LAW OFFICE ONLINE

General Clauses Act, 1897; S. 27 -----  Evidence Act, 1872; S. 114 -----
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; S. 138 ----- Whether it is necessary to state that the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act by the complainant was served upon the respondent-accused on any specific date ----- Held: since the NI Act does not require that notice should only be given by ‘post’ in a case where the sender has despatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, Section 27 of the GC Act could be profitably imported and in such a situation service of notice is deemed to have been effected on the sender unless he proves that it was really not served and that he was not responsible for such non-service ----- Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 165 – Right of Court to put question – Held: Court has a right to ask the party even relevant or irrelevant questions and the parties or their counsel cannot raise any objection to any such question.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 (d) -- Rejection of Plaint -- the has to be read as a whole -- The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) -- Only the averments in the plaint are germane -- The issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order VII Rule 11(d).

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65B (2) – Electronic record -- Specified conditions --
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to
store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and (iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.;

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65B (4) – Electronic record -- Conditions to be fulfilled --
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65B (4) – Electronic record – Certificate -- The person issuing certificate needed only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief -- Such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65B (4) – Electronic record -- If an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

Civil Law – Practice and Procedure – Held: Cause of action to claim a relief of permanent injunction and the cause of action to claim a relief of specific performance of agreement are independent and one cannot include the other and vice versa -- a plaintiff cannot claim a relief of specific performance of agreement against the defendant on a cause of action on which he has claimed a relief of permanent injunction.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 2 R. 2(2) -- Suit to include the whole claim -- the sine qua non for invoking Order 2 Rule 2(2) against the plaintiff by the defendant is that the relief which the plaintiff has claimed in the second suit was also available to the plaintiff for being claimed in the previous suit on the causes of action pleaded in the previous suit against the defendant and yet not claimed by the plaintiff.

Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) -- Claim for reimbursement – Whether claim can be rejected as the Superspeciality hospital is not included in the Government Order – Held: The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 439 ----- Application for Bail to Session Court or High Court without filing application before the Magistrate ---
-- If maintainable ----- Held: that there are no restrictions on the High Court or Sessions Court to entertain an application for bail, provided, accused is in custody.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S.138 ---- Complaint petition was filed by Shri V. Shankar claimed to be General Power of Attorney holder of the Complainant company ----- Subsequently PW 1 Shri Ravinder Singh gave the evidence on behalf of the Company under the General Power of Attorney given by the Complainant Company ------ The Complaint was not signed either by the Managing Director or Director of the Company ----- It is also not in dispute that PW 1 is only the employee of the Company ----- As per Resolution of the Company Managing Director and Director are authorized to file suits and criminal complaints against the debtors for recovery of money and for prosecution ------ Under third part of the said resolution they were authorized to appoint or nominate any other person to appear on their behalf in the Court and engage lawyer etc ------ But nothing on record suggest that an employee is empowered to file the complaint on behalf of the Company ------ Managing Director and Director are authorized persons of the Company to file the complaint by signing and by giving evidence ----- At best the said persons can nominate any person to represent themselves or the Company before the Court ------ In the present case one Shri Shankar Prasad employee of the Company signed the complaint and the Deputy General Manager of the Company i.e. PW-1 gave evidence as if he knows everything though he does not know anything ------ There is nothing on the record to suggest that he was authorized by the Managing Director or any Director ------ Acquittal of the Accused confirmed.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S. 138 ------ Compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) on payment of the cheque amount and in the alternative for exemption from personal appearance ----- Held that where the cheque amount with interest and cost as assessed by the Court is paid by a specified date, the Court is entitled to close the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 143 of the Act read with Section 258 Cr.P.C.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S. 138 ------ Service of summons ----- Mode of ----- The service of summons can be by post/e-mail/courier and ought to be properly monitored (Para 16).

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S. 138 ------ Implementation of technology ----- Use of modern technology needs to be considered not only for paperless courts but also to reduce overcrowding of courts ----- There appears to be need to consider categories of cases which can be partly or entirely concluded “online” without physical presence of the parties by simplifying procedures where seriously disputed questions are not required to be adjudicated. Traffic challans may perhaps be one such category ----- Atleast some number of Section 138 cases can be decided online ----- If complaint with affidavits and documents can be filed online, process issued online and accused pays the specified amount online, it may obviate the need for personal appearance of the complainant or the accused ----- Only if the accused contests, need for appearance of parties may arise which may be through counsel and wherever viable, video conferencing can be used ----- Personal appearances can be dispensed with on suitable self operating conditions. (Para 17)

Practice and Procedure – Order obtained by fraud – Suppression of execution of two deeds before the Court – Held: Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court -- A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation -- If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party – Order so obtained set aside.