July 5, 2026 6:31 pm

Remand of case—High court has no jurisdiction to remand case when no party to the appeal had even raised this ground before the first appellate court or/ and the High Court.

Bysclaw

Jun 11, 2017

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

By sclaw

Related Post

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Compromise decree — Requirement of signature/voluntary authorisation — Compromise petition in a partition suit signed on behalf of defendant not personally but through counsel, absent express authorisation or exigent circumstance — Held, invalid — A compromise, to be lawful under Order XXIII Rule 3, must be in writing and signed by the parties themselves; a counsel or authorised representative may sign on a party’s behalf only where there is express authorisation in the vakalatnama or an exigency of circumstance justifying such action — In the absence of either, and there being nothing on record to show that defendant no.5 had authorised his counsel to compromise away his substantial rights in the suit property, the mandatory requirement of a voluntary, party-signed compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 was not satisfied — The resultant compromise decree was accordingly contrary to law and rightly set aside.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC

Jun 23, 2026 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw