Supreme Court of India Judgements

46550 Judgements hosted as on 16/07/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Validity of Compromise Decrees — The court clarified that for a valid compromise decree, there must be a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, which must then be proved to the satisfaction of the court — Mere statements of the parties before the court about such a said compromise cannot satisfy the requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The court held that if an order is not a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3, then the restrictions imposed under Rule 3A would have no relevance. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — The court clarified that the execution of a sale deed during the pendency of a suit does not make the sale deed void ab initio — The purchaser takes the bargain subject to the rights of the plaintiff in the pending suit.

Jul 16, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 527 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMRO DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JULFI RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

C P C

Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Second Appeals – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – The case revolves around the scope of Section 100 of the CPC and Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, specifically regarding the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in second appeals – The petitioner argues that the High Court’s judgment was within its powers under Section 41 of the Punjab Act, and the Will in question was invalid due to suspicious circumstances – The respondent argues that the First Appellate Court’s findings were correct, the Will was genuine, and the High Court erred in its interference – The Supreme Court reviewed its previous judgment, acknowledging an error based on the legal position in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors, (2016) 6 SCC 157, and decided to hear the Civil Appeal afresh on merits – The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled its previous judgment, and decided the Civil Appeal on its merits, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court’s judgment.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 429 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…

C P C I B C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rule 3(6)(b) — Suit for Recovery — Impact of Moratorium under IBC — The appellants argued that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) should halt the proceedings — However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the moratorium only applies to cases where the company is undergoing insolvency proceedings — In this case, the suit was not against a company undergoing insolvency, and therefore, the moratorium did not apply.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER — Appellant Vs. HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant…

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.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

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…

C P C

“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.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

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…

C P C

“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.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

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.…

C P C

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.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

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…

C P C

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.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

(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…

You missed

Tenders & Contracts

E-auction — Typographical error — e-auction for a manganese and iron ore block submitted a bid of 140.10% instead of its intended bid of 104.10% due to a typographical error — The court allowed the company’s appeal and ordered a fresh e-auction for the block — The company was also ordered to pay Rs 3 crore ($400,000) to the state as compensation for the delay caused by its error.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
Corporate

Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 — Paragraph 13 — Recovery of overcharged amount of drugs — Demand made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to recover an overcharged amount for a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation called Roscilox — The Court found that the appellant’s admission of purchasing the drug directly from the manufacturer made it liable under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) — The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that it was only a ‘dealer’ and not a ‘distributor’ under the DPCO, as the definitions of these terms under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive — The Court further noted that the objective of the DPCO is to control the prices of medicinal drug formulations and ensure they are made available to the common man, and thus, the provision should not be subjected to a restricted or hidebound interpretation — Appeal Dismissed.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
Service

Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 — Rules 5 and 11 — The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a judgment by the Patna High Court, which allowed a candidate to be considered for appointment as a City Manager in Bihar — The candidate had scored to meet up the minimum qualifying marks of 32% — The court found that the minimum qualifying marks were only for the written test and not for the overall selection process — The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on an executive order issued in 2007, stating that it was not applicable to the rules issued in 2014 — The court concluded that the candidate was eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment as she had met the minimum qualifying marks in the written test.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw