Category: C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 2(4) and 44A – Execution of foreign decree – Held the District Court or the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction is competent to exercise power for execution of decree, including money decree of the foreign Court of reciprocating jurisdiction, provided other conditions are complied with as contemplated under Section 44A of the Code.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH) — Appellant Vs. GOYAL MG GASES PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi…

High Court proceeded further with the hearing of the appeal as if the High Court was considering the appeal against the order passed on an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, whereas the appeal was against the order and decree passed by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court as barred by limitation. Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAMTAZ AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GULSUMA ALIAS KULUSUMA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 9 Rule 13 – Setting aside of exparte decree – Power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to – It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S GARMENT CRAFT — Appellant Vs. PRAKASH CHAND GOEL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

(CPC) – Section 96, Order 41 Rule 31 – Appeal from original decree – Without framing points for determination and considering both facts and law; without proper discussion and assigning the reasons – First Appellate Court cannot dispose of the first appeal under Section 96 CPC and that too without raising the points for determination as provided under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. – Impleadment of party in appeal – There cannot be an automatic allowing of the appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  IL AND FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. BHARGAVARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Suit for recovery – Impleadment of party in appeal – There cannot be an automatic allowing of the appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court without any further entering into the merits of the appeal and/or expressing anything on merits in the appeal on an impleadment of a party in an appeal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  IL AND FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. BHARGAVARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96, Order 41 Rule 31 – Appeal from original decree – Without framing points for determination and considering both facts and law; without proper discussion and assigning the reasons – First Appellate Court cannot dispose of the first appeal under Section 96 CPC and that too without raising the points for determination as provided under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IL AND FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. BHARGAVARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Application for condonation of delay, that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondents – High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously – Reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane – Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity – Delay defeats equity – Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO — Appellant Vs. REDDY SRIDEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Civil suit – Declaration of ownership – Sale deed – Registration of document is always subject to adjudication of rights of the parties by the competent civil court – HELD parties with regard to the land in question will be governed by the judgment in pending suit in O.S. No.142 of 2008 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore – Civil suit shall be decided on its own merits.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMUDHAVALI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. P. RUKUMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

Impleadment in execution proceedings – Order XXI Rule 97 is with respect to resistance/obstruction to possession of immovable property – Order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the applications filed by the BDA for impleadment in the execution proceedings and/or dismissing the obstruction application, and the impugned order passed by the High Court, are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. N. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

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.