Supreme Court of India Judgements

46740 Judgements hosted as on 11/03/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

IMP : When a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed – Defendant cannot seek setting aside of an ex-parte decree – Orders passed by the High Court set aside and dismiss the application preferred by defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code – Appeal allowed. Counsel for Appearing Parties

Oct 3, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VISHWABANDHU — Appellant Vs. SRI KRISHNA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

C P C

(CPC) – S 92 – A suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the suit, and persons interested would be barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue. While deciding on a scheme for administration in a representative suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC the court may, if the title is contested, have to decide if the property in respect of which the scheme for administration and management is sought belongs to the Trust.

Oct 2, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE JAMIA MASJID — Appellant Vs. SRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

C P C

(CPC) – Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Findings of fact – Second appeal – Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be – Findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence – Jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.

Sep 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

C P C

Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – High Court erred in not recording a finding on the question of law formulated later, to account for the Court Surveyor’s report, vis-à-vis the legal battle over the suit land. Without the decision on the relevant aspect which goes to the root of the dispute, the impugned judgment in our assessment, fails the scrutiny of law.

Sep 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MATADIN SURAJMAL RAJORIA (DECEASED) THROUGH SOLE LEGATEE LALITA SATYANARAYAN KHANDELAWAL — Appellant Vs. RAMDWAR MAHAVIR PANDE (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

C P C

C P C – Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the plaint.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN — Appellant Vs. VINAY KUMAR G.B. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C

Second Appeal – Power of High Court to determine issues of fact – If the appellants’ arguments were to prevail, the findings of fact based upon an entirely erroneous appreciation of facts and by overlooking material evidence would necessarily have to remain and bind the parties, thereby causing injustice – It is precisely for such reasons that the High Courts are empowered to exercise limited factual review under Section 103 CPC. However, that such power could be exercised cannot be doubted.

Sep 18, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.N. NAGARAJAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. H. NARASIMHA REDDY — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

C P C

IMP : Suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property – High Court was right in holding that the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title, as filed by the plaintiff, was not maintainable .

Sep 16, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY — Appellant Vs. M. MALLAPPA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C

(CPC) – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Reappreciation of evidence – Merely because the High Court refers to certain factual aspects in the case to raise and conclude on the question of law, the same does not mean that the factual aspect and evidence has been reappreciated.

Sep 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M. AROCKIASAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy,…

You missed

Consumer Limitation

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

Mar 3, 2025 sclaw
C P C

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.

Feb 16, 2025 sclaw
Stamp Act State Laws

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).

Feb 16, 2025 sclaw
Accident

The Supreme Court emphasized that the goal is to ensure just and fair compensation, even if it exceeds the claimed amount. It recalculated the compensation, considering the claimant’s monthly income, future prospects, 40% permanent disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment. The final compensation was determined to be Rs. 17,82,825, modifying the awards of the MACT and High Court. The Civil Appeal was allowed, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. This decision underscores the principle of providing fair compensation to accident victims based on comprehensive assessment of their losses and suffering.

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw