No action against firms for non-payment: Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Friday asked the government not to resort to any coercive action against private companies who have not paid their workers full wages during the lockdown in accordance with a government order in March.

The order came on petitions, including one filed by an association of companies from Punjab, challenging the validity of the MHA notification mandating payment of full wages to workers during the lockdown.

“How long can the government expect companies to pay?” a three-judge bench headed by Justices L Nageswara Rao asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who sought further time to respond to the petition. While hearing another petition filed by Ficus Pax Ltd, the apex court had last month given two weeks to the Centre to place on record its policy on the MHA notification directing payment of full salaries/wages to employees/workers during the lockdown.

Ludhiana Hand Tools Association has also challenged the validity of Section 10(2)(i) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Terming the MHA order as arbitrary, it said the order violated the private firms’ right to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Business affected

The bench said there may be small industries, which are affected due to the lockdown as they can sustain for say 15 odd days but not more and if they cannot earn, how are they going to pay their workers

SC extends limitation for Arbitration Act, Negotiable Instruments Act cases

The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended the period of limitation for cheque bounce cases and arbitration proceedings amid the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown.

A Bench led by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde issued notice to the government through the Attorney-General to find if there were other laws which require extension of limitation period.

On March 23, the court had used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to lift the limitation period for all cases across tribunals and courts until further notice to obviate difficulties and ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file proceedings.

The “period of limitation” is the maximum time set by a statute beyond which the alleged violator faces legal action.

“In view of this court’s earlier order on March 23 and taking into consideration the effect of the COVID-19 and resultant difficulties being faced by the lawyers and litigants and with a view to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunal across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from March 15 , 2020 till further orders,” the Supreme Court order read.

In case the limitation has expired after March 15, then it would be extended for 15 days post the lifting of the lockdown.

COVID-19: New dress code for advocates at Supreme Court

Amid COVID-19 outbreak, the Supreme Court of India has directed advocates that they may wear "plain white shirt/salwar-kameez/saree, with a plain white neckband" during the hearings being done through Virtual Court System.

The circular issued on May 13 in the name of Secretary-General, Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, read, "As a precautionary measure to contain the spread of COVID-19 infection under the prevailing conditions, the Competent Authority has been pleased to direct that the advocates may wear 'plain white-shirt/white-salwar-kameez/white saree, with a plain-white neckband' during the hearings before the Supreme Court of India through Virtual Court System."

It added that the system will stay in place till the "medical exigencies exist or until further orders."

The directions came into force with immediate effect, as per the circular.

Earlier yesterday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad Arvind Bobde said that doctors have advised not to wear gowns and coats, as it "makes it easier to catch virus" and spread the chances of COVID-19".

"We are advised by doctors not to wear gowns and coats (jackets), as it 'makes it easier to catch virus' and spread the chances of COVID-19. That's why we are today only in white shirt and band," the CJI said.

He said that he may also issue a dress code for other judges and lawyers who may appear through video conferencing in Supreme Court cases. On Wednesday, Judges at the top court were seen sitting wearing white shirts and band.

Generally, Supreme Court Judges have to wear gowns and coats (jackets) as well.

Supreme Court: No Hearing of Petitions and No New Petitions Can be Filed Due to Covid-19

 Supreme Court of India has indefinitely extended the period of limitation on filing petitions, applications, suits, appeals, and other proceedings at courts and tribunals across the country in light of the present circumstance caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Addressing a writ petition, the court said it had taken suo moto cognizance of the challenges faced by the country on account of the existing limitations. Still, it has decided to extend the restriction period, which was declared on March 15, 2020.

A suo moto cognizance is a Latin term which means an action taken by a government agency, court, or other central authority based on their apprehensions if they receive information about the violation of rights or breach of duty through media or a third party’s notification.

For the renewable energy sector, just like all other sectors, there will be no hearing of any petitions across the board, and neither can new petitions be filed. For the renewable energy sector, it means, if any stakeholder who has appealed to the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity (APTEL) and is not satisfied with their order, they will not be able to file a new petition unless it is urgent.

Also, the Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation on filing petitions. This means if a petitioner decides to appeal to a higher court since they are not satisfied with the order or judgment of a lower court, generally, there is a period within which they can appeal to a higher court. The Limitation Act, 1963, provides the period of filing appeals. It states that the appeals against an order can be filed in a High Court within 90 days and other courts in 30 days from the date of the order. If an appeal is filed after the expiry of the time limit, it is struck by the law of limitation. So, for any appeal, if the limitation period falls when the courts are closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, then this period is indefinitely extended.

It said that this was to ensure that lawyers and litigants did not have to physically be present to file proceedings in courts and tribunals across the country, thereby putting them and others at risk. It added that the limitation will stand extended until it issues further orders concerning the present proceedings.

The Supreme Court directed that its order must be brought to the notice of all high courts, and through them, it should be communicated to all subordinate courts and tribunals in their respective jurisdictions.

Considering the adverse impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on the global economy, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) recently issued an official memorandum which states that the time extension in scheduled commissioning of renewable projects due to the disruption of supply chains will be treated as a ‘force majeure’ event.

Earlier, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure Procurement Policy Division) issued a clarification that coronavirus will be covered in the force majeure clause (FMC) and should be considered as a case of natural calamity. Further, the ministry has stated that this clause can be invoked wherever appropriate.

https://mercomindia.com/supreme-court-no-hearing-petitions-covid-19/