Category: C P C

(CPC) – Order 23 Rule 3A – Bar to suit – A party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful, i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree has been held to be not maintainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. JANAKIAMMAL AND S.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S.K. KUMARASAMY(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan…

CPC- In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAHUL S SHAH — Appellant Vs. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, C.J.I., L. Nageswara Rao and S.…

Consent decree – Estoppel – It is well settled that consent decrees are intended to create estoppels by judgment against the parties, thereby putting an end to further litigation between the parties – A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPACK ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. BEANT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) SLP…

(CPC) – Section 89 – Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 69A – Refund of Court fees – Settlement of disputes outside the Court – Parties who have agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention under Section 89, CPC are even more deserving of this benefit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL — Appellant Vs. M.C. SUBRAMANIAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

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.