1). Litigants May Face Prejudice Due to 30-Day Appeal Limit in FC Act vs. 90 Days Under HMA, Says Gauhati High Court

Case Background

The Gauhati High Court recently considered an application to condone a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against a family court’s order. The appeal was already beyond the 30-day limitation period prescribed under the Family Courts Act, 1984. However, the court noted that this delay may not necessarily make the appeal "barred by limitation."

Issues of the Case

1. Whether a 21-day delay beyond the 30-day limitation period under the Family Courts Act is an "inordinate delay" that warrants rejection of the appeal.
2. Whether the inconsistency in limitation periods under the Family Courts Act and the Hindu Marriage Act creates an unfair disadvantage for litigants.
3. Whether the applicant provided a valid explanation for the delay.

Court Observations

• The case was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Kakheto Sema.
• The court found that a 21-day delay was not excessive and should not automatically result in dismissal of the appeal.
• The judges noted that before the Family Courts Act (1984), appeals under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) had a 30-day limitation period. However, after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002), the HMA’s limitation period was extended from 30 days to 90 days in 2003.
• Despite this amendment in HMA, a similar amendment was not made in the Family Courts Act, leading to an inconsistency in limitation periods for appeals depending on whether the case was handled by a Family Court or a District Judge’s court.
• In Assam, not all districts have Family Courts. If a Family Court is unavailable, matrimonial disputes are handled by the District Judge under HMA (with a 90-day limitation period). But if a Family Court exists, the limitation remains 30 days, creating an unfair situation for litigants.
• The court noted that a uniform limitation period should be prescribed to avoid prejudice against litigants filing appeals under the Family Courts Act.

Court Rulings & Decisions

• The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, which held that explaining each day’s delay strictly is not always necessary.
• The court acknowledged inconsistencies in the applicant’s explanation regarding when the certified copy of the judgment was received. However, it accepted that the certified copy was obtained on July 18, 2024, and that the delay was not intentional.
• The court also cited a Full Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in Shivram Dodanna Shetty v. Sharmila Shivram Shetty (2017), which held that appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act should follow the limitation period prescribed under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act (i.e., 90 days).

Legal Provisions 

• Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 – Allows courts to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown.
• Section 28, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Governs appeals against matrimonial judgments. Amended in 2003 to extend limitation from 30 to 90 days.
• Section 19(1), Family Courts Act, 1984 – Provides a 30-day limitation for appeals against Family Court judgments.
• Supreme Court precedents – Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (1987) were considered.

Significance of the Judgment

• The ruling highlights the need to amend the Family Courts Act to align its appeal limitation period with the Hindu Marriage Act.
• It reinforces a liberal approach in condoning minor delays in filing appeals, especially in family law matters.
• It acknowledges the practical difficulties faced by litigants, particularly those in districts without Family Courts.

The Gauhati High Court condoned the 21-day delay and stressed the importance of having a uniform limitation periodfor appeals under both HMA and FC Act. The decision upholds fairness for litigants who are disadvantaged by the absence of Family Courts in some districts.

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 10

Case No.: I.A. (Civil)/2463/2024

2). If Non-AoRs Can Appear with Authorisation, What’s the Purpose of AoR Exam? Asks Supreme Court

Case Background

On February 13, the Supreme Court questioned whether an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) can authorize another advocate, who is not an AoR, to appear in a case on their behalf. The case stems from a miscellaneous application filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) seeking modifications in the judgment of Bhagwan Singh v. State of UP & Ors. In that case, the Court had stated that an AoR could authorize only those advocates who are legally permitted to appear in court.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether an AoR can authorize a non-AoR to appear on their behalf.
2. How the names of advocates appearing in court should be recorded in legal proceedings.
3. Whether there should be any limit on the number of appearances recorded for a case.

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rachana Srivastava, Vice-President of SCBA, presented the suggestions submitted by SCBA and SCAORA regarding the recording of advocates’ appearances. The suggestions were prepared by AoR Vipin Nair, Advocate Vikrant Yadav, AoR Nikhil Jain, AoR Kaustubh, and AoR Astha Sharma, and the application was filed by AoR Amit Sharma.

The Court noted that Rule 1(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, states that an advocate can only appear if instructed by an AoR or permitted by the Court. However, Justice Trivedi pointed out that this rule must be read alongside Rule 20, which specifies that an AoR cannot authorize anyone other than another AoR to act on their behalf. Justice Trivedi emphasized that if an AoR could authorize any advocate to act on their behalf, it would undermine the significance of the AoR exam.

Srivastava countered this by arguing that Rule 20 only applies to the filing of cases, not the appearance of advocates in court. However, the Court remained skeptical and reserved its judgment on the matter.

Court Rulings & Legal Provisions

• Order IV, Rule 1(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: States that no advocate other than an AoR can appear in court unless instructed by an AoR or permitted by the Court.
• Rule 20 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Prohibits an AoR from authorizing anyone other than another AoR to act on their behalf.

The Court’s interpretation suggests that an AoR can authorize another AoR to act on their behalf but not a non-AoR.

Key Suggestions by SCBA and SCAORA

1. Uniform System for Recording Appearances – Different benches have different practices, creating inconsistencies. A uniform approach is necessary.
2. Better Accountability – The AoR should ensure only those advocates who are present in court (physically or virtually) are recorded.
3. Marking of Appearances –
   • The AoR should specify whether an advocate is arguing or assisting.
   • If an assisting counsel has to argue in the absence of the main counsel, the registry should reflect the absence of the main counsel.
4. Clarification Before Removing Names – The registry should consult the AoR before dropping any advocate’s name from the list.
5. Flexibility in Correcting Appearances –
   • AoRs should be allowed to correct errors in the appearance list.
   • They should have the option to submit a physical appearance slip if needed.
6. No Limit on Recorded Appearances – Restricting the number of recorded appearances could harm advocates’ careers, as appearances are a factor in professional advancement, including eligibility for chambers and senior advocate designation.

Significance of the Case

• Ensures clarity on who is authorized to appear in court on behalf of an AoR.
• Standardizes the process of recording appearances in Supreme Court cases.
• Affects professional growth of advocates, as their appearances influence career milestones such as chamber allotments and senior advocate designations.

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether AoRs can authorize non-AoRs to appear in court and how advocates' appearances should be recorded. The ruling will impact legal practice in the Supreme Court by defining the scope of AoRs' authority and ensuring accountability in legal proceedings.

Case Name: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS|MA 3-4/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024

3). Allahabad High Court: Prosecution Not Obliged to Disprove Every Defence Hypothesis and Overturns Acquittal in 1995 Murder Case, Sentences 3 to Life Imprisonment

Case Background

The Allahabad High Court recently overturned the acquittal of three accused in a 1995 murder case and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The case involved the murder of Vijay Kumar, where the trial court had earlier acquitted six accused persons, citing lack of evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal challenging the trial court’s decision, arguing that minor contradictions should not outweigh reliable evidence.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether minor contradictions in witness testimonies affect the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case.
2. Whether related witnesses (family members or close associates of the deceased) should be treated as unreliable.
3. Whether lapses by the Investigating Officer (IO) can weaken the prosecution’s case.
4. Whether the acquitted accused were part of an unlawful assembly intending to kill the deceased.

Court Observations

A division bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan heard the case. The Court made the following observations:

• Witness Credibility: The Court emphasized that murders do not happen with prior notice and, therefore, those who witness them should not automatically be labeled as "false or planted witnesses."
• Relatives as Witnesses: Just because a witness is a close relative of the deceased does not mean their testimony should be rejected. A relative would not falsely implicate an innocent person while letting the real culprit go free. However, courts must carefully examine such testimonies before relying on them.
• Minor Contradictions in Witness Testimonies: The Court noted that witnesses cannot be expected to recall every small detail accurately. Honest witnesses may differ in minor aspects, especially when testifying years after the incident. The Court highlighted that the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were rustic villagers, and their testimonies were recorded three years after the crime.
• Investigating Officer’s Lapses: The Court ruled that if an investigating officer makes errors, it does not automatically weaken the prosecution’s case if reliable eyewitness testimony is available.
• Medical vs. Ocular Evidence: The trial court had concluded that there was a contradiction between medical evidence and eyewitness accounts. However, the High Court found no such conflict in the records.
• Unlawful Assembly: The Court observed that the accused persons had surrounded the deceased and attacked him, indicating that they had formed an unlawful assembly with a common objective to kill Vijay Kumar. Their manner of fleeing from the scene further proved their intent.

Court Rulings 

• The High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted Ambika, Rajendra @ Manney, and Sadhey Pasi under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹20,000 each.
• The period they had already spent in jail would be adjusted against their sentence.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder (life imprisonment or death). (Section 103(1) of BNS)
• Section 149 IPC – Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in pursuit of a common objective. (Section 190 of BNS)

Significance of the Judgment

• The case clarifies that minor contradictions in testimonies should not overshadow reliable evidence in serious criminal cases.
• It reinforces that witnesses related to the deceased are not automatically unreliable and that courts must carefully assess their credibility.
• It establishes that lapses by an investigating officer do not absolve the accused if the prosecution has solid eyewitness evidence.
• The judgment ensures that trial courts should not acquit accused persons merely due to insignificant inconsistencies in witness statements.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that the trial court had wrongly acquitted the accused by focusing too much on minor contradictions in witness statements. Since the prosecution successfully proved the involvement of the accused in an unlawful assembly with intent to kill, the High Court sentenced them to life imprisonment. This judgment highlights the importance of looking at the overall reliability of witness testimonies rather than dismissing cases based on small inconsistencies.

Case Name - State of U.P. vs. Ram Naresh And 5 Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 62 [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 206 of 2001]

4). Bombay High Court: Limitation for Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration Act Governed by Article 116 of Limitation Act, Delay Can’t Be Condoned Mechanically

Case Background

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that delays in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should not be condoned mechanically, as it would defeat the purpose of arbitration—quick resolution of disputes.

The case involved an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The appeal was filed 124 days late, beyond the prescribed 90-day limitation period under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The applicant, a state agency, requested the court to condone the delay, citing procedural difficulties.

Issues in the Case

1. Can delays in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act be condoned easily?
2. What is the limitation period for filing such an appeal?
3. What constitutes "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay?
4. Does the fact that the appellant is a state agency justify condoning the delay?

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan heard the case and made the following observations:

• False Statements by the Appellant: The appellant claimed that their appeal was delayed because a different lawyer handled the case at the District Court. However, the High Court found this claim to be false, as the same advocate had filed both the original case and the present appeal.
• No Special Treatment for Government Entities: The court emphasized that government agencies must be more cautious in legal matters. They cannot expect special treatment or leniency for delays just because they are part of the government.
• Strict Limitation Period: The Supreme Court, in Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Executive Engineer (2021) and Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd. (2012), ruled that appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act must be filed within 90 days under Article 116 of the Limitation Act. Delay can be condoned only if the party demonstrates sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
• Objective of Arbitration: The purpose of arbitration is fast dispute resolution. Courts should not extend deadlines unnecessarily, as it would undermine arbitration’s efficiency.
• Equitable Conduct Matters: The Supreme Court, in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2013), ruled that misleading submissions by a party weaken their case for condonation of delay. Since the appellant in this case misrepresented facts, their plea for condonation was not justified.

Court Rulings 

• The court rejected the application for condonation of delay, stating that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for the 124-day delay.
• The appeal was dismissed as it was filed beyond the 90-day limitation period.

Legal provisions

• Relevant legal provisions:
  • Section 37, Arbitration Act – Governs appeals in arbitration cases.
  • Article 116, Limitation Act – Specifies a 90-day deadline for filing such appeals.
  • Section 5, Limitation Act – Allows condonation of delay only if "sufficient cause" is shown.

Significance of the Judgment

• Reinforces the strict 90-day limitation for arbitration appeals and prevents unnecessary delays.
• Prevents misuse of condonation provisions by parties who misrepresent facts.
• Ensures arbitration remains a fast and efficient dispute resolution method.
• Clarifies that government agencies cannot expect special treatment in legal proceedings.

The Bombay High Court refused to condone the 124-day delay, stating that the appellant failed to provide a valid reason and even made false claims. This decision upholds the principle that arbitration appeals must be filed within the strict 90-day limit, and courts should not allow unnecessary delays, especially when caused by negligence or misrepresentation.

Case Name: Executive Engineer National Highway Division Versus Sanjay Shankar Surve & Ors

5). Matrimonial Disputes Often Lead to False Implications of Husband & Relatives, Courts Must Be Pragmatic: Calcutta High Court

Case Background

The Calcutta High Court recently ruled that courts should be careful and pragmatic when handling criminal cases arising from matrimonial disputes, as it is not uncommon for husbands and their relatives to be falsely implicated.

In this case, the petitioners were the married sisters of the accused husband. They argued that they had been falsely implicated in a criminal case by their brother’s wife (opposite party no. 2), even though they had been living separatelyin their own marital homes and had no involvement in the dispute.

The complainant (opposite party no. 2) had filed a written complaint on 27.09.2021, alleging that her husband and in-laws tortured her for dowry. However, the complaint was filed 12 years after her marriage (which took place on 05.05.2009) and after she had already left her matrimonial home on 16.09.2021. The petitioners argued that no specific allegations were made against them and that they had been included in the case only to harass them.

Issues in the Case

1. Can general and vague allegations be the basis for prosecuting a husband’s relatives in a matrimonial dispute?
2. Should courts be cautious while handling such cases, given the tendency to implicate all in-laws?
3. Can a case be quashed when no specific role is attributed to the accused?

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta made the following observations:

• Tendency to Implicate In-Laws: The court acknowledged that it is common for all immediate relatives of a husband to be named in criminal cases related to matrimonial disputes, even when they have played no role.
• Lack of Specific Allegations: The complainant made general allegations against her in-laws, stating that they supported her husband’s alleged torture. However, no specific role was assigned to the petitioners (sisters-in-law).
• Delayed Complaint: The complaint was filed 12 years after marriage and after the complainant had already left her matrimonial home. The delay raised questions about its credibility.
• No Evidence of Direct Involvement: The only allegation against the petitioners was that they had threatened the complainant over the phone. However, no specific date, time, or mobile number was mentioned in the complaint or her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC.
• Impossible to Determine Role of Each Accused: The general and vague nature of the allegations made it impossible to ascertain what role, if any, the petitioners played in the alleged crime.

Court Rulings 

• The High Court quashed the case against the petitioners, ruling that general and omnibus allegations cannot be the basis for criminal prosecution.
• The decision was based on the principle that courts should be extremely cautious in cases where relatives of the husband are accused without specific evidence.

Legal Provisions

• Relevant legal provisions:
  • Section 161, CrPC – Statements made to police during investigation. (Section 180 of BNSS)
  • Quashing of proceedings based on lack of evidence under inherent powers of the High Court (Section 482, CrPC).(Section 528 of BNSS)

Significance of the Judgment

• Prevents misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes.
• Ensures that innocent relatives are not harassed with false cases.
• Reinforces the need for specific and credible allegations before prosecuting a husband’s family members.

The Calcutta High Court quashed the case against the sisters-in-law, stating that the allegations were vague, delayed, and lacked specific evidence. The ruling highlights the need for courts to be cautious in matrimonial disputes, ensuring that only those genuinely involved in wrongdoing are prosecuted.

Case Name: X v Y

Case No: CRR 76 of 2023

Add-On

Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Major Reforms in BCI, Court Boycott Ban, and Foreign Firm Regulations

Case Background

Ministry of Law and Justice published the Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which proposes several amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961. The government has invited public comments on the draft bill, which can be sent via email to dhruvakumar.1973@gov.in and impcell-dla@nic.in by February 28, 2025.

The proposed amendments aim to modernize legal education, enhance professional standards, and align the legal profession with global best practices. The bill seeks to introduce new regulations on lawyer conduct, entry of foreign law firms, and governance of the Bar Council of India (BCI).

Key Issues in the Bill

1. Should the Central Government have the power to nominate members to the Bar Council of India (BCI)?
2. Should strikes and boycotts by lawyers be prohibited, and what are the consequences for violations?
3. What are the proposed changes to the disciplinary process for lawyers?
4. Should lawyers convicted of serious crimes be permanently disqualified from practice?
5. Should foreign law firms and lawyers be allowed to practice in India?
6. How does the bill expand the definition of a legal practitioner?

Key Provisions 

1. Nomination of Members to BCI

• The Central Government will nominate three members to the Bar Council of India (BCI).
• The BCI will also have two women advocates included in its governing body.

Impact: This provision increases government involvement in the regulation of legal professionals, which some may view as a move towards greater control over the legal profession.

2. Prohibition on Strikes and Boycotts (Section 35A)

• Lawyers cannot call for a boycott or obstruct court proceedings.
• Violations will be treated as misconduct, leading to disciplinary action.
• However, strikes for professional concerns (such as working conditions) are allowed if they do not disrupt the administration of justice.

Impact: This provision aims to prevent disruptions in the judicial system while allowing lawyers to raise legitimate concerns.

3. Committee to Handle Misconduct (Section 9B & Section 26A)

• A Special Public Grievance Redressal Committee will be set up to investigate cases of misconduct related to strikes and boycotts.
• The committee will consist of:
  • A former Supreme Court judge or Chief Justice of a High Court as Chairperson.
  • Two retired High Court judges.
  • One senior advocate.
  • One BCI member.
• If misconduct is found, the BCI can take action or refer the case for disciplinary proceedings.
• State Bar Councils can remove an advocate from the roll if found guilty of serious misconduct or obstruction of court functioning.

Impact: This ensures strict regulation of lawyer conduct but also raises concerns about whether lawyers will be unfairly penalized for protesting.

4. Disqualification of Convicted Lawyers (Sections 24A & 24B)

• Anyone convicted of an offence punishable with 3 years or more cannot be enrolled as an advocate unless permitted by the State Bar Council's Enrolment Committee.
• If a lawyer is convicted of a crime punishable by 3 years or more, their name will be removed from the State roll.
• If the sentence is less than 5 years, the advocate can apply for re-enrollment after 2 years from release.

Impact: This provision strengthens the ethical standards of the legal profession but could be debated regarding second chances for reformed individuals.

5. Entry of Foreign Law Firms (Section 49A(1)(cc))

• The Central Government will have the power to make rules regarding the entry of foreign law firms and foreign lawyers into India.
• The government can direct the BCI to implement these provisions.

Impact: This could increase competition in the legal sector but may also affect Indian law firms.

6. Expansion of the Definition of a Legal Practitioner (Section 2(i))

• The definition of “legal practitioner” now includes:
  • Advocates appearing before courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial forums.
  • Lawyers working in private and public organizations.
  • Lawyers employed by statutory bodies, domestic and foreign law firms, and corporate entities.

Impact: This expands who qualifies as a legal professional, recognizing corporate and in-house counsel as part of the legal profession.

Significance of the Bill

• Regulates lawyer conduct to prevent unnecessary disruptions in the judicial process.
• Strengthens ethical and professional standards in the legal field.
• Encourages diversity in the BCI with the inclusion of women advocates.
• Opens up India’s legal market to foreign law firms, increasing global competition.
• Recognizes corporate lawyers and in-house counsel as part of the legal profession.

The Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposes major reforms in legal education, governance, and professional conduct. It seeks to maintain discipline within the profession while ensuring lawyers' rights to protest legitimate issues. However, some provisions, such as government involvement in BCI and entry of foreign law firms, may face resistance from legal professionals.

As the public consultation is open until February 28, 2025, stakeholders, including lawyers, law students, and bar associations, should provide their views to help shape the final version of the law.