Category: C P C

Pre-emption Suit – The case revolves around a dispute over land in Haryana, where a pre-emption suit was filed and decreed, requiring a deposit of Rs. 9,214 minus 1/5th already deposited. The appellants deposited Rs. 7,600 instead of Rs. 7,614 due to a calculation error. The main issue was whether the appellants should suffer for a minor deficit due to a bona fide error and if the court can extend the time for deposit in such cases. The appellants argued that the error was not intentional and even the court ordered the deposit of 7,600. The respondents argued that the appellants failed to comply with the decree’s terms and did not provide sufficient reason for the delay in depositing the correct amount. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellants to deposit the deficit of 14 and directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondents for prolonged litigation. The court concluded that parties should not suffer due to errors in judicial proceedings and granted relief to the appellants.

2024 INSC 374 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. SUKHI RAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and…

“Illegal Construction on Disputed Land: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order Permitting Compound Wall, Demands Impleading Affected Parties:” Land Dispute – The case involves a dispute over land ownership and the construction of a compound wall, which was permitted by the High Court under police protection without considering the rights of affected third parties – The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the construction of the compound wall under police protection, and whether necessary parties were impleaded – The petitioners argued that the High Court’s order was illegal due to non-joinder of necessary parties and that the principles of natural justice were not followed – The respondents claimed that no one was prejudiced by the construction of the compound wall and that the rights of adjacent landowners were not adversely affected – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the writ petition, and directed the High Court to decide the case afresh after impleading all necessary parties – The Court found that the High Court ignored the affidavits of government officers indicating that third parties would be affected by the wall’s construction – The Court emphasized that orders based on “Minutes of Order” are not consent orders and must be lawful, considering the rights of all affected parties – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was illegal and remanded the case for a fresh decision, with the possibility of demolishing the compound wall if found illegal.

2024 INSC 353 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MEHER K. PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

“Supreme Court Remands Title Suit Substitution Dispute: Procedural Errors Found in High Court’s Order on Legal Representative” Title Suit – The case involves a title suit regarding property in Bihar, with ‘S1’ as one of the defendants – After his death, two claimants sought substitution in the Second Appeal pending before the Patna High Court – The main issue was determining the legal representative (LR) for substitution in the Second Appeal after Swami ‘S1’s death – The appellant, argued for substitution in place of ‘S2’, whose claim was previously dismissed by the High Court – The respondent, was upheld as the LR by the High Court based on the Trial Court’s report – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on substitution, emphasizing the correct procedure for determining LRs – The Supreme Court found procedural errors in the High Court’s decision-making process regarding the substitution of LRs – The Court referenced Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, which outlines the procedure for determining LRs and the appellate court’s role in considering the subordinate court’s report and objections – The Supreme Court directed the High Court to make a fresh decision on substitution, without commenting on the merits of the claimants’ rights – Appeal was disposed of, and Sadhavi Sarojanand now seeks substitution as the appellant in the pending Second Appeal.

2024 INSC 352 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SWAMI VEDVYASANAND JI MAHARAJ (D) THR LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHYAM LAL CHAUHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S.…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 – Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree –Property Dispute – Suit for specific performance – A compromise was reached in 1978, and a decree was passed in 1979 – The main issue is the executability of the 1979 decree, challenged by the respondents claiming it to be a nullity and questioning the jurisdiction – The petitioner, as the decree holder, argues that the decree is executable and that the objections under Section 47 CPC by the respondents are not maintainable – The respondents contend that the decree is without jurisdiction and a nullity, and that the property was jointly owned, thus the compromise with only one defendant is invalid – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the Executing Court’s order, rejecting the objections under Section 47 CPC – The Court found that the property was solely owned by Defendant No. 1, and the compromise was valid – The procedural requirements were met, and the objections by the respondents were an abuse of the legal process – The Court reasoned that the compromise was properly recorded and verified, fulfilling the requirements of Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the CPC, and the execution of the decree was contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions by Defendant No. 1. – The Supreme Court concluded that the Executing Court was correct in rejecting the objections and that the decree dated 09.05.1979 was based on a valid compromise – The opinion by Justice Vikram Nath emphasized the validity of the compromise and the decree, and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process by the respondents.

2024 INSC 329 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REHAN AHMED (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. AKHTAR UN NISA (D) THR. LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Appeal from original decree -The core issue revolves around the validity of the agreement and the Arbitrator’s award, given that the original ex-parte decree in favor of the plaintiff was set aside and the suit was to proceed from the stage of the State filing its written statement – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit on merits based on evidence – The Court reasoned that the agreement dated 30.07.1991 lost its credibility as the basis of the agreement, the ex-parte decree, was set aside, and the suit was to be continued from a specific stage.

(2024) INSC 315 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. SATISH JAIN (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…

Easements Act, 1882 – Sections 4, 13 and 15 – Easements of necessity and quasi-easements – The court reasons that the Appellant ‘s failed to prove uninterrupted use of the road for over 20 years and that there is an alternative way to access their land – The court examines the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and relevant case law to determine the absence of easementary rights by prescription, necessity, or agreement – The court concludes that the Appellant ‘s have not acquired any easementary rights over the disputed road and upholds the decisions of the appellate courts and the High Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra,…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 10, 16 and 20 – Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate – The court refers to Section 16 and Section 20 of the CPC, emphasizing that suits related to immovable property should be instituted where the property is located – The court analyzes the provisions of the CPC and prior case law to determine jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 10 of the CPC – The court dismisses the petitioner’s transfer petition and allows the respondent’s petition, ordering the transfer of the petitioner’s suit to Sehore, Madhya Pradesh.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ACME PAPERS LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHINTAMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and…

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the filing of the suit for asserting the rights of the plaintiffs/respondents did not amount to contempt of court – The court distinguished the case of Skipper Construction and observed that the facts were totally different – The court also stated that its observations were only restricted to the maintainability of the contempt proceedings and would have no bearing on the merits of the suit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S SHAH ENTERPRISES THR. PADMABEN MANSUKHBHAI MODI — Appellant Vs. VAIJAYANTIBEN RANJITSINGH SAWANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.