A suit filed by one or more persons as representatives of a large number of persons having the same interest in the suit — the decree binds all persons represented, not just the named parties.
Explanation
A class action in Indian law is the representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC. Where numerous persons have the same interest in a suit, one or more of them may, with the court's permission, sue or be sued as representing all others. The court issues public notice to all interested persons giving them an opportunity to opt out. The decree in a representative suit binds all persons in whose interest the suit was filed — making it a powerful tool for consumer protection, environmental litigation, and securities law cases where individual losses may be small but aggregate harm is large.
Statutory Provision
Order I Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 'Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit — (1) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend, in such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.' Order I Rule 8A (added 1976): provides for court's power to issue public notice to all persons interested.
The equitable principle that a person seeking equitable relief must themselves have acted honestly and fairly in the matter — a person with 'unclean hands' (who has behaved unconscionably) will be denied equitable relief.
Explanation
The clean hands doctrine is a fundamental maxim of equity: 'He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.' A person who seeks the court's discretionary (equitable) assistance must not have acted unconscionably, dishonestly, or improperly in the very matter about which they seek relief. The doctrine does not require the applicant to have been a paragon of virtue in all matters — only that their conduct in relation to the subject matter of the suit was not unconscionable. Unclean hands can be raised as a defence to defeat a claim for: injunction, specific performance, declaration, rescission, or any other equitable remedy.
Statutory Provision
No specific statutory provision — the clean hands doctrine is an equitable maxim applied through the court's discretion. Section 20 SRA (specific performance discretion) and Section 36 SRA (injunction discretion) both allow courts to refuse relief where the plaintiff's conduct warrants it. In <em>Mayawati v. Markanday Chand</em> AIR 1998 SC 3340, the Supreme Court applied the clean hands principle: 'Equity demands that a person who seeks relief in a court of equity must himself be guiltless of inequitable conduct in relation to the matter concerning which he seeks relief.'
Two or more persons who jointly guarantee the same debt — each co-surety is liable for their proportionate share, and if one pays more than their share, they are entitled to contribution from the others.
Explanation
When two or more sureties guarantee the same debt jointly, they are co-sureties (also called co-guarantors). Co-sureties are bound to contribute equally towards debt paid (Section 146 ICA) unless otherwise agreed. If one co-surety pays more than their share, they can recover the excess from the other co-sureties — this is the right of contribution. Co-sureties may have different maximum limits of liability but still share the burden proportionately. The rule applies whether the co-sureties gave their guarantees separately or in the same instrument.
Statutory Provision
Section 146, Indian Contract Act, 1872: 'Co-sureties who are bound in different sums are liable to pay equally as far as the limits of their respective obligations allow.' Section 147: 'A co-surety who has given his consent to a contract of guarantee may be discharged by any arrangement between the creditor and the principal debtor, by which the principal debtor is released, or by any act or omission of the creditor the legal consequence of which is the discharge of the principal debtor, or by the creditor's doing any act which is inconsistent with the rights of the co-surety.'
Dedicated courts established under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for the speedy resolution of 'commercial disputes' of a specified value — providing a faster, more structured alternative to the regular civil court system.
Explanation
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 established a three-tier structure: (a) the Commercial Division of High Courts (for matters above the 'specified value' — Rs. 1 crore or more); (b) the Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (for appeals from the Commercial Division); and (c) Commercial Courts below the High Court (for commercial disputes above Rs. 3 lakh — after 2018 amendment reducing the specified value from Rs. 1 crore). Key features: mandatory pre-institution mediation (Section 12A — parties must attempt mediation before filing suit); strict timelines; limits on adjournments; mandatory Case Management Hearings (CMH); and summary judgment procedure.
Statutory Provision
Section 2(c), Commercial Courts Act, 2015: 'commercial dispute means a dispute arising out of — (i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents; (ii) export or import of merchandise or services; (iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law; (iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters; (v) carriage of goods; (vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders; (vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce; (viii) franchising agreements...' The list is extensive and broadly covers commercial transactions.'
An order issued by a court delegating a specific judicial function to a Commissioner — including examining witnesses who cannot appear in court, conducting local investigations of disputed property, or performing experiments relevant to the suit.
Explanation
Order XXVI of the CPC provides for the appointment of Commissioners by courts. Commissions may be issued for: (a) examining witnesses (Order XXVI Rule 1) — where a witness is outside the court's jurisdiction, is too ill to attend, or is otherwise unable to appear; (b) making local investigations (Order XXVI Rule 9) — the Commissioner visits the disputed property or scene and makes a report on its condition, boundaries, or other relevant factual matters; (c) adjusting accounts (Order XXVI Rule 11) — in suits involving complex accounts; and (d) making partitions (Order XXVI Rule 13) — in partition suits, the Commissioner divides the property and reports to the court. The Commissioner's report is evidence in the suit — not binding on the court but given significant weight.
Statutory Provision
Order XXVI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 'Any Court may in any suit issue a commission for the examination, on interrogatories or otherwise, of any person resident within the local limits of its jurisdiction who is exempted from attending the court, or who is from sickness or infirmity unable to attend it.' Rule 9: 'In any suit in which the court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the court.'
The committee constituted under Section 21 of the IBC comprising all financial creditors of the corporate debtor — which has supreme decision-making authority during the CIRP, approves the resolution plan, and can decide to liquidate the company.
Explanation
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) is the IBC's central decision-making body — the real power in the CIRP. Composition: all financial creditors whose claims have been admitted by the RP (operational creditors are not members but have limited rights). Key decisions requiring CoC approval: replacement of RP (66%); extension of CIRP period (66%); approval of resolution plan (66%); liquidation (66%). The CoC evaluates resolution plans received by the RP and votes to approve the plan that maximises value for all stakeholders. The CoC's commercial judgment in selecting a resolution plan is treated as final by courts — the Supreme Court in Essar Steel (2019) held that the CoC's decision is not subject to judicial review of its commercial wisdom, only to review of legal compliance.
Statutory Provision
Section 21(1), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 'The resolution professional shall after collation of all claims received against the corporate debtor and determination of the financial position of the corporate debtor, constitute a committee of creditors.' Section 21(2): 'All financial creditors shall be part of the committee of creditors: Provided that a financial creditor or the authorised representative of the financial creditor referred to in sub-sections (6) and (6A), if it is a related party of the corporate debtor, shall not have any right of representation, participation or voting in a meeting of the committee of creditors.'
A shared criminal purpose among two or more persons, pre-planned or formed on the spot, by which each person becomes liable for acts done by any of them in furtherance of that common intention — even if they did not personally commit the specific act.
Explanation
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (formerly Section 34 IPC) creates vicarious criminal liability through common intention. Where several persons have a common intention to commit a crime and each does an act in furtherance of that intention, each is as guilty as if they had done the act alone. The essential elements: (a) two or more persons; (b) a common intention — shared, pre-arranged or simultaneously formed; (c) an act done by one or more of them; and (d) the act is in furtherance of the common intention. Distinguished from 'common object' (Section 11(2) BNS, formerly Section 149 IPC) — common object applies to unlawful assembly even without pre-arrangement; common intention requires a shared specific intent.
Statutory Provision
Section 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (formerly Section 34 IPC, 1860): 'When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.'
The shared unlawful purpose of an unlawful assembly — every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for any offence committed by any member in prosecution of the common object, or which they knew was likely to be committed.
Explanation
Section 11(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (formerly Section 149 IPC) creates group criminal liability for unlawful assemblies. An 'unlawful assembly' is defined in Section 11(1) BNS (formerly Section 141 IPC) as an assembly of five or more persons with one of five specified common objects: (a) overawing the State or its officers by criminal force; (b) resisting execution of legal process; (c) committing any mischief, criminal trespass, or other offence; (d) taking or obtaining possession of property by criminal force or show of force; or (e) compelling any person by criminal force to do what they are not legally bound to do. Common object requires no pre-planning — it may form spontaneously as the assembly begins acting.
Statutory Provision
Section 11(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (formerly Section 149 IPC): 'If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.' Section 11(1) BNS defines 'unlawful assembly' as an assembly of five or more persons with one of the five specified common objects.
