C P C Archives - Page 12 of 51 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Jul 23, 2022 sclaw

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.…

C P C

HELD by permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment. It would also result in misjoinder of causes of action.

Jul 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ALOK KUMAR LODHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

C P C

Matter remanded back – High Court fell in error in not taking into consideration the relevant material and instead relying upon inadmissible evidence or evidence which had no bearing to the findings. Even the burden had been wrongly placed on the defendant-appellant.

Jul 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH FAROOQI BEGUM (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath,…

C P C

HELD in a suit challenging revocation of the respective licenses, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the respective mortgages / charges created on the entire premises as void ab-initio. the amendment of plaint and addition of parties by original plaintiffs disallowed.

Jul 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ALOK KUMAR LODHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

C P C

Court Fees Act, 1870 – Section 7(iv)(d) – nature of relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of the question of suit valuation -market value does attain significance just because suit relates to immoveable property.

Jul 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA — Appellant Vs. PRATAP NARAIN VERMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C

(CPC) – Section 96 – the first appellate court is required to address on all the issues and decide the appeal assigning valid reasons either in support or against by reappraisal –

Jul 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S RAMNATH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. VINITA MEHTA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. )…

C P C

High Court held that no substantial question of law arises warranting interference in the matter and dismissed the RSA being devoid of any merit. HELD Appeal dismissed

Jul 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AMAN SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UMESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

C P C

(CPC) – Section 25 – Transfer Petition – – HELD cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings before it as the plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending.

Jul 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH NEILAN INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. POWERICA LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari, J. ) Transfer Petition (Civil) No.…

C P C

(CPC) – Or 21 R 102 – Rules not applicable to transferee pendent lite – Rule 102 clarifies that Rule 98 and Rule 100 shall not apply in a case where resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property is offered by ‘transferee pendentelite’

Jul 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SRIRAM HOUSING FINANCE AND INVESTMENT INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. OMESH MISHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K.…

C P C

Court Fees Act, 1870 – Section 7(iv)(d) – Market value of the immovable property – the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed.

Jun 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA — Appellant Vs. PRATAP NARAIN VERMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

HELD by permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment. It would also result in misjoinder of causes of action.

Matter remanded back – High Court fell in error in not taking into consideration the relevant material and instead relying upon inadmissible evidence or evidence which had no bearing to the findings. Even the burden had been wrongly placed on the defendant-appellant.

HELD in a suit challenging revocation of the respective licenses, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the respective mortgages / charges created on the entire premises as void ab-initio. the amendment of plaint and addition of parties by original plaintiffs disallowed.

Court Fees Act, 1870 – Section 7(iv)(d) – nature of relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of the question of suit valuation -market value does attain significance just because suit relates to immoveable property.

(CPC) – Section 96 – the first appellate court is required to address on all the issues and decide the appeal assigning valid reasons either in support or against by reappraisal –

High Court held that no substantial question of law arises warranting interference in the matter and dismissed the RSA being devoid of any merit. HELD Appeal dismissed

(CPC) – Section 25 – Transfer Petition – – HELD cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings before it as the plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending.

(CPC) – Or 21 R 102 – Rules not applicable to transferee pendent lite – Rule 102 clarifies that Rule 98 and Rule 100 shall not apply in a case where resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property is offered by ‘transferee pendentelite’

Court Fees Act, 1870 – Section 7(iv)(d) – Market value of the immovable property – the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed.

You missed

Limitation in consumer protection cases should be interpreted holistically, considering the continuing cause of action and prioritizing substantive rights over strict procedural time bars.

A suit in representative capacity (Order 1, Rule 8 CPC) is not maintainable if lacking locus standi, and a prior decree (res judicata) bars subsequent suits on the same subject matter, notwithstanding varying reliefs.

Agreement to sell immovable property incurs stamp duty as deemed conveyance via implied/symbolic possession transfer, with duty applying to the agreement (instrument), not the sale (transaction).

Supreme Court of India Judgements

Category: C P C

You missed