Supreme Court of India Judgements

46950 Judgements hosted as on 04/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

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

2025 INSC 1353 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH G.R. SELVARAJ (DEAD), THROUGH LRS. Vs. K.J. PRAKASH KUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 38 Rule 5, Rule 8, Rule 10 — Order 21 Rule 58 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 53 — Attachment before judgment — Scope of — Effect on prior transfer — Property already transferred by registered sale deed prior to institution of suit cannot be subject to attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC — Essential condition for Order 38 Rule 5 is that property must belong to defendant on date of institution of suit — Attachment before judgment is a protective measure and does not create any charge or proprietary interest in favour of plaintiff (Rule 10). (Paras 10.1.1, 11.1, 11.3, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1364 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH L.K. PRABHU @ L. KRISHNA PRABHU (DIED) THROUGH LRS Vs. K.T. MATHEW @ THAMPAN THOMAS AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXI Rule 58 — Execution First Appeal — Partition Suit — Preliminary decree for partition — Inter se bidding — Joint owners (siblings) of property in equal shares (1/3rd each) — Property incapable of physical partition — Disposal of property via inter se bidding — Challenge to High Court order disposing of Execution Appeal on ground of offer matching — Where an offer of Rs.6.25 crores was made by the Appellant (Petitioner) and matched by the Respondents (2/3rd owners), the High Court directed Respondents to pay Appellant’s share after adjusting previous deposit — Supreme Court modified the approach, requiring the Petitioner to deposit 2/3rd of the bid (Rs.4.16 Crores) with Registry to demonstrate genuineness, pending further resolution. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Order dated 25.9.2025;

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA Vs. ROHIT SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal…

C P C Registration Act Specific Relief Act Transfer Of Property Act

Registration Act, 1908 — Section 17(1)(e) — Compulsory registration of non-testamentary instruments — Assignment of a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property — Whether such assignment deed requires compulsory registration — HELD NO – A decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property does not, of itself, create any right, title, or interest in or charge on the immovable property (Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882)

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1329 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESWARI AND OTHERS Vs. SHANMUGAM AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration C P C

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Execution of Arbitral Award — Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) — Maintainability — Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 — Order 21 Rule 22 — Execution proceedings against legal representatives — The Act is a self-contained code restricting judicial interference — An order passed by a Single Judge in the course of executing an arbitral award is traceable to the Act, not the CPC; therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is not maintainable — Where execution is sought against entities/persons arrayed as executors/legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor for limited execution purposes and cannot be treated as third parties to the arbitral award for the purpose of challenging maintainability of the appeal under the Act.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1334 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. Vs. CHETAN SURENDRA DALAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

C P C Limitation

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 1 — Limitation for filing Written Statement in Commercial Suits — Extension of time due to COVID-19 pandemic — Supreme Court’s suo motu order excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation — Even if statutory period of 120 days expired, if it fell within the excluded period, defendant should be allowed to file Written Statement.

Oct 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1202 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S AROUSH MOTORS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria,…

C P C

. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 — Summary Suits — Procedure — Filing of reply/defence without leave to defend — High Court allowing filing of reply to Summons for Judgment without defendant first applying for leave to defend amounts to procedural deviation from Order 37 Rule 3(4) and 3(5) CPC.

Oct 5, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1157 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EXECUTIVE TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GROW WELL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 90 & Section 47 — Setting aside of sale — Application for — Delay — HC correctly held that application to set aside sale was barred by limitation as it was filed almost two years three months after the sale, and Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Order XXI.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1040 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI R RAGHU Vs. SRI G M KRISHNA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Cause of action— Amendment of plaint — Substitution of proprietor for proprietorship concern — Held, a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person but a trade name for an individual business. The proprietor is the real party in interest. Substituting the proprietor for the proprietorship concern does not negate the cause of action, especially when the proprietor is the signatory to the lease deed.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1046 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ANOTHER Vs. PILLA DURGA PRASAD AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

C P C

State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Section 29 — Liability of Financial Corporation taking possession of industrial unit for dues — Corporation acts as a trustee, liable only to the extent of funds in its hands after settling its dues, not personally liable. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 80 — Notice to Government or public officer — Mandatory requirement before instituting suit — Failure to issue notice or obtain leave renders suit not maintainable and decree a nullity, even if impleaded later.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 928 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION Vs. VIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS ( Before : J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Substantive Equality and Inclusion — Scope and Spirit — The measure of a just society demands the removal of barriers for all citizens to realize their potential, transforming formal equality into substantive inclusion — Constitutional vision requires every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, to participate with dignity — Rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, not acts of benevolence. (Paras 1, 12, 13)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw