Call Back Request
Track Your Request
+91-7604047602 Legal Blog For Students Free Legal Advice Lawyer Login
Menu
arrow_back

Get Expert Advice Online
from Top Lawyers
in India

Read Blogs to get more Insights

Litigants and the Lockdown - A court perspective

          Litigants and the Lockdown - A court perspective.It is interesting to see the judiciary come up with new solutions to the novel problem of the lockdown, and so far the courts have been doing what they can to ensure that the regular functioning of the courts isnot hampered too much by the fact that people are no longer allowed to be present in person.[1] India has tried to embark on the path to digitize the court system, and it took a pandemic and a lockdown to finally realize the object of a fully digitized court system. Although one must beware, it does come with own sew of hiccups and issues the court doesn’t have either the readiness or capacity to address. Measures taken by the CourtsIn the months since the lockdown has been announced, the Supreme Court and many High Courts have made a fit case for moving proceedings online and making filings to the registrar through E-mail. Courts have even passed decorum rules for the presentation of lawyers during these online proceedings.Most importantly, courts have reduced the staffing capacities during the lockdown, and ensured that only essential matters are heard during the lockdown. Thesemeasures have had some uneventful consequences, among them the unfortunate interpretation by the Bombay High Court that Bail petitions were not essential litigation,further this as extended to the Supreme Court hearing on matters regarding the government’s handling of migrant workers’ transportation during the lockdown. This paper has only one objective: To understand the plight and status of the average litigant during and after the lockdown through the lens of the effect the multiple orders and guidelines passed by courts have had on the overall functioning of the lower-level judiciary.Litigation BottleneckingThe first interesting point is that the majority of litigation happens in the courts of the first instance, this means that the district, sessions and family courts are the ones that handle a majority of the litigant traffic in the country. They are the worstaffected since the implementation of online proceedings, filings and arguments take time and aredifficult to trickle down to these courts. Even though the Andhra Pradesh High Court, among others, has passed notifications requiring the lower level judiciary to function online and try to import as much of their regular functioning online, it is not the case in many courts, and in fact, these online proceeding guidelines have been misinterpreted in requiring that counsel arrive in court to present their arguments which will then be broadcast to the judge over the air, thus defeating the entire purpose of moving proceedings online. This is just one example of the first instance of the judiciary being barely prepared to handle the porting over to online applications. Litigants have been left with a choice to make such arguments before the judiciary, which make a fit case that their matters fall into the narrow definition of essential cases. The effects of the judiciary pausing or altering its workflow and suffering quantitative setbacks has been seen in both the U.S., South Africa and the UK,where either the judiciary has shut its doors or is working in a similar fashion to Indian Courts.The main issue is that judiciaries over the world are not prepared to deal with the backlogs in their dockets, much less the onslaught of disputes and matters that will come to the fore specifically during the pandemic. One interesting example is execution proceedings on time-bound orders passed by the competent court. In the U.S. since the courts in many cities have closed up the execution of decrees has been impossible, and so has the execution of relief, this has especially hurt the housing sector in the country since many tenants are losing their houses due to the stoppage of income during the pandemic. Since there are no courts, these tenants are unable to secure their living conditions and act against illegal evictions. This has been replicated in India but in a slightly more insidious form”: Right after the announcement of the lockdown by the MHA, extensions had been granted on all orders passedby respective High Courts, meaning that all time-bound executions were pushed by a month from March 24th. The only problem is that partial lockdown is still in force, now towards the end of June, and since courts have severely prioritized on case-load, it has become difficult for litigators to seek remedy, or extension or otherwise. This consequence is the sole product of the courts being unable to adapt to digital conduct of proceedings thus hampering the processing of matters and therefore nullifying all the benefit and advantage rendered to the litigant in the process of granting the extension in the first place. There is again the issue of national-level tribunals extending their shutdown, where originally the NCLT shut down for a few weeks, that had later been extended in a separate notification dated Apr 24, similarly, the NCDRC has also extended its shut down till the initial May 3rd deadline.Not only does this prevent the litigant from accessing these tribunals to exercise his powers of appeal, but it also reduces his chances of timely or at least speedy redressal since this continued shutdown will increase the backlog of cases in these tribunals.Coupled with the lack of a long term plan of action regarding whether the digital filing system that has been adopted during the pandemic will be continued after,it is unclear how litigation will get back on its feet. It is imperative that the improvement since digitization ispreserved because in the aftermath of the pandemic there will be an onslaught of litigants that will need to be serviced and that number will only grow if the courts do not manage to increase their efficiency during the lockdown, and they should be mindful of the small but significant increments that help in creating an impact that is bigger than the sum of its products. The remote service of petitions and video conferencing the proceedings are two main developments that the pandemic has sprouted that have the potential to make the courts more accessible in the long run.It is the continued deployment that will see this accessibility become a reality. It is interesting to note that previously in 2013, the Delhi district courts had been once attempted to be digitized at great expense, the judges were provided with drawing tablets and monitors so that all required documents could be displayed and processed digitally without the need to make any print copies in the entire process. With the Madras HC still requiring physical copies to be filed for proceedings even during the lockdown, one can appreciate how well this scheme of digitization has caught on.Procedural DifferencesMoving court proceedings online also means that there will be a difference in the procedural aspects. The most glaring of which the Supreme Court has addressed in its Suo Motu decision on video conferencing: The Electronic evidence rule, the requirements to prove a document saved in an electronic form re greater, and Sec. 65B and 45 of the Evidence Act will play a greater role now that physical appearance has been limited. Documents for evidence could earlier be submitted in physical form, and marking and admissibility was a simpler process of procurement and submission. With electronic evidence, things are a little more complicated. It is known that under Sec. 65B electronic evidence can be produced either on paper, or optical drive or otherwise. The real problem is the verification and admission of secondary evidence and the admission of electronic forms of a conventionally physical medium. The procedure for admission of secondary electronic evidence is given in the act itself. But the procedure for admitting a digital copy of a document, when physical counterparts were available or were the norm, is a topic that has not been broached. In Sec. 65, the conditions under which secondary evidence could be produced have been enumerated, and it is a matter of note that courts will find it difficult to admit secondary electronic evidence when primary documents are available and may be produced before the court. The two main decisions governing electronic evidence: State NCT of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu[2005] 11 SCC 600, where the court decided on the instances where secondary evidence could be produced, among other things; it was held and can be inferred that secondary evidence should be produced in those situations where primary versions of the documents were hard, or impossible to find. The other decision being Anwar v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, here again,the matter of discussion was the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence. Outlining the procedural requirements that are necessary for the submission of secondary electronic evidence. Sec. 63 is the operating section when it comes to the general admission of secondary evidence, while mechanical copies could be admitted as secondary evidence, the specific question is whether this will clash with the requirement in Sec. 65B. The only case that discusses this peculiarity is Darshan Kaur v Amritsar Primary O-operative Agricultural Bank Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (2) PLR 289 here it was held that a photostat of a document while not being primary evidence, was not entirely secondary evidence.The safer assumption is that such evidence is electronically submitted since the original document is difficult to bring before the court. The only issue is, the original physical documents may be brought before the court only that it will take much longer, should that be allowed as an exemption to producing electronic evidence? This brings us to the best evidence rule, a principle that states that a party who as the burden of proof needs to submit to the court. The Supreme Court discussed the doctrine in Bal Hira Devi v Official Assignee of Bombay 1958 SCR 1384 here the court rad the principle into Sec. 91 of the Evidence Act. The proposition being that a document was the best evidence of the contents of the document, and this rule extended to all secondary evidence. This is the primary concern with the Supreme Court’s mandate to move all proceedings online, while it would have been clarificatory to pass an order deeming all electronically submitted versions of documents the primary evidence of a document for the time being at least, much confusion could have been avoided. Then there is the issue of cross-examination if the process is happening remotely, would it be as effective as usual, or would the examinations performed remotely be granted the status of examinations under oath and affidavit under O-19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is important to note that examination is not just to elicit answers to the questions posed, but also to observe the conduct and demeanour of the witness. For that reason, the question becomes, whether the examination conducted out of court, will need to be sworn on affidavit. While usually the granting of cross-examination on video-conferencing was the discretion of the court, it was usually used in situations where the witnesses were hard to produce before the court. Thus precedent existed for allowing examination and cross to happen through video conferencing, but its used as an exception to the rule is to be noted.ConclusionIn light of the above observations, it can be concluded that the average litigant has been affected negatively by the pandemic, and will continue to be affected negatively unless the court system takes action and actively attempts to reduce the burden on the judiciary during the pandemic and makes the process a little more accessible in light of the continued lack of access during the lockdown. In short, the following are the consequences for the average litigant:1.     The matters that they have submitted before the court may not be addressed for a long time to come.2.     If they are addressed, they might not qualify as essential litigation.3.     Due to the lack of experience of the courts in the digitization of proceedings, and the in-general reluctance to adapt, all attempts at accessibility are hamstrung at the origin. 4.     The courts are underprepared to meet the demand of their litigants after the lockdown has been lifted, and excessive demand has been created by either shutdown of the court/ tribunal, or reduced capacity operation (which is again a consequence of underutilization of the digital resource alternatives).5.    The author of this blog/Article is Kishan Dutt Kalaskar, a Retired Judge and practising advocate  having an experience of 35+ years in handling different legal matters. He has prepared and got published Head Notes for more than 10,000 Judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts in different Law Journals. From his experience he wants to share this beneficial information for the individuals having any issues with respect to their related matters .Author :Kishan Dutt KalaskarAdvocate (Retired Judge)[email protected]: 9686971935 [1]https://main.sci.gov.in/notices-circulars: Limitations on presence of counsel in SC

Posted By

Kishan Dutt Kalaskar Retired Judge

5 days ago

Go to Blog

How to get compensation from builder under RERA ac...

Under sec.18 of the RERA act, If the Builder fails to complete and handover the possession of an apartment, plot or building on an agreed date under the terms of agreement, as the case may be and on such default of the builder the allottee/s have the right either to continue with the project and seek for delay compensation from the builder for the number of days delayed by the builder in handing over the possession of the apartment plot or building. (Handing over means & includes completion and occupancy certificate for the building/project). Or in the alternative to seek for cancellation and refund of the amount with interest at the rate of SBI Highest Marginal rate of lending plus 2% on the amount paid by the allottee/s till the date of payment. (When the payments are made on different dates the calculation will be from the date of payment and on the amount paid.) Karnataka Rera Rules, 2017 prescribes that the builder/developer is liable to oblige the order passed under sec.18 within a period of 60days from the date of order.Further Rule 25 & 26 prescribes that if the builder/developer has failed to make the payment under sec.18 read with rule 15&16 of the execution of the order passed by the Adjudicating officer & Real Estate Appellate tribunal shall be executed as per the procedure of law.If the allottee/s does not intend to withdraw from the project, allottee/s shall be entitled for interest for every month of delay till the date of handing over of possession. The allottee/s shall be entitled for the above reliefs whenever there is a default of builder may be for the reasons like discontinuance of the business as developer due to suspension or revocation of registration under the act or for any other reasons (Except FORCE MAJEURE EVENTS)The allottee/s are entitled for compensation in case where the project lan suffers defective land title. Whenever there is a defect in the land title then also the project allottee/s or homebuyers in the project are entitled for compensation from the builder/developer of the project. If the promoter fails to perform his part of obligations under the provisions, rules & regulations of this act or fails to perform his obligations under the terms of agreement entered between the builder/developer & allottee/s then the allottee/s shall be entitled for the relief of compensation.Sec.18 of RERA act is compensatory in nature & not a penalty imposed on the builder/developer. As a measure of protection an allottee/s can have compensation only from the builder for the defaults.  For seeking the compensation from the builder under this provision of the act, allottee/s will have to file a complaint before the RERA Adjudicating officer as per FORM ‘O’ [See sub-rule (1) of rule 30] APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING OFFICER- Claim for compensation under section 31 read with section 71. If the allottee/s fails to get the proper & reasoned order from Adjudicating officer under the above mentioned provision. The allottee/s can appeal the order passed by the Adjudicating officer before the RERA Appellate Tribunal as per FORM-R [See sub-rule (2) of rule 33] APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - Appeal under section 44 of the Act within 60days from the date of order passed by the Adjudicating officer an seek for the reliefs in appeal.Sec.18. reads as under - (1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,—(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act:Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss caused to him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is being developed or has been developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and the claim for compensation under this subsection shall not be barred by limitation provided under any law for the time being in force.(3) If the promoter fails to discharge any other obligations imposed on him under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale, he shall be liable to pay such compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided under this Act.KARNATAKA RERA RULES WITH RESPECT TO SEC.18:RATE OF INTEREST PAYABLE BY PROMOTER AND ALLOTTEE ANDTIMELINES FOR REFUND16. Rate of interest payable by the promoter and the allottee.- The rate ofinterest payable by the promoter to the allottee or by the allottee to the promoter, as the case may be, shall be the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate plus two percent.17. Timelines for refund.- Any refund of money along with the applicableinterest and compensation, if any, payable by the promoter in terms of the Act or the rules and regulations made there under, shall be payable by the promoter to the allottee within sixty days from the date on which such refund along with applicable interest and compensation, if any, becomes due.25. Manner of recovery of interest, penalty and compensation.- Subject tothe provisions of sub-section (1) of section 40, the recovery of the amounts due as arrears of land revenue shall be carried out in the manner provided in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the rules made there under.26. Manner of implementation of order, direction or decisions of theadjudicating officer, the Authority or the Appellate Tribunal.- For the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 40, every order passed by the adjudicating officer, regulatory authority or Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, under the Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder, shall be enforced by the adjudicating officer, regulatory authority or the Appellate Tribunal in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by the principal civil court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the adjudicating officer, regulatory authority or Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, in the event of its inability to execute the order, send such order to the principal civil court, to execute such order either within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the real estate project is located or in the principal civil court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person against whom the order is being issued, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.

Posted By

Sharada H v

1 week ago

Go to Blog

{{ item.userName }}

{{ item.review }}

{{ item.createdOn }}

Experience

: {{lawyerExperience}}

Location

: Delhi, East Delhi

State Bar Council

: Delhi

Professional Summary

Advocate with strong understanding and hold on legal matters and litigation. She is very adept and competent in handling matters at High Court, District Courts and Tribunals like Consumer Forum, etc. She has been handling and appearing in courts for DIVORCE, MAINTENANCE, PROPERTY, BAIL, CRIMINAL, CHEQUE BOUNCE, CIVIL, LABOUR MATTERS etc. and have been diligently getting orders and decrees in her favour of the clients.


Client Testimonials

Top Responding Lawyers

Experience: 4 Year(s)
Aurangabad
Experience: 10 Year(s)
Nagpur
Experience: 2 Year(s)
Kolkata
Experience: 23 Year(s)
Bhubaneswar
Experience: 10 Year(s)
Bangalore
Experience: 16 Year(s)
Panipat
Experience: 16 Year(s)
Kolkata
Experience: 12 Year(s)
South Delhi
Experience: 6 Year(s)
New Delhi
Experience: 20 Year(s)
Bangalore
Experience: 6 Year(s)
Pune
Experience: 4 Year(s)
Faridabad
Experience: 4 Year(s)
Mumbai
Experience: 21 Year(s)
New Delhi
Experience: 13 Year(s)
Thane
Experience: 18 Year(s)
Patna
Experience: 39 Year(s)
Jabalpur
Experience: 19 Year(s)
Tirunelveli
Experience: 5 Year(s)
Faridabad
Experience: 19 Year(s)
Chennai
Experience: 18 Year(s)
Kanpur
Experience: 3 Year(s)
New Delhi
Experience: 18 Year(s)
Thiruvananthapuram

Confirm

Are you sure you want to request for this Advocate's number?

Invalid login details ! Please check your password.

Please provide your registered email and you will receive a four digit OTP number in your email and registered phone number

Yes, I understand and agree to the Vidhikarya User Agreement and Privacy Policy
There is no user registered with this email !
info OTP will be sent to your Phone Number linked with the registered Email ID.
An OTP(One Time Password) has been sent to your registered phone number
. Please enter the 4 digit OTP number that has been sent to your number and click Verify.
If you haven't received any OTP, please click the Resend button below.
We have just sent an OTP to your provided phone number ! Please provide the OTP in the above field. Try again after
second.

Please mention how you would like to be contacted

Please select how would you like to Consult

Review and Confirm

Consultation Request for Advocate
Charges : 
 (with 18% GST)

Download the Clients App on

Vidhikarya App on Android Platform

Contact Details

7604047602
[email protected]
505-A, Terminus Building,
Newtown, Action Area I,
Kolkata 700156

Download the Lawyers App on

Vidhikarya App on Android Platform

Certified by Startup India, DPIIT

startUpIndia

Payment secured by :

PayUMoney PayPal net banking
visa master maestro