Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 18/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 636 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAKARDHWAJ RAM Vs. JAGDISH RAI (DEAD) TH. LRS. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 — Judgment on Admissions — Scope and Exercise of Discretion — Provision allows for speedy relief where there is no substantial dispute requiring trial, but cannot deprive a party of adjudication if controversy involves disputed questions of fact and requires evidence — Admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional, and unequivocal — Admissions should be clear and intentional, and discretion to pass judgment without trial should be used cautiously, only when admission is absolute, clear, categorical, and unconditional.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 603 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUSHPA AND OTHERS Vs. DAYAWATI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 7 — Pleadings should not raise new claims or inconsistent allegations — A defendant cannot retract their initial stand taken in the written statement and introduce a completely new and contradictory case, especially after issues have been framed and the trial has commenced.

May 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 545 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MONDIRA GHOSH Vs. CHAITALI GHOSH ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No………………of 2026 (@…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 502 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JENNIFER MESSIAS Vs. LEONARD G LOBO ( Before : K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. ….of 2026…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 31 — First Appellate Court’s judgment — Compliance with mandatory requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is substantial rather than technical, and the substance of the judgment and the manner of dealing with the controversy are more significant than the form of points framed. – -Power of Attorney Act, 1882 — General Power of Attorney (GPA) — Misuse of GPA for sale of property — Held, where GPA holder enters into sale deeds and subsequent transfers are within the family, and the original owner fails to prove loan transactions, repayment, or continued possession, the transactions are unlikely to be considered shams or fraudulent.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 529 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALLIKA Vs. R. NALLATHAMBI AND OTHERS ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 9837…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [

May 17, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA KALRA AND OTHERS Vs. KULVINDER SINGH BHATIA ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of 2026 (@…

C P C Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28 — Rescission of contract for failure to pay purchase money within time limit prescribed by decree — Court’s discretion to extend time or rescind — Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution does not result in merger of trial court decree — Permitting deposit of balance amount does not extinguish judgment-debtor’s right to seek rescission — Court can consider extending time to balance equities and compensate judgment-debtor for delay, but not automatically — Judgment-debtor’s conduct showing willful negligence is a factor for rescission.

May 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 463 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLA Vs. JAGAT DHARI ( Before : Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 7355 of 2026…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 89 — Compromise Decree — Interpretation of — Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) forming basis of decree — Clause (xiii) specifying conditional obligations for exchange of immovable properties or payment of guideline value upon failure to transfer — Held, obligation to pay monetary compensation triggered by failure to transfer agreed ‘B Schedule’ land, not discretionary option.

May 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 434 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. B. GURAPPA NAIDU AND OTHERS ( Before : Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria,…

C P C Rent

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of pleadings — Permissibility while considering grant of leave to amend a plaint — Court can examine the merits/demerits of the case — Landlord filed suit for eviction based on bonafide need and other grounds — During appeal, landlord died — Legal heirs sought to amend plaint to incorporate their bonafide need, including that of appellant’s wife and son — Trial Court dismissed the suit — Appellate Bench allowed amendment, directing issue of bonafide requirement to be sent back to Trial Court for evidence — High Court, in writ petition, set aside amendment allowing fresh suit — Supreme Court held that High Court erred in interfering with the discretion of Appellate Bench under Article 227, as amendment was permissible.

Apr 27, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 416 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINAY RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH Vs. NATWARLAL SHAMJI GADA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

You missed

Service

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.

Jun 18, 2026 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw