Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 18/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

C P C

Section 92 CPC Procedure Not Applicable In Suit By A Trust: SC

Bysclaw

Feb 1, 2020

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

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
C P C Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — Scope and Applicability — Transfer of mortgaged property pendente lite (after institution of suit by bank for recovery/foreclosure but before execution/attachment) is hit by Section 52 — Lack of knowledge of proceedings or possession of No Encumbrance Certificate does not constitute a valid defence against lis pendens, as the doctrine is based on public policy and binds the transferee regardless of notice — Pendency of suit commences from presentation of plaint and continues until complete satisfaction or discharge of final decree, as per Explanation to Section 52 — Where a bank institutes a suit for recovery of a loan against a mortgagor, seeking sale of the mortgaged property upon default, the right/interest in the mortgaged property is “directly and specifically in question” even if the initial decree is only a money decree. (Paras 46, 49, 50, 52, 62, 66, 67, 70)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 90(3) — Execution Sale — Setting aside sale on ground of irregularity — Statutory bar against judgment debtor — Scope and application of Order 21 Rule 90(3) CPC (inserted w.e.f. 01.02.1977) — No application to set aside sale shall be entertained on any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date the proclamation of sale was drawn up — Mandates vigilance by judgment debtor regarding pre-sale illegalities or material irregularities. (Paras 10, 15, 17)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
Evidence Act I P C

Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw