution of India were rewritten. The Constitution should primarily contain the rights given to the people, while the legislature should decide the form of government. Currently, one must win elections to become a cabinet minister. The problem is that competent individuals often cannot win elections because doing so requires significant resources. Those focused on building their competence are working in their core fields and cannot concentrate on winning elections. India, in my opinion, should have a presidential form of government like the USA, or we could have another Constituent Assembly to decide the Constitution's structure. The Constitution is ultimately a mechanism in democracy and can be criticized. I have observed that when this subject is broached, people often jump to defend the Constitution with weak arguments.

Limiting the Scope of the Constitution

The Constitution should not interfere in all matters; some should be left to legislative acts. The need for constant amendments indicates a problem. Imagine amending the Constitution to change the state's taxing structure when we could simply scrap an act and introduce a new one as needed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Constitution of India, while a significant document that has shaped our nation, requires critical evaluation and restructuring to better serve its purpose. By limiting the scope of the Constitution to fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, and addressing other aspects through separate legislative acts, we can create a more efficient and adaptable governance system. A reformed Constitution will not only respect the diversity and complexity of our nation but also ensure that the government functions effectively and competently, reflecting the true spirit of democracy.

How Smart People Can Make Foolish Mistakes: The Nishant Agrawal Case

This case involves a young scientist who fell for one of the oldest tricks in the espionage book: the "Honey Trap." Nishant Agrawal, a young scientist acclaimed in the scientific community, was responsible for handing over at least 70-80 missiles to the Indian Army. The case began when the Uttar Pradesh ATS received information from an informer that a fake account from Pakistan was supposedly in contact with various Indian scientists. Nishant was initially approached through his LinkedIn account while he was searching for opportunities to work abroad. During this time, his computer was infected with malware that stole many critical documents.

Defense of the Accused

In his defense, Nishant Agrawal initially denied all the allegations in front of the Magistrate. Later, he claimed to be a victim who did not intend to pass secret information to Pakistan. The defendant relied on the judgment in Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (1965), which emphasized the prosecution's role in establishing the guilt of the accused. He also cited Nagendra Sah vs. State of Bihar (2021), which discussed the prosecution's responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the defense referred to State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nandu Vishwakarma and Others (2009), which held that when evidence on record can support two views, the view favoring the accused should be accepted. However, these cases were found not applicable given the circumstances. The defense's arguments focused on procedural issues and the admissibility of evidence, asserting that the prosecution must provide hard evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Prosecution's Assertion

The prosecution had a relatively straightforward job, as the work done by the ATS and other agencies was commendable. They successfully apprehended the accused and presented all the documents implicating him in the case.

Personal Opinion

After reviewing the judgment, it is clear that the agencies did a commendable job in this instance. However, it is society's duty to prevent such incidents from occurring in the first place. Nishant Agrawal was a talented scientist, but he fell for a very basic bait. There have been other cases where India has suffered for similar reasons. Organizations working in areas related to national security must conduct sessions to educate their employees on avoiding such traps. It is disheartening to think that this could have been prevented, and now we have lost a great talent. Talents like Nishant are already hard to retain as they get better opportunities abroad. Those who choose to stay should be protected and not lost to the enemy's deceitful tactics.

Conclusion

This case serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that even the most intelligent individuals can have. It highlights the critical importance of vigilance and education in safeguarding national security. As technology advances and espionage tactics evolve, continuous efforts must be made to protect valuable assets and personnel from such threats. Ensuring robust security protocols and fostering awareness can help prevent future incidents and preserve the integrity of our national defense capabilities.

Purulia Arms Drop Case: A Dark Chapter in India's National Security History

The Purulia Arms Drop Case is one of the most deplorable instances in the history of national security in India, and all the agencies in the Indian national security apparatus are to be blamed for this. Most people now do not know about this case, as the last discussion over this issue was in 2015 when BJD MP from Orissa, Tathagata Satapathy, raised this issue in Parliament, and we still have not received many answers from the government regarding this issue.

Background

The story starts when an AN 32 aircraft took off from Karachi Airport in Pakistan, with its intended destination being Dhaka, Bangladesh. However, it diverted on the way to drop a consignment of arms, like the airdrops in the famous game PUBG. An aircraft taking off from Pakistan is enough to raise alarms, but after the plane re-entered Indian airspace, it was pursued and forced to land at Mumbai International Airport. All the accused passengers were caught, but one, who was also the mastermind of the operation, managed to escape from this high-security cordoned-off area. He later revealed that he was helped by an Indian MP who is still an MP as of 2024.

Government's Side of the Story

The government's side of the story is simple: it was a case of terrorism, and all the accused will be tried, and the one who escaped will be extradited.

Accused Side of the Story

There was a total of eight members, consisting of five Russians, one Singaporean of Indian origin, one British national, and one Danish citizen who is also the mastermind of the operation. The mastermind, Kim Davy, claims that the arms were dropped with cooperation from Indian agencies to supposedly bring down the communist government led by Jyoti Basu in West Bengal. The arms were dropped for an organization named Ananda Marga, which had various conflicts with the communists of Bengal. The main mastermind, Kim Davy, has written a book about this case.

Case Law

After this fiasco, the accused were convicted under the Arms Act, Explosives Act, Aircraft Act, and for waging war against India as per Section 121A of the IPC. Soon, the accused challenged this order in Calcutta High Court in the case of Peter James Gifran Von Kalkestein ... vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 20 September 2002. In this case, one of the accused, Peter Bleach, made an interesting argument. He raised some intriguing questions over the President's power of pardon as per Article 72 of the Indian Constitution and Article 161 for the Governor, along with Article 361, which gives the President the power to not answer the court in the exercise of his power.

Peter Bleach contended that since the other five Russians were convicted for the same offence he did, they got a pardon from the President, but he did not, as he was discriminated against. He argued that Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law, is applicable to all, including foreigners, and the President, being the head of the executive, cannot make any decision contrary to the Constitution. For his support, he produced many landmark judgments such as Swaran Singh Vs State of UP, Satpal Vs State of Haryana, SR Bommai Vs Union of India, and Harbans Singh Vs State of UP.

The Hon'ble Court considered the merits of all those judgments but ultimately found that Peter Bleach was not on equal footing with the other accused, as he was instrumental in buying the aircraft. Therefore, the question of whether the President or Governor can be held liable for using the powers of pardon in a discriminatory manner or contrary to the Constitution was left unanswered.

Conclusion

The Purulia Arms Drop Case remains a dark chapter in India's national security history. Despite the various narratives and legal battles, many questions remain unanswered, reflecting the complexities and challenges in addressing such significant security breaches. This case serves as a stark reminder of the need for vigilance, transparency, and accountability within the national security apparatus.

Judgment on Peter Bleach's Case 

Why lawyers can't refuse to take a Case?

Recently a non Lawyer friend of mine sent me a reel on Instagram where an attorney in USA was asking his client "Who is the best counsel?" to which the client replies "Jayoma" to which the attorney replies "And why am I the best?" then the client starts by saying that the Attorney got his case dismissed and he was charged under assault and attempt to murder of a pregnant lady. The comment section of that reel was filled with comments showing the discontent against the Attorney.

This reminded me of similar instances where representation to the convicts in Nirbhaya Gang Rape case and representation to Ajmal Kasab and other terrorists, rapists and scammers was seen with a disdain in the eyes of ordinary people. Well people are emotional we can't blame them but the position of laws and regulations don't care about their feelings.

Concept of Legal Aid 

Basically, every person is entitled to be represented in the court because if he is not represented he will not get punished. The main aim of the trial is to serve the justice by hearing all the parties, if one party is not heard at all then the trial will not reach its rightful end. So to meet the ends of justice, a trial is required and for a trial to happen we must have representation of such parties.

Legal Aid is not only a concept of Jurisprudence it is also a right as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

In Legal practice generally a lawyer is required to provide Legal Aids as he is bound by Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Rule 46 which states that - 

"Every advocate shall, in the practice of the profession of law, bear in mind that anyone genuinely in need of a lawyer is entitled to legal assistance even though he cannot pay for it fully or adequately and that within the limits of an advocate’s economic condition, free legal assistance to the indigent and oppressed is one of the highest obligations an advocate owes to society." 

Further a Lawyer simply can't refuse to take a case without a sufficient cause as per Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Section II, Rule 11. 

Judicial Position 

In the case A.S.Mohammed Rafi vs State Of Tamil Nadu in year 2010 where Supreme Court while discussing the resolutions passed by Bar Council of States, stating that they will not represent terrorists said 

In our opinion, such resolutions are wholly illegal, against all traditions of the bar, and against professional ethics. Every person, however, wicked, depraved, vile, degenerate, perverted, loathsome, execrable, vicious or repulsive he may be regarded by society has a right to be defended in a court of law and correspondingly it is the duty of the lawyer to defend him.

Conclusion 

People generally have a very bad image of lawyers and their ethics. Many had said this to me while I was choosing to pursue degree in law that you have to tell many lies etc to feed yourself in this profession but to them I just tell them that first of all it is illegal to lie in court because that amounts to perjury. It is necessary that we respect everyone's profession and as lawyers one must try to conduct ourselves in such a way that we are respected in society.