Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 29/08/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

C P C

Res judicata–It is not necessary that all the parties to the two litigations must be common. All that is necessary is that the issue should be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.

Bysclaw

May 7, 2017

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   
Forgot password? Click here to reset
New User? Click here to register

By sclaw

Related Post

C P C Joint Family Property Partition

Suit for Partition of jointly owned Property — Liability to render accounts — The court held that the defendant Nos. 3(a) and defendant Nos. 15 to 19 are liable to render accounts and contribute rent as assessed by the Trial Court during the course of passing the final decree for the portions in their respective possession The court clarified that being in self-occupation of a property does not absolve a co-sharer from rendering accounts — The defendant No. 3(a) who purchased the property from defendant No. 3 after it had already been vacated by a tenant, was held liable to contribute rent as determined by the Trial Court. Business carried out in the property — The court held that defendant Nos. 15 to 19, who admitted to carrying on their own business in the portion of the property in their possession, are liable to render accounts and contribute rent as determined by the Trial Court.

Jul 27, 2024 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Validity of Compromise Decrees — The court clarified that for a valid compromise decree, there must be a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, which must then be proved to the satisfaction of the court — Mere statements of the parties before the court about such a said compromise cannot satisfy the requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The court held that if an order is not a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3, then the restrictions imposed under Rule 3A would have no relevance. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — The court clarified that the execution of a sale deed during the pendency of a suit does not make the sale deed void ab initio — The purchaser takes the bargain subject to the rights of the plaintiff in the pending suit.

Jul 16, 2024 sclaw
C P C

Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Second Appeals – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – The case revolves around the scope of Section 100 of the CPC and Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, specifically regarding the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in second appeals – The petitioner argues that the High Court’s judgment was within its powers under Section 41 of the Punjab Act, and the Will in question was invalid due to suspicious circumstances – The respondent argues that the First Appellate Court’s findings were correct, the Will was genuine, and the High Court erred in its interference – The Supreme Court reviewed its previous judgment, acknowledging an error based on the legal position in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors, (2016) 6 SCC 157, and decided to hear the Civil Appeal afresh on merits – The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled its previous judgment, and decided the Civil Appeal on its merits, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court’s judgment.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

You missed

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw