Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

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,…

C P C

(CPC) – Or 41 R 4 and 27 – Suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession – One of several plaintiff or defendants may obtain reversal of whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all – Plaintiff has not made out any case for declaration of title over the disputed property in her favour – Appeal dismissed.

Sep 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. ISHWARI BAI — Appellant Vs. ANJANI BAI AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C

(CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971- High Court without taking note of these aspects of the matter has wrongly invoked the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint, when in the instant facts there is neither express nor implied bar under any law – On the other hand, the learned Munsif was justified in passing the order holding the suit to be maintainable

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATUL MAHANTA — Appellant Vs. NIRMALENDU SAHA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 4627 of…

C P C

Res judicata, rejection of plaint – “Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.”

Aug 10, 2021 sclaw

“Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of…

C P C

Exparte decree against minor – Appointment of guardian – High Court found that the exparte decree was a nullity, as it was passed against a minor without the minor being represented by a guardian duly appointed in terms of the procedure contemplated under Order 32, Rule 3 of the Code – Therefore, the High Court, exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the exparte decree itself . ORDER UPHELD

Aug 8, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.P. NATARAJAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MUTHALAMMAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Special Leave…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

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.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw