List of Current Affairs

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News? 

A Single Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice Victoria Gowri in the matter of Anbu v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2026) set aside a trial court order allowing the prosecution to recall its Investigating Officer after closure of prosecution evidence and examination of the accused, holding that Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — corresponding to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — cannot be invoked as a tool to repair a weak case at the fag end of trial.

What was the Background of Anbu v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner Anbu was facing trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kumbakonam, for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).  
• As per the prosecution, Anbu was closely associated with the deceased, who had entrusted him with agricultural products worth Rs. 14,00,000 for sale. Anbu allegedly sold the products but did not remit the proceeds.  
• When the deceased demanded return of either the products or the money, Anbu took him in his car, attacked him with a billhook, and abandoned the body in water. 
• After defence evidence was about to commence, the prosecution filed an application seeking to recall the Investigating Officer for the purpose of marking documents including call detail records, SIM card details, and bank account statements.  
• The trial court allowed the application, against which the present petition was filed before the High Court.

What Court's Observations? 

• On the nature of criminal trial: The Court emphasised that a criminal trial is not a game of strategy between the prosecution and the defence but a solemn judicial search for truth. It held that this search must proceed within the boundaries of fairness, legality, and procedural discipline. 
• On scope of Section 348 BNSS: The Court held that Section 348 BNSS uses the phrase "at any stage," which cannot be read to mean "at any stage without reason." The Court clarified that a higher degree of judicial satisfaction is required when recall is sought after the prosecution evidence has been closed and the accused has been examined. Not every document that may improve the prosecution's case can be introduced at this stage — only evidence whose absence would render the decision unjust qualifies. 
• On the trial court's failure: The Court found that the trial court had passed a mechanical and cryptic order without examining whether the evidence sought to be recalled was truly indispensable for a just decision. The trial court had not applied its mind to why the evidence — sought to be introduced after closure of prosecution evidence and examination of the accused — could not be rendered without. 
• On prejudice to the accused: The Court held that allowing the recall would amount to permitting the prosecution to fill up lacunae in its own case, which had been exposed during cross-examination by the defence. Such course of action would cause serious prejudice to the accused and would be contrary to the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court accordingly set aside the impugned order.

What is Section 348 BNSS? 

Section 348 BNSS — Power to Summon Material Witness or Examine Person Present 

Text of the Provision: 

Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita: 

• summon any person as a witness, or 
• examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or 
• re-call and re-examine any person already examined; 

and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

Key Features: 

• Two limbs in one provision:  
  • Discretionary limb — The court may summon, examine, or recall any witness at any stage. 
  • Mandatory limb — The court shall do so if the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. 
• Applicability: Extends to any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the BNSS — not limited to trials alone. 
• Stage of invocation: Can be exercised at any stage, but courts have read this to mean any stage with sufficient judicial reason, not as a blanket licence. 
• Who may be summoned: Any person — whether previously unexamined, already examined, or merely present in court but not formally summoned. 
• Purpose: To prevent failure of justice by ensuring that material evidence is not lost due to procedural gaps. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria in the matter of Mohammed Khaleel (D) Through LRs & Ors. v. Jayamma (2026) dismissed an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court's reversal of a trial court decree for specific performance, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform the agreement to sell from the relevant date.  

• The Court further held that unexplained delay in approaching the court, even if within the limitation period, is a relevant consideration while granting the discretionary relief of specific performance.

What was the Background of Mohammed Khaleel (D) Through LRs & Ors. v. Jayamma (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from an agreement to sell dated December 20, 1990, executed between the Appellant and Respondent in respect of a vacant site in Mysore for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3 lakh. An earnest amount of Rs. 25,000 was paid at the time of execution, with the balance of Rs. 2.75 lakh to be paid at the time of registration.  
• The agreement stipulated a four-month period for completion of the transaction. 
• The defendant rescinded the agreement, following which the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance in December 1993, nearly two years and nine months after the rescission.  
• The trial court decreed the suit in 2002. The Karnataka High Court, however, reversed the decree in 2009, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court. 
• Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that they possessed sufficient financial capacity to complete the transaction, relying upon four Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) worth Rs. 70,000 each, aggregating Rs. 2.80 lakh.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On financial readiness to be proved with reference to the relevant period: 
  The Court held that while it was not necessary for the plaintiff to physically deposit the consideration amount before the court, reliable and acceptable evidence must be placed on record to show possession of sufficient funds at the relevant time — that is, from the date of the agreement until the filing of the suit. It observed that there was no material to show that the plaintiff had the balance sale consideration available either at the time of execution of the agreement, within the stipulated four-month period for performance, or even at the time of filing of the suit in 1993. 
• On rejection of the FDRs as proof of financial capacity: 
  The Court noted that the four FDRs relied upon by the appellants were dated October 4, 1999, November 22, 1999, April 3, 2001, and August 23, 2001 — all created several years after the institution of the suit on December 20, 1993. It accordingly held that these FDRs could not establish the appellants' financial readiness during the relevant period. 
• On delay in filing the suit: 
  The Court held that the unexplained delay of nearly two years and nine months in filing the suit after the defendant had rescinded the agreement was itself reflective of the plaintiff's lack of continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Court observed that although a suit filed within the limitation period is not barred, delay without explanation remains a relevant consideration while granting the equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance, and such conduct disentitles a plaintiff from the said relief.

What is Specific Performance? 

• Specific performance constitutes an equitable remedy granted by a court to uphold the contractual commitments among the parties. 
• Unlike a claim for damages, which involves compensation for non-fulfilment of contractual stipulations, specific performance operates as a remedy that enforces the terms agreed between the parties. 
• It is governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). 
• Section 10 of SRA deals with specific performance of contracts. It states that:  
  • The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14, and Section 16. 
• The Supreme Court in Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. (2023) held that the relief of specific performance can only be granted when the party claiming such relief shows its readiness and willingness to perform its obligations under the contract.

What are the Landmark Judgments Related to Specific Performance? 

• His Holiness Acharya Swamy Ganeshdasji v. Seetharam Apar (1996):  
  • The Supreme Court explained the distinction between 'readiness' and 'willingness'. 
  • 'Readiness' refers to the plaintiff's financial capacity and ability to perform the contract, while 'willingness' relates to the plaintiff's conduct and intention to fulfill the contractual obligations. 
• Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010):  
  • The Supreme Court held that even if the defendant has committed a breach of contract, the plaintiff cannot obtain a decree for specific performance if the plaintiff fails to aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contractual obligations. 
• Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi (2011):  
  • The Supreme Court observed that with the steep rise in real estate prices, it becomes inequitable to grant specific performance if the purchaser delays payment without justification from the vendor's side. 
  • Courts are required to apply greater scrutiny in such cases. 
• Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar (2024):  
  • This judgment dealt with the evidentiary value of testimony given by a power of attorney holder. 
  • The Court held that a power of attorney holder cannot become a witness on behalf of the party and depose to prove that party's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.