• [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 Accident Cases [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand]

The Supreme Court, while enhancing compensation awarded to a young girl who became 100% disabled due to an accident, reiterated some principles for grant of compensation in motor accident claim cases. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta observed that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires determination of payment of just compensation and it is the duty of the court to ensure that she is paid compensation which is just.

● [Relinquishment of Claims] Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC May Not Apply To Writ Petitions [Brahma Singh v. Union of India]

The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta reiterated that the bar of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code may not apply to a writ petitions. The Court was considering a writ in which the issue raised was whether the service rendered by the petitioners in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee prior to the promulgation of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000 is to be counted while calculating their qualifying service for determination of pension.

● Beneficiaries Of Insurance Policy Are 'Consumers' Even If They Are Not Parties To Contract Of Insurance [Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.]

The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta observed that the beneficiaries of the policy taken out by the insured are also 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, even if they are not parties to the contract of insurance. In this case, the farmers had stored their agricultural produce in a cold store run by a partnership firm under the name and style of Sreedevi Cold Storage. This Cold Storage firm was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. The State and National Consumer Forum had granted relief in the complaints filed by Farmers against repudiation of the claim of the cold store by the insurance company. In the appeal filed by the insurance company, the contention taken was that there was no privity of contract between the farmers and the insurance company because the policy was taken by the cold store and not by the farmers and therefore they cannot be called 'consumers'.

● There Can Be No Review Of Order Passed In Review Petition: SC Dismisses NGO Lok Prahari's Application [Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India & Ors.]

There can be no review of an order passed in the review petition, the Supreme Court remarked while dismissing an application filed by NGO Lok Prahari to recall the order passed in the review petition. The matter was placed before the bench comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari. It was contended that the Registrar has no power to refuse lodgment/registration of an application for recall, except for the three grounds stated in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

● No Fundamental Right To Claim Reservations In Promotion [Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarkhand]

The Supreme Court has observed that the State Government is not required to justify its decision to not give reservation in promotion on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that there is an adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State services. The bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State to collect quantifiable data relating to the adequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service.

● Children Born To Adoptee Before His Adoption Entitled To Inherit His Property In Adoptive Family [Kalindi Damodar Garde v. Manohar Laxman Kulkarni & Ors.]

The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta observed that children who were born to an adoptee before his adoption are entitled to inherit his property in the adoptive family. In the instant case, one Mr. Laxman and his wife Padmavati already had three sons when he was given in adoption to one Saraswathi in the year 1935. After adoption, a girl child was born to him. After the death of Laxman, a suit for partition was filed by one of the sons. The court observed that since the succession has opened after the death of Laxman on 10th January 1987, succession has to be in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act and not as per Hindu law as all text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law prior to commencement of the Act have ceased to have any effect unless expressly provided for in the said Act. It further noted that there is no provision of denying the rights of succession to the natural-born son of an adoptee father.

● Victim/ Interested Persons Have A Right To File Protest Petition, SC Upholds Order Of Madras HC

The bench of Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy confirmed the judgment of Madras High Court whereby it was held that a Petitioner, being a victim, is mandatorily entitled to notice before acceptance of final report of the Police and in case such a notice is not served, he has a right to file a protest petition. While holding so, the High Court through Justice AD Jagadish Chandira had directed the Magistrate concerned last year, to take up the matter relating to a scam made in respect of the high value lands of the Complainant (Respondent herein) afresh and pass orders on merits, within a period of two months. The said order was assailed by the Petitioners (originally Respondents) before the Supreme Court, by way of a Special Leave Petition