Financial support legally required to be provided by one person to another who is unable to maintain themselves, covering food, clothing, shelter, and education.
Explanation
Maintenance is the right of a dependent person to receive financial support from a legally obligated person. Under Hindu law, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 obliges a husband to maintain his wife, children, and aged parents. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS Section 125, a magistrate can order any person to pay monthly maintenance to their neglected wife, minor children, or parents. Muslim personal law recognises 'nafkah' (maintenance) for the wife during iddat. The right to maintenance is distinct from alimony, which refers to post-divorce financial support under the matrimonial laws.
Statutory Provision
Section 125, BNSS 2023 (formerly CrPC Section 125): 'If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children, whether married or not, unable to maintain themselves, or his legitimate or illegitimate children (not being a married daughter) who have attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or his father or mother, unable to maintain themselves, a Magistrate... may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance.'
A petition filed in the High Court (Article 226) or Supreme Court (Article 32) seeking a writ of mandamus — directing a public authority to perform a public duty that it is legally bound to perform but has failed or refused to perform.
Explanation
A mandamus petition commands a public authority (government official, statutory body, public institution) to perform a specific legal duty. Mandamus is available when: (a) there is a specific public duty imposed by law on the respondent; (b) the petitioner has a legal right to the performance of that duty; (c) the respondent has failed or refused to perform the duty; and (d) no other equally effective remedy is available. Mandamus cannot direct how to exercise a discretionary power — only to exercise it. A public authority cannot be mandamused to make a particular decision; it can be mandamused to make a decision (exercise its discretion) when it has refused to act at all.
Statutory Provision
Article 226(1), Constitution of India: power to issue writs including 'mandamus' — broadly interpreted to include any direction compelling performance of a public duty. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to mandamus petitions filed under Article 226 — they are governed by the doctrine of laches (delay). Section 11 (public duty) of various specific statutes create the legal duty enforceable by mandamus.
A court order directing a party to perform a specific positive act (as opposed to a prohibitory injunction which restrains from an act) — typically to restore an earlier state of affairs or to fulfill a specific obligation.
Explanation
A mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 commands the defendant to perform a positive act — to do something, not merely to refrain from something. It is more drastic than a prohibitory injunction because it compels active performance. Courts apply a higher standard before granting mandatory injunctions — the test is that refusal to grant it would cause irreparable injustice to the plaintiff AND the balance of convenience strongly favours granting it. The landmark test is from Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117.
Statutory Provision
Section 39, Specific Relief Act, 1963: 'When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.'
The temporary displacement of civil government and civil courts by military authority in an area where civil order has completely broken down — permitting trial of civilians by military tribunals; not expressly mentioned in the Indian Constitution but contemplated by Article 34.
Explanation
Martial law is an extreme measure — the complete substitution of military for civil government in an area. The Indian Constitution does not directly provide for martial law but Article 34 allows Parliament to indemnify persons who exercised powers in connection with 'the maintenance or restoration of order' in any area where martial law was in force. The distinction between martial law and other emergency measures: (a) National Emergency (Article 352) — continues civil government and courts but grants Parliament power to legislate for states; (b) President's Rule (Article 356) — replaces state government with Central administration, courts continue; (c) Martial law — completely suspends civil government, civilian courts lose jurisdiction to specified areas.
Statutory Provision
Article 34, Constitution of India: 'Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, Parliament may by law indemnify any person in the service of the Union or of a State or any other person in respect of any act done by him in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area where Martial Law was in force or validate any sentence passed, punishment inflicted, forfeiture ordered, or other act done under Martial Law in such area.' Article 34 thus acknowledges the existence of martial law without defining it or expressly authorising it.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs — the Central Government ministry responsible for administering company law and allied laws in India, including the Companies Act, 2013, the LLP Act, 2008, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Explanation
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) administers the legal framework for companies and related entities in India. Key functions: (a) administration of Companies Act, 2013, LLP Act, 2008, and IBC 2016; (b) operating the MCA21 portal — the digital platform for all company law filings (incorporation, annual filings, director changes, charges); (c) regulating Registrars of Companies (ROCs) across India; (d) NCLT and NCLAT administration; (e) policy development for corporate governance, insolvency, and foreign investment (in coordination with DPIIT and RBI); (f) supervision of IBBI (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India). The MCA Secretary is the apex administrative officer; the Minister of Corporate Affairs (typically holding concurrent charge with other ministries) is the political head.
Statutory Provision
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs was reconstituted by presidential order under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. The Companies Act, 2013 (Section 396): 'There shall be a Central Government...' — the Act is administered by the MCA through the mechanisms prescribed. SEBI, RBI, and the MCA form the trinity of financial sector regulators — MCA for companies, SEBI for securities markets, RBI for banks and monetary policy.
A preliminary document that records the mutual understanding and intentions of parties before entering into a formal binding agreement — typically non-binding but establishing the framework for negotiation of a definitive contract.
Explanation
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a pre-contract document outlining the proposed terms of a transaction before formal legal documentation. MOUs may be: (a) Fully non-binding — expressing intent without legal obligation; (b) Partially binding — certain provisions (exclusivity, confidentiality, costs) binding while the commercial terms are non-binding; or (c) Binding — particularly where the terms are sufficiently certain and the parties intend to be bound (courts will look at the substance, not the label). In corporate transactions, MOUs/Term Sheets/Letters of Intent are common first steps — capturing agreed commercial terms before lawyers draft the full agreement. The key question: is the MOU legally binding? Courts apply the intention of the parties test — if parties intended to be bound, a document labeled 'MOU' or 'non-binding' may still create legal obligations.
Statutory Provision
No specific statutory provision — MOUs are governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for their contractual status) and common law (for their interpretation). Section 10 ICA: all agreements are contracts if made with free consent, by competent parties, for lawful consideration and object, and not void. If an MOU meets these criteria and parties intended to be bound, it is a contract despite its informal label.
A corporate combination where two or more companies combine into one — typically by one company (the transferor) transferring all its undertaking, assets, and liabilities to another (the transferee), with the transferee continuing and the transferor being dissolved.
Explanation
Mergers in India are governed by Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 (as schemes of arrangement/amalgamation) and require NCLT approval. Process: (a) Board approval; (b) Application to NCLT for directions to convene meetings of shareholders and creditors; (c) Scheme approved by shareholders (75% in value) and creditors; (d) NCLT hearing; (e) NCLT sanction of the scheme; (f) Filing with ROC. Special route: Section 233 CA 2013 provides for fast-track mergers between certain specified companies (holding and wholly-owned subsidiaries, two or more small companies) without NCLT — approved by the Regional Director. Competition Commission of India (CCI) approval is also required for mergers meeting prescribed thresholds under the Competition Act, 2002.
Statutory Provision
Section 230(1), Companies Act, 2013: 'Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed — (a) between a company and its creditors or any class of them; or (b) between a company and its members or any class of them, the Tribunal may, on the application of the company or of any creditor or member of the company, or in the case of a company which is being wound up, of the liquidator... order a meeting of the creditors or class of creditors, or of the members or class of members, as the case may be, to be called, held and conducted in such manner as the Tribunal directs.' Section 232: gives effect to sanctioned schemes.
The profits received by a person who wrongfully holds possession of property — the profits that the true owner or entitled possessor would have received during the period of wrongful possession, recoverable from the wrongful occupant.
Explanation
Mesne profits under Section 2(12) of the CPC are the profits received by or receivable by a person who is in wrongful possession of immovable property — profits that the person entitled to possession would have received had they been in possession. In a suit for recovery of possession, the plaintiff may also claim mesne profits for the period during which the defendant wrongfully held possession. Mesne profits are distinct from: (a) rent — which is contractually agreed; and (b) compensation — which is for loss of use. Mesne profits are the wrongful holder's actual or notional earnings from the property.
Statutory Provision
Section 2(12), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: '"mesne profits" of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession.'
A rule of statutory interpretation from Heydon's Case (1584) directing courts to identify the 'mischief' (defect or problem) the statute was enacted to address and interpret the statute in a way that most effectively suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy.
Explanation
The mischief rule, established in Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a, is the oldest purposive interpretive tool. Courts applying the mischief rule ask four questions: (a) What was the law before the enactment of the statute? (b) What was the mischief (problem, defect) that the old law did not address? (c) What remedy did Parliament resolve to cure this mischief? (d) What is the true reason behind the remedy? The statute is then interpreted in the light of these four factors, to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy as effectively as possible. The mischief rule has substantially evolved into the modern doctrine of 'purposive interpretation' which is now the dominant approach in Indian constitutional and statutory jurisprudence.
Statutory Provision
No Indian statutory provision. Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a (English exchequer): 'For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general... four things are to be discerned and considered: (1st) What was the common law before the making of the Act. (2nd) What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide. (3rd) What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth. (4th) The true reason of the remedy.' Applied in India in <em>Seaford Court Estates Ltd v. Asher</em> (1949) 2 KB 481 (Denning LJ), and Indian cases including Workmen v. American Express.
The improper joining of parties or causes of action that do not satisfy the legal requirements for joinder.
Explanation
Misjoinder occurs when parties or causes of action are improperly joined — but under CPC Order I Rule 9, misjoinder is not itself fatal to the suit; the court may strike out the misjoined parties or causes.
Statutory Provision
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order I Rule 9 (misjoinder and non-joinder not fatal); Order II Rule 3 (joinder of causes of action).
