Supreme Court of India Judgements

47050 Judgements hosted as on 18/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Right of defendant to prosecute the plaintiff owing to the dishonour of the cheque issued by the plaintiff cannot be frustrated by seeking a declaration that the said cheque was handed over as a security – Such a declaration cannot be ex facie granted as it would be contrary to the provisions of the N.I. Act and particularly Section 118(a) thereof – Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Apr 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED AND ANOTHER @ RESPONDENT ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

C P C

In view of the difference of opinion expressed by two separate judgments, the Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders/directions. CONTENTIONS rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d), for deciding the preliminary issue on pure question of law under Order XIV Rule 2(2) and for pronouncing a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 being absolutely different and independent of each other

Apr 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARANPAL KAUR ANAND — Appellant Vs. PRADUMAN SINGH CHANDHOK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CrPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Section 257 – the defendants cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate and to take just a contrary stand than taken before the Revenue Authority – Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rightly refused to reject the plaint –

Mar 30, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREMLATA @ SUNITA — Appellant Vs. NASEEB BEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

C P C

Infringement of trade mark and passing off – Held, Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of ad­interim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondent­plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad­interim injunction or not

Mar 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…

C P C

(CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – plaintiffs claimed the relief in the suit invoking Section 53A of the TP Act – Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation.

Mar 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI BISWANATH BANIK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SMT. SULANGA BOSE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Partition Suit – Relief in Second Appeal – Entitlement – Plaintiff not entitled to relief in the second appeal on the ground that they have not challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court before the First Appellate Court, is not sustainable

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

You missed

Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw