Category: C P C

Appeals from original decrees – A person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court – Sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MY PALACE MUTUALLY AIDED CO­OPERATIVE SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. B. MAHESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N. V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari…

(CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Rejection of Plaint – Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement – Section 12A of the Act is mandatory – Any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – This power can be exercised even suo moto by the court – Section 12A cannot be described as a mere procedural law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy,…

HELD ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the order(s) passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 2345 days in preferring the revision petition(s) challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree filed by original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is/are hereby restored

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MOHAMED ALI — Appellant Vs. V. JAYA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.