Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on16/06/2026 - 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.…

You missed

Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw