Supreme Court of India Judgements

47270 Judgements hosted as on 05/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: C P C

C P C Uncategorized

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a complete code for resolving all disputes, including against strangers to the decree. – The Executing Court could not have dismissed the execution petition by treating the decree to be inexecutable merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession to a third party/encroacher.

Aug 27, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER — Respondent (…

C P C

A plea of non est factum can be taken by an executor or signatory of the deed to plead that the said document is invalid as its executor/signatory was mistaken about its character at the time of executing/signing it. It is a latin maxim which literally means “it is not the deed.” A plea of non est factum is a defence available in Contract Law allowing a person to escape the effect of a document which she/he may have executed/signed.

Aug 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMATHAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. K. RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 17 Rule 2 – Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed – Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court would be at liberty to proceed with the case as if such party were present

Aug 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH Y.P. LELE — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

C P C

Only determinations which are fundamental would result in the application of the doctrine of res judicata – Any determination, despite being deliberate or formal, cannot give rise to application of the doctrine of res judicata if they are not fundamental in nature – Term ‘resumption’ not be conflated with the term ‘acquisition’ as employed within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution so as to create a right to compensation.

Aug 6, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YADAIAH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.K Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C

Valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction of suit – Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction – Value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance.

Jul 31, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B.P. NAAGAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJ PAL SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw