Month: August 2024

In a significant development on Monday, the Delhi High Court addressed the troubling practice of placing hoardings and posters for candidates in the bar elections of the national capital. The court, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, denounced this practice as a “menace” and urged that such expenditures in bar elections cease immediately.

The remarks came during a hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) advocating for a 33% reservation of seats for women lawyers in the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), and all District Bar Associations in Delhi. Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, President of DHCBA, along with representatives from BCD and the Coordination Committee of district bar associations, attended the session.

The court expressed strong disapproval of the current electoral practices, emphasizing that hoardings and posters are detrimental and contribute to an unhealthy electoral culture. Acting Chief Justice Manmohan underscored that such practices should not be seen as investments for electoral returns and called on senior bar leaders to actively curb these practices.

“This poster hoarding business must stop,” ACJ Manmohan asserted. He urged senior counsels to take proactive measures and warned candidates of potential disqualification to deter them from engaging in these practices. “We owe it to the young generation of lawyers to set a proper example,” he added.

Earlier this year, a full bench had banned the use of hoardings, posters, and parties in bar elections to maintain electoral purity and curb the influence of money. During the recent hearing, the Shahdara Bar Association expressed support for the PIL concerning women’s reservation, and other district bar associations also showed backing for this initiative.

Senior Advocate Mathur highlighted that applying a reservation of one-third seats for women in the DHCBA’s Executive Committee might not be suitable given the association’s large membership base. He suggested that more time be needed to address this matter comprehensively.

The court has scheduled a meeting between the DHCBA and the Coordination Committee of district bar associations to further deliberate on the issue. The case will resume in September.

The PIL underscores the lack of effective representation of women in key positions within the BCD and other bar associations, arguing that this under-representation impacts women’s rights and the overall effectiveness of the justice system. The plea notes that despite an increasing number of women lawyers, their participation in prestigious roles remains minimal due to various professional barriers.

The petition asserts that reserving 33% of seats for women would ensure equal representation and provide women lawyers with opportunities for advancement and addressing grievances. “For 64 years since its establishment, women’s representation in the Bar Council of Delhi, Delhi High Court Bar Association, and District Bar Associations has been almost non-existent. Only two female lawyers have served on the Delhi Bar Council, with neither holding high-ranking positions. This reveals a persistent inequality towards women lawyers,” the plea concludes.

Title: Shobha Gupta Advocate v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that the limitation period for filing a specific performance suit begins from the date fixed for the performance of the contract, rather than from the expiry of the agreement’s validity.

This decision came as the bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale, set aside the concurrent findings of both the High Court and the First Appellate Court. The courts below had incorrectly relied on a clause that stated the agreement would remain valid for five years from the date of execution. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that this clause was irrelevant to determining the date of performance.

The bench observed:

“The First Appellate Court and the High Court went on the consideration that the agreement further recorded that this agreement would remain valid for a period of five years from today’s date i.e., date of the execution of the agreement to sell. Placing reliance on this clause, in our considered opinion, is totally irrelevant. The performance was to take place within one month. The validity of the agreement is something different and does not change the date of performance. What was the reason for incorporating this clause of validating the agreement for five years is not spelled out in the agreement, but in any case, it does not change the date fixed for the performance.”

The court referred to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in reaching its conclusion. In the present case, the sale deed was supposed to be executed within one month from the date of the agreement, dated 17.12.1989. This meant the performance should have occurred by 16.01.1990, and therefore, the limitation period for filing a suit would expire three years later on 16.01.1993.

However, the respondent filed the suit for specific performance in September 1993, well beyond the three-year limitation period. The respondent contended that the limitation period should be counted from the expiry of the agreement’s five-year validity, but the Supreme Court rejected this argument, reiterating that the date of performance, not the validity period, determines the start of the limitation period.

In conclusion, the court held that the period of limitation is to be calculated from the date fixed for performance as outlined in the agreement. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the lower courts’ judgments were set aside.

Case Details:

– Case Name: Usha Devi & Ors. versus Ram Kumar Singh & Ors.
– Civil Appeal No.: 8446 of 2024

 

usha-devi-v-ram-kumar-singh-validity-of-agreement-have-no-role-to-determine-the-period-of-limitation-554852