Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 26/10/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: C P C

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

2026 INSC 857 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIVAPPA Vs. SHANTAVVA AND OTHERS ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos…..of 2026 (@ Special…

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

2026 INSC 688 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H.D.F.C. BANK LIMITED Vs. KISHORE K. MEHTA (DEAD) THR. LRS. ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

C P C State Laws

State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Sections 29 & 30 — Auction sale of mortgaged property by Financial Corporation for recovery of dues — Judicial review of, scope — Borrowers persistently defaulting over eight years despite multiple opportunities, repayment schedules fixed by High Court, and statutory notices — Financial Corporation auctioning mortgaged property after affording repeated chances including a final 21-day matching offer, which borrowers ignored — Held, fairness required of a Financial Corporation cannot be carried to the extent of disabling it from recovering what is due to it; fairness is not a one-way street — Courts have no say in matters between the Corporation and its debtor except where there is (a) statutory violation, or (b) the Corporation has acted unfairly/unreasonably — Writ court/civil court does not sit as an appellate authority over commercial decisions of the Corporation — Absence of prior valuation report, by itself, held insufficient to vitiate auction where borrowers never objected to the basis of sale (BOS — balance outstanding as on date of possession/sale deed) and themselves sought to retain the property on the very same terms — Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court setting aside auction sale, reversed.

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 673 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Vs. BHUSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Orrder 11 Rules 1(4) & 5 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Sch.) — Additional documents, filing of — Standard of “reasonable cause” — Held, plaintiff obliged to file all documents in its possession along with plaint; leave to file additional documents within 30 days of institution of suit permissible only on establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure and justification for subsequent discovery — Distinction between “reasonable cause” (applicable standard under Or. XI Rr. 1(4)/(5)) and “sufficient cause” reaffirmed, following Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71 — However, even applying the lower threshold of “reasonable cause”, application for additional documents rightly rejected where documents were in appellant’s possession since inception of suit and no explanation furnished for delay of over five years — Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 674 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. LEVITATE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second appeal — Scope of interference with concurrent findings on genuineness of a Will — Whether suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will exist, and stand explained, is essentially a question of fact; a second appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interference is permissible only where the finding is perverse, based on circumstances that are mere “figments of a doubting mind,” or is vitiated by an erroneous placement of onus — High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under S. 100 CPC in reversing well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court discarding the Will.

Jul 7, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 669 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARDARI LAL Vs. BISHAN DASS AND OTHER ( Before : Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.10990 of…

C P C

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

2026 INSC 662 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNA KUMAR OJHA AND OTHERS Vs. JITENDRA CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

You missed

Constitution

Can’t Penalise Flat Buyers Who Relied On Official Documents : Supreme Court Directs Alternative Site Before Demolition

Oct 26, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Mere Suit Seeking Recovery Of Possession Not Sufficient When Plaintiff’s Title Is Disputed

Oct 24, 2026 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Supreme Court Quashes Blacklisting Of Drug Supplier Over Quality Failure As Retesting Opportunity Denied

Oct 23, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Accident Claims | Victim Requiring Lifelong Attendant Can Be Considered 100% Functionally Disabled

Oct 23, 2026 sclaw