Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

[Specific Performance] Plaintiff Has To Prove That He Has Means To Generate Consideration Amount: SC [C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy] The Supreme Court has observed that it is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff in a Specific Performance Suit to prove that he has the means to generate the consideration amount. The bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta was considering an appeal arising out of a specific performance suit. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform the contract. The High Court allowed the appeal and the defendants approached the Apex Court challenging the High Court judgment. ● Prosecution On The Basis Of Second FIR Not Sustainable If Substratum Is Common As That Of First One [Prem Chand Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh] The bench comprising of Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, observed that the prosecution of a person on the basis of a second FIR is not sustainable if its substratum is same as that of the first FIR. In this case, the complainant lodged the First FIR stating that he had never executed any general power of attorney in favor of the accused therein and that the accused forged general power of attorney to sell his lands illegally. The accused was ultimately tried and acquitted. Thereafter, he again filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, more or less, repeating the same allegations. This was forwarded to the police leading to registration of the second FIR. As his application seeking discharge was dismissed, the accused approached the Apex Court in appeal. ● Section 138 NI Act: Production Of Account Book Not Relevant In Cheque Bounce Cases [DK Chandel v. M/s Wockhardt Ltd. Anr] The bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and AS Bopanna observed that the production of the account books/cash book may not be relevant in a criminal case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this case, the First Appellate Court, while reversing the Trial Court order convicting the accused, had held that the complainant did not produce cash and account books to prove that the amount was due and payable by the accused. The complaint was that the accused purchased the pesticides on credit from the company and made part payments by issuing a cheque, which when presented for collection returned with the endorsement "insufficient funds". ● Application U/s 391 CrPC Seeking To Adduce Additional Evidence Should Be Heard Immediately After It Is Filed [Asif Abdulkarim v. State of Gujarat] The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta observed that an application filed under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to adduce additional evidence should be heard immediately after it is filed without waiting for the appeal to be finally heard. The court noted that, in the instant case, the application is filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Appellate Court to either take evidence by itself or direct the evidence to be taken by a Magistrate or a Court of Session, if it is satisfied that the additional evidence is necessary, after recording reasons. ● Employee's Request To Change DoB In Service Records Cannot Be Entertained At The Fag End Of Service [Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh] If a particular date of birth is entered in the service register of an employee, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service, the Supreme Court has reiterated. The bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and AS Bopanna observed that, even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In this case, the employee, after more than 30 years from the date of his joining service, made the representation to correct date of birth in his service records. The High Court had granted relief to the employee and therefore, the employer company approached the Apex Court in appeal. ● Compromise Decree Which Does Not Take In Property That Is Not Subject Matter Of Suit Need No Registration [Mohammade Yusuf v. Rajkumar] The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah has observed that a compromise decree does not require registration if it does not take in property that is not the subject-matter of the suit. In this case, the Trial Court had allowed the objection filed by the plaintiff to the admissibility of a compromise decree sought to be adduced in evidence by the defendant on the ground that it was not registered. The Trial Court observed that the decree required to be registered as per provision of Section 17 of the Registration Act, hence it is not admissible in evidence. The High Court upheld this view. ● SC Reiterates Principles For Grant Of Compensation In Motor...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags