Order Refusing to condone delay under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 would be Appealable under Section 37 (1) (c) of the Act

A 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court recently in Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders P. Ltd. [CA No. 4028 of 2020] has examined the legal question whether an appeal under section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to set aside an award. Answering the question of law in the affirmative, the Bench held as under:

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is important to first set out section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 which is as follows:

“37. Appealable orders.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:—

(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8;

(b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9;

(c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34.

(2) Appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral tribunal—

(a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub- section (3) of section 16; or

(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17.

(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or takeaway any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

6. Since we are directly concerned with section 37(1)(c), it is important to advert to the language of section 34 as well. Section 34(1) reads as follows:

“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.— (1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made  only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3).”

7. Section 34(2) and (2A) then sets out the grounds on which an arbitral award may be set aside. Section 34(3), which again is material for decision of the question raised in this appeal, reads as follows:

“(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:

Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.”

Retrospective Operation of the Benami Laws : The Confusion Remains!

Author : Saurabh Seth

The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (“Original Act”) was enacted in the year 1988 with the object of prohibiting benami transactions. A benami transaction in simple terms refers to a transaction where a person actually purchasing a property does not do so in his own name, and does so in the name of another person, who is merely a ‘name lender’ or a ‘benamidar’. Such person who pays consideration is commonly referred to as the ‘beneficial owner’.

The Original Act contained a mere 9 sections, including the power of acquisition of such benami property by an appropriate authority and also powers to prosecute offenders. Although the Original Act empowered the Central government to make rules under Section 8, no such rules were ever framed. Therefore, the Original Act was widely regarded as a “toothless” legislation, which though empowered the state to confiscate properties, was rarely used and most importantly, no procedure, rules or mechanism was prescribed to give effect to the provisions of the Original Act.

With the change of dispensation in Parliament, the then Finance Minister, Late Mr. Arun Jaitley, sought to “give teeth to” this “toothless” legislation by introducing the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016. The amendment was passed into law and came into force on 01.11.2016. The amended legislation was re-christened as the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (“New Act”) and sought to amend the Original Act by adding as many as 72 sections and proper Rules for the effective implementation of the New Act.

But why did the government opt for amending the Original Act instead of enacting a fresh legislation? The reason is not far to see, and was explained by Late Mr. Jaitley in parliament in answer to a question where he categorically stated that:

“Anybody will know that a law can be made retrospective, but under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, penal laws cannot be made retrospective. The simple answer to the question why we did not bring a new law is that a new law would have meant giving immunity to everybody from the penal provisions during the period 1988 to 2016 and giving a 28 years immunity would not have been in larger public interest, particularly if large amounts of unaccounted and black money have been used to transact those transactions” 

But the question which arises is whether such a course is legally permissible? Can the legislature do something indirectly which it could not have done directly? The answer in my view is that such a course could not have adopted, especially given the strict provisions of the New Act, which have the effect of not only depriving a person of his property but also of initiation of criminal prosecution against a person found guilty under the New Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that amendment to a statute can be implemented retrospectively, however such retrospective amendment cannot defeat the substantive rights of a party. It is well recognized that generally amendments to procedural laws may be retrospective, but when substantive rights of parties are affected, can such laws be implemented retrospectively?

The New Act was notified vide Notification No. 98/2016 dated 25.10.2016, which appointed the 1st day of November, 2016 as the date on which the provisions shall come into force.

Section 1(3) remains untouched

Interestingly, the New Act keeps Section 1(3) of the Original Act untouched, which provided that:

“(3) The provisions of sections 3, 5 and 8 shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19th day of May, 1988.”

The aforesaid date of 19.05.1988 relates to the coming into force of the Presidential Ordinance whereas the date of 05.09.1988 relates to the date when the Original Act was brought into force. It is for this reason that Section 1(3) reads that Sections 3, 5 and 8 shall come into force at once.

In the New Act, Section 1(3) has been retained in its original form even though there are substantial amendments to Section 3, 5 and 8. The said provision creates an anomalous situation with the use of the words “shall come into force at once”. What date does this relate to is something that requires deep consideration particularly in view of the substantive amendments brought about to the aforesaid sections. A literal reading of the words “shall come into force at once” lends credence to the interpretation that the amendments to the said Section shall be effective only post 01.11.2016, thus making the provision prospective in its operation.

Substantive amendments in the New Act

Substantive changes have been made to various provisions of the Original Act, and there is no doubt that such amendments are not mere procedural amendments. In fact, substantive changes affecting the vital rights of persons have been made to the New Act, thus warranting a prospective operation. Some of these substantive changes are:

• Section 2(9) of the New Act expands the definition of “Benami Transaction” and brings within its fold certain transactions, which were hitherto not considered Benami. This certainly qualifies as a substantive change of the scope and operation of the New Act.
• Section 3 of the New Act seeks to make a distinction between transactions entered into prior to the New Act, by providing for a lesser punishment under Section 3(2) for past acts and a higher punishment under Chapter VII of the New Act for acts done after 01.11.2016. Such cases are covered by Section 3(3) of the New Act. This also leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the applicability of the new regime and punishment thereunder is only prospective.
• Section 5 read with Chapter IV of the New Act provide for attachment, adjudication and confiscation of the properties under the New Act. Under the Original Act, though the provision for confiscation was present, however, the same was to be undertaken in terms of the procedure and rules prescribed. It is an admitted position that no rules were ever framed or brought into force for the said purpose.
• Thus even though the substantive provision for confiscation was present under the Original Act, the absence of rules framed thereunder would certainly militate against the prescription of the detailed procedure now laid down [and rules framed] under the New Act. This, some may argue, is directly contrary to Article 20 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as Section 5 (without rules) of the Original Act was the “law in force” for transactions prior to 01.11.2016.
• Even Chapter IV of the New Act tends to disturb various vested rights of persons, as it gives the Initiating Officer under the New Act the power to provisionally attach properties even before adjudication proceedings.
• Various levels of the adjudication have been introduced under the New Act, which never existed earlier. Though these changes may be termed as “procedural”, the fact remains that creating layers of appeals, which were non existent earlier, certainly represents substantive amendment affecting vested rights of parties.
• Chapter VII of the New Act prescribes penalties, which were non existent under the Original Act. These penalties cannot by any stretch of imagination be applied retrospectively, and any such misadventure would fall foul of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Interpretation by the High Courts

The question of whether the amendments brought about in the form of the New Act are to be applied prospectively or retrospectively have vexed various High Courts throughout the Country. So far there is unanimity of judicial opinion [barring one] that the provisions of the New Act are to be applied prospectively. Some of these decisions are being noted hereunder:

1. Joseph Isharat v. Rozy Nishikant Gaikwad 2017 (5) ABR 706, where the Bombay High Court held:

“7. What is crucial here is, in the first place, whether the change effected by the legislature in the Benami Act is a matter of procedure or is it a matter of substantial rights between the parties. If it is merely a procedural law, then, of course, procedure applicable as on the date of hearing may be relevant. If, on the other hand, it is a matter of substantive rights, then prima facie it will only have a prospective application unless the amended law speaks in a language “which expressly or by clear intention, takes in even pending matters.”. Short of such intendment, the law shall be applied prospectively and not retrospectively.

“8. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Rajagopal Reddy vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan, Section 4 of the Benami Act, or for that matter, the Benami Act as a whole, creates substantive rights in favour of benamidars and destroys substantive rights of real owners who are parties to such transaction and for whom new liabilities are created…These observations clearly hold the field even as regards the present amendment to the Benami Act. The amendments introduced by the Legislature affect substantive rights of the parties and must be applied prospectively.”

[Note: SLP [C] No. 12328 of 2017 against this judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 28.04.2017]

2. Mangathai Ammal [Died] through LRs & Ors. Vs. Rajeshwari & Ors. [2019 SCC OnLine SC 717] dated 09.05.2019, where Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:

“12. It is required to be noted that the benami transaction came to be amended in the year 2016. As per Section 3 of the Benami Transaction [Prohibition] Act 1988, there was a presumption that the transaction made in the name of the wife and children is for their benefit. By Benami Amendment Act, 2016, Section 3 [2] of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 the statutory presumption, which was rebuttable, has been omitted. It is the case on behalf of the respondents that therefore in view of omission of Section 3[2] of the Benami Transaction Act, the plea of statutory transaction that the purchase made in the name of wife or children is for their benefit would not be available in the present case. Aforesaid cannot be accepted. As held by this Court in the case of Binapani Paul [supra] the Benami Transaction Act would not be applicable retrospectively?”

3. Niharika Jain V. Union of India & Ors. 2019 SCC On Line Raj 1640, dated 12.07.2019, wherein the Rajasthan High Court observed:

“93. … this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Benami Amendment Act, 2016, amending the Principal Benami Act, 1988, enacted w.e.f. 1st November, 2016, i.e. the date determined by the Central Government in its wisdom for its enforcement; cannot have retrospective effect.

94. It is made clear that this Court has neither examined nor commented upon merits of the writ applications but has considered only the larger question of retrospective applicability of the Benami Amendment Act, 2016 amending the original Benami Act of 1988. Thus, the authority concerned would examine each case on its own merits keeping in view the fact that amended provisions introduced and the amendments enacted and made enforceable w.e.f. 1st November, 2016; would be prospective and not retrospective.”

4. M/s Ganpati Delcom Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr. (APO no. 8 of 2019 with WP no. 687 of 2017, decision dated 12.12.2019), wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as under:

“In Canbank Financial Services Ltd vs Custodian & Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 355 the Supreme Court specifically held in paragraph 67 that the said Act of 1988 had not been made workable as no rules under Section 8 of the said Act for acquisition of benami property had been framed. These two cases were also cited by Mr. Khaitan. Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is most important. It lays down that repeal of an enactment, which necessarily includes an amendment, would not affect “any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed”, unless a different intention is expressed by the legislature. Without question, the omission on the part of the government to frame rules under Section 8 of the 1988 Act rendered it a dead letter and wholly inoperative. Assuming that the appellant had entered into a benami transaction in 2011, no action could be taken by the Central government, in the absence of enabling procedural rules. It is well within the right of the appellant to contend that the Central government had waived its rights. It could also contend that no criminal action could be initiated on the ground of limitation. Now, these rights which had accrued to the appellant could not, in the absence of an express provision be extinguished by the amending Act of 2016. In other words, applying the definition of benami property and benami transaction the Central government could not, on the basis of the 2016 amendment allege contravention and start the prosecution in respect of a transaction in 2011.”

[Note: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 2784 of 2020 has stayed the said the above judgment. The SLP remains pending.]

Contrary view of Chhattisgarh High Court

5. Tulsiram & Manki Bai V. ACIT (Benami Prohibition) & Ors. (W. P. No. 3819/2019), dated 15.11.2019, wherein the Chhattisgarh High Court held:

“20. … It can also not to be said that provisions of the Amended Act of 2016 could not have been made applicable in respect of properties, which were acquired prior to 01.11.2016. The whole Act of 1988 as it stands today inclusive of the amended provisions brought into force from 01.11.2016 onwards applies irrespective of the period of purchase of the alleged Benami property. Amended Act of 2016 does not have an existence by itself. Without the provisions of the Act of 1988, the amended provisions of 2016 has no relevance and the amended Provisions are only laying down the proceedings to be adopted in a proceeding drawn under the Act of 1988 and the penalties to be imposed in each of the cases taking into consideration the period of purchase of Benami property.”

Conclusion:

The amendments made by way of the New Act, in my view, are clearly substantive and not procedural in nature, and hence cannot be applied retrospectively. The New Act expands the scope of the law, casts a negative burden / onus on a person to prove that a property is not “benami property”, creates disabilities such as immediate attachment and subsequent confiscation and most importantly attracts criminal action. All these aspects lead to the inescapable conclusion that the New Act cannot and should not be applied retrospectively.

The golden words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- I, New Delhi vs. Vatika Township Private Limited (2015) 1 SCC 1 that “The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of the day in force and not tomorrow’s backward adjustment to it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bed rock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset”, are clearly applicable to the present situation.

The views taken by the various High Courts as highlighted above correctly lay down this position of law, and now all eyes will be on the Hon’ble Supreme Court to take a final view on this issue – once and for all. Till then the confusion remains!

Saurabh Seth, the author, is a practicing advocate in the Delhi High Court. The views expressed are personal to the author.

Amendment Conundrum

The President of India recently gave his assent to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2019 which was passed by the Rajya Sabha on July 18, 2019 and the Lok Sabha on August 01, 2019.

Though the amendment seeks to implement sweeping changes to the existing enactment (“1996 Act”), the most controversial insertion is Section 87, which reads as under;

87. Unless the parties otherwise agree, the amendments made to this Act by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall— (a) not apply to–– (i) arbitral proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015; (ii) court proceedings arising out of or in relation to such arbitral proceedings irrespective of whether such court proceedings are commenced prior to or after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015; (b) apply only to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and to court proceedings arising out of or in relation to such arbitral proceedings.”.

The aforesaid provision seeks to nullify the effect of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket P. Ltd. & Ors. [C.A. No. 2879-2880 of 2018] (“BCCI Judgment”) and restore the position of law as decided by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ardee Infrastructure P. Ltd. v. Ms. Anuradha Bhatia [FAO (OS) No. 221/2016] (“Ardee”).

The central issue concerning the Court in Ardee (supra) was the interpretation of Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 which provided that “nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the arbitral proceedings commenced, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the principal Act, before the commencement of this Act unless the parties otherwise agree but this Act shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the date of commencement of this Act.”. 

While interpreting the said provision, the Hon’ble Division Bench categorically ruled that the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 would not apply to arbitration and court proceedings, if the invocation of arbitration in terms of Section 21 of the 1996 Act was done prior to October 23, 2015 i.e. the date of coming into force of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. As a result, in relation to awards passed in such arbitrations, there would be an automatic stay on the enforceability of an award once objections under S. 34 of the 1996 Act were filed.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court however in BCCI (supra) reversed the position and held that the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 would apply retrospectively insofar as court proceedings are concerned, and hence there would be no automatic stay of an award upon mere filing of objections under S. 34 of the 1996 Act.

On the basis of the above position, various courts in the country have retrospectively applied the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and directed parties to deposit monies awarded under arbitral awards whilst seeking stay of the operation of an award. 

With the present amendment, the legislature has once again hit the ‘reset’ button and taken us back to the position of law as prevailing at the time Ardee (supra) was pronounced. As a result of the amendments brought about by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2019, any arbitration invoked prior to October 23, 2015 shall be governed by the unamended 1996 Act and would mean that upon filing of objections under S. 34 of the unamended 1996 Act, the award passed would be rendered unenforceable. 

But the question remains, what would happen to cases where the parties have been directed to deposit monies or where such monies have been released to award holders under orders of the court in terms of BCCI. Are such judgment debtors now entitled to move courts for reconsideration of the orders passed? 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had ‘advised’ the legislature to refrain from bringing the proposed amendment in the form of S. 87 on the ground that it would put all important amendments made by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 on the ‘back burner’ and would defeat the object and purpose of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.

The legislature has obviously not paid heed to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it would be interesting to see how the Hon’ble Supreme Court deals with a constitutional or vires challenge, if so mounted in the future.

The legislature ought to have put in more thought into the amendment, and ought to have harmonized the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BCCI (supra) while passing the bill into law. The legislature has ensured that Courts in this country will now be flooded with fresh round(s) of litigation in relation to the amendment, in an attempt to ‘unscramble the scrambled egg’. 

Saurabh Seth, the Author, is a practicing advocate in the Delhi High Court and specialises in commercial dispute resolution.

120 day Statutory Period for filing Written Statement 'Mandatory' under the Commercial Courts Act: Supreme Court Holds

(Justice Nariman (Left) and Justice Saran (Right)
Hon'ble Judges, Supreme Court of India

A bench of Justice Nariman and Justice Saran of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in SCG Contracts India P. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure P. Ltd. that the provisions of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 with regard to filing of written statements within 120 days from date of service of summons is mandatory and any delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned by the Court. While holding so, the bench observed as under:

8) The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 came into force on 23.10.2015 bringing in their wake certain amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. In Order V, Rule 1, sub-rule (1), for the second proviso, the following proviso was substituted:

“Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other days, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.” Equally, in Order VIII Rule 1, a new proviso was substituted as follows:

“Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.” This was re-emphasized by re-inserting yet another proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which reads as under:-

“Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.

Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement.” A perusal of these provisions would show that ordinarily a written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days.

However, grace period of a further 90 days is granted which the Court may employ for reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of such costs as it deems fit to allow such written statement to come on record. What is of great importance is the fact that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. This is further buttressed by the proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 also adding that the Court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days.

9) In Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (supra), a question was raised as to whether Section 34(5)of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inserted by Amending Act 3 of 2016 is mandatory or directory. In para 11 of the said judgment, this Court referred to Kailash vs. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 referring to the text of Order 8 Rule 1 as it stood pre the amendment made by the Commercial Courts Act. It also referred to the Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, which, like the Kailash judgment, held that the mere expression “shall” in Order 8 Rule 1 would not make the provision mandatory. This Court then went on to discuss in para 17 State vs. N.S. Gnaneswaran, (2013) 3 SCC 594 in which Section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to be directory inasmuch as no consequence was provided if the Section was breached. In para 22 by way of contrast to Section 34, Section 29-A of the Arbitration Act was set out. This Court then noted in para 23 as under:

“23. It will be seen from this provision that, unlike Sections 34(5) and (6), if an award is made beyond the stipulated or extended period contained in the section, the consequence of the mandate of the arbitrator being terminated is expressly provided. This provision is in stark contrast to Sections 34(5) and (6) where, as has been stated hereinabove, if the period for deciding the application under Section 34 has elapsed, no consequence is provided. This is one more indicator that the same Amendment Act, when it provided time periods in different situations, did so intending different consequences.”

10) Several High Court judgments on the amended Order VIII Rule 1 have now held that given the consequence of non-filing of written statement, the amended provisions of the CPC will have to be held to be mandatory. [See Oku Tech Private Limited vs. Sangeet Agarwal & Ors. by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 11.08.2016 in CS (OS) No. 3390/2015 as followed by several other judgments including a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Maja Cosmetics vs. Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2018 SCC Online Del 6698.

11) We are of the view that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in these judgments is correct in view of the fact that the consequence of forfeiting a right to file the written statement; non-extension of any further time; and the fact that the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record all points to the fact that the earlier law on Order VIII Rule 1 on the filing of written statement underOrder VIII Rule 1 has now been set at naught.

12) However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied strongly upon the judgment in Bhanu Kumar Jain (supra) and Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab (supra) and, in particular, paras 22 and 27 of the first judgment and paras 4 & 19 of the second judgment.

13) We are of the view that since both these judgments dealt with the pre-amendment position, they would not be of any direct reliance insofar as the facts of the present case is concerned.

14) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also relied upon R.K. Roja vs. U.S. Rayudu and Another (supra) for the proposition that the defendant is entitled to file an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 before filing his written statement. We are of the view that this judgment cannot be read in the manner sought for by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Order VII Rule 11 proceedings are independent of the filing of a written statement once a suit has been filed. In fact, para 6 of that judgment records “However, we may hasten to add that the liberty to file an application for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement”.

15) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents then argued that it cannot be assumed that the learned Single Judge did not know about these amendments when he passed the first impugned order dated 05.12.2017. We do not wish to enter upon this speculative arena. He then argued that since this judgment permitted him to file the written statement beyond 120 days, it was an act of the Court which should prejudice no man. This doctrine cannot be used when the res is not yet judicata. The 05.12.2017 order is res sub judice inasmuch as its correctness has been challenged before us.

16) Learned counsel for the respondents then strongly relied upon the inherent powers of the Court to state that, in any case, a procedural provision such as contained in the amendment, which may lead to unjust consequences can always, in the facts of a given case, be ignored where such unjust consequences follow, as in the facts of the present case. We are again of the view that this argument has also no legs to stand on, given the judgment of this Court in Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, [1962] Suppl 1 SCR 450. In this judgment, the Court held:

“The suit at Indore which had been instituted later, could be stayed in view of s.10 of the Code. The provisions of that section are clear, definite and mandatory. A Court in which a subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit in certain specified circumstances.

When there is a special provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing with the contingencies of two such suits being instituted, recourse to the inherent powers under s.151 is not justified...” (at page 470) Clearly, the clear, definite and mandatory provisions of Order V read with Order VIII Rule 1 and 10 cannot be circumvented by recourse to the inherent power under Section 151 to do the opposite of what is stated therein.

17) Clearly, therefore, the 05.12.2017 order which applies in the face of the amendments made to the Civil Procedure Code cannot be sustained. When we come to the second order dated 24.09.2019, the only reason for this order is that 05.12.2017 has attained finality.

18) Factually speaking, this is not correct as a Special Leave Petition from the said order has been filed. Even otherwise, this Court in Canara Bank vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty and Anr. (supra) has held (page 3414):

“(ii) An issue of law which arises between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding is not res judicata if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory prohibition in the former suit or proceeding, the statutory prohibition is not given effect to. This is despite the fact that the matter in issue between the parties may be the same as that directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit or proceeding. This is for the reason that in such cases, the rights of the parties are not the only matter for consideration (as is the case of an erroneous interpretation of a statute inter parties), as the public policy contained in the statutory prohibition cannot be set at naught.

This is for the same reason as that contained in matters which pertain to issues of law that raise jurisdictional questions. We have seen how, in Natraj Studios (AIR 1981 SC 537) (supra), it is the public policy of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act that has to be given effect to. Likewise, the public policy contained in other statutory prohibitions, which need not necessarily go to jurisdiction of a Court, must equally be given effect to, as otherwise special principles of law are fastened upon parties when special considerations relating to public policy mandate that this cannot be done.” The aforesaid para applies on all fours to the facts of the present case, as even assuming that the 05.12.2017 order is final, res judicata cannot stand in the way of an erroneous interpretation of a statutory prohibition. The present is one such case. Therefore, the second order must also be set aside.