By DR. K. SHIVARAM | Senior Advocate
RAHUL K. HAKANI | SHASHI BEKAL | Advocates
6. Continuation
of interim orders – Covid-19
pandemic – Bombay High Court – Interim
orders continued
Writ Petition Urgent 2 of 2020
dated 26th March, 2020 and 15th April, 2020 (Bom.)(HC)
In view of
the lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Bombay High Court held that all
interim orders operating till 26th March, 2020 which are not already
continued by some other courts / authorities including this Court, shall remain
in force till 30th April, 2020 subject to liberty to parties to move
for vacation of interim orders only in extremely urgent cases. Thus, all
interim orders passed by this High Court at Mumbai, Aurangabad, Nagpur and
Panaji as also all courts / Tribunals and authorities subordinate over which it
has power of superintendence expiring before 30th April, 2020, shall
continue to operate till then. It is further clarified that such interim orders
which are not granted for limited duration and therefore are to operate till
further orders, shall remain unaffected by this order. In view of the extension
of the lockdown, the interim orders are further extended up to 15th
June, 2020.
7. Arbitration – Limitation – Delay in filing an appeal beyond 120
days cannot be condoned – Further clarified – 120 days include 30 days of grace
period as per Limitation Act [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 34, S.
37; Limitation Act, 1963, S. 5]
N.V. International vs. State of
Assam & Ors.; 2019, SCC OnLine 1584
An arbitral
award was passed on 19th December, 2006 which was challenged before
the District Judge in a petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 which ultimately was rejected on 30th May, 2016. An appeal
was filed against this order in March, 2017 after a delay of 189 days. The
delay was not condoned as no sufficient cause was made out for the same. On an
SLP, the Supreme Court held that apart from sufficient cause, since a section
34 application has to be filed within a period of a maximum of 120 days
including the grace period of 30 days, any appeal u/s 37 should be covered by
the same drill. Allowing a delay beyond 120 days will defeat the overall
purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost dispatch.
8. Limitation
– Covid-19 pandemic – Supreme Court – Relief for litigants and lawyers
[Constitution of India, Articles 141, 142]
Suo motu Writ
petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 dated 23rd March, 2020 (SC)
On account
of the situation posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has suo
motu held that to ease the difficulties faced by the litigants and their
lawyers across the country in filing their petitions / applications / suits /
appeals, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or
special laws whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th
March, 2020 till further order/s passed by this Court in the present
proceedings.
9. Consumer Protection – Self-contribution scheme for benefit of
employees – Whether consumer-service provider relationship between employee and
employer [Consumer Protection Act, S. 2(1)(d), S. 2(1)(o)]
ONGC & Ors. vs. Consumer
Education Research Society & Ors.; 2019, SCC OnLine SC 1575
In this
case there was no dispute that the claimants were employees of ONGC which had
introduced a self-contribution scheme after obtaining the required permissions
from the government. The scheme was voluntary and optional and the employer was
making a token contribution of Rs. 100 p.a. There was a delay in sending the
claims of the employees to LIC on account of which the employees suffered a
loss. The employees filed a case against the employer (ONGC) for deficiency in
service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is virtually no privity of
contract for providing services between the employees and the employer.
Further, the scheme is managed and run by a trust and not by ONGC. Therefore,
the service, if any, is being rendered by the Trust and not by ONGC. Thus,
there is no consumer-service provider relationship between the employees and
the employer (ONGC).
10. Priority of employees’ dues over all dues – Not applicable to
co-operative societies [Companies Act, 1956, S. 529A; Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960, S. 167]
Maharashtra State Co-operative
Bank Limited vs. Babulal Lade & Ors.; 2019, SCC OnLine SC 1545
The Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that
section 167 of the Companies Act, 1956 creates a bar on the applicability of
the Companies Act to societies registered under the Societies Act. Given that
the karkhana (factory) was a co-operative society registered under the
said Act, section 167 of the Societies Act, 1960 is applicable and the High
Court committed a grave error in relying upon section 529A of the Companies
Act, 1956. Thus, employees cannot make use of section 529A of the Companies Act
to claim priority over all the other debts of the karkhana.
