Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 29/09/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

C P C

HELD that there can be no dispute that in a suit for malicious prosecution, ad valorem Court-fees is payable.

Bysclaw

Mar 19, 2022

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

O. 2 R. 2 CPC | Omitted Relief Remains Barred Despite Order 23 Liberty To File Fresh Suit

Sep 29, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C I B C

Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 — Section 9(2) — “Decree or order” — Whether includes a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (pre-2016 amendment) — Held, no — Insolvency Act, being weighed with grave civil consequence of “civil death”, must be strictly construed — Expression “decree or order” must bear the meaning assigned under Ss. 2(2) and 2(14), CPC, requiring adjudication by a “court” in a “suit” — A DRT recovery certificate, not being a decree or order of a court within this meaning, cannot found an insolvency notice under S. 9(2) — Ratio of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322 (rendered qua arbitral awards) held to rest on a wider principle applicable equally to DRT recovery certificates — Impugned judgment of Division Bench, Bombay High Court, affirming Single Judge’s quashing of insolvency notice, upheld.

Jul 15, 2026 sclaw

You missed

Arbitration

S. 17 Arbitration Act | Arbitral Tribunal Does Not Exercise Appellate Jurisdiction Over Section 9 Orders:

Sep 29, 2026 sclaw
Preventive Detention

Preventive Detention Can’t Be Solely Based On Custodial Confession

Sep 29, 2026 sclaw
I B C

IBC | Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Invites EMD Forfeiture If Auction Terms So Provide

Sep 29, 2026 sclaw
C P C

O. 2 R. 2 CPC | Omitted Relief Remains Barred Despite Order 23 Liberty To File Fresh Suit

Sep 29, 2026 sclaw