Supreme Court Monthly Digest- September 2019

Unregistered Agreement Of Sale Can Be Used As An Evidence For Collateral Purpose Prakash Sahu V. Saulal The Supreme Court recently upheld a Trial Court order allowing the plaintiff to lead evidence on insufficiently stamped unregistered agreement of sale in his suit for recovery of earnest money said to be paid by him at the time executing the agreement for sale. Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint Can Be Rejected When It Does Not Disclose Clear Right To Sue Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar V. Krishna Nandan Singh The Supreme Court observed that a plaint can be rejected Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it is manifestly vexatious, meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue. The bench comprising of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also observed that a mere contemplation or possibility that a right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that right, would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action. HC Can't Interfere In The Manner Of Investigation In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 482 CrPC State of UP vs. Aman Mittal The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, cannot interfere in the manner of investigation. The Allahabad High Court, while disposing a petition filed by accused under Section 482 CrPC had issued a slew of directions, including the direction to change the investigating officer and also to subject the erring officers/officials named in the supplementary report to disciplinary action. Legal Metrology Act Excludes Only Those Offence With Regard To Weight Or Measure Under IPC State of UP vs. Aman Mittal The Supreme Court held that though Section 3 of the Legal Metrology Act completely overrides the provisions of Chapter XIII of Indian Penal in respect of the offences and penalties with regard to weight or measure, but the prosecution for other offences under of IPC could be maintained. Mere Government Inefficiency Not A Ground For Delay Condonation State Of Odisha (Vigilance) V. Purna Chandra Kandi The Supreme Court reiterated that mere government inefficiency cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Odisha on the ground of delay, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph observed that it is for the state to 'put its own house in order'. 138NI Act-Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed On The Ground That Notice Not Served Within Statutory Period Kishore Sharma vs. Sachin Dubey The Supreme Court recently held that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be quashed on the ground that the demand notice not duly served within the statutory period. The Real Point Is To Ascertain Which Contains The Truth: SC On Divergent Dying Declarations Jagbir Singh vs. State NCT of Delhi The Supreme Court recently came across an appeal filed by a man who was convicted for murder of his wife mainly relying on one of the dying declaration made by the deceased implicating him. In the Judgment disposing the appeal the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph summarized the principles to be followed in cases were dying declaration is the sole evidence available Dismisses Plea To Direct Central Government To Enact Legislation Against Custodial Torture Dr. Ashwani Kumar V. Union of India The Supreme Court dismissed a plea of Former Law Minister and Senior Advocate Dr. Ashwani Kumar, seeking a direction to Central Government to enact a stand alone comprehensive legislation against custodial torture.' Relief Of Specific Performance Can Be Refused For Non Performance Of An Essential Promise In Contract Surinder Kaur (D) vs. Bahadur Singh (D) The Supreme Court observed that a vendee who does not perform one of the essential promises in a contract is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of that very contract. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the payment of rent was an essential term of the contract had failed to perform his part of the contract. A party cannot claim that though he may not perform his part of the contract he is entitled to specific performance of the same, the bench said. Order IX Rule 9 CPC-Decree Against Plaintiff By Default Bars Fresh Suit On Same Cause Of Action By Successor In Title Mayandi V. Pandarachamy The Supreme Court observed that the decree against plaintiffs by default bars fresh suit on the same cause of action by their successor in title. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice MR Shah set aside a High Court order on the ground ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- September 2019

Ashok Kini

Tags