Category: C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 10 – Failure to file written statement – Provision of Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC is by no means mandatory in the sense that a court has no alternative but to pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiff – Since facts are required to be pleaded in a plaint and not the evidence, which can be adduced in course of examination of witnesses, mere failure or neglect of a defendant to file a written statement controverting the pleaded facts in the plaint, in all cases, may not entitle him to a judgment in his favour unless by adducing evidence he proves his case/claim.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASMA LATEEF AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHABBIR AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…

Rejection of plaint – Suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action – There being different consideration for adjudication second suit filed by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal,…

Partition Suit – In case any property in possession of any of the co-sharers comes to his share it can very well be protected – Demolition of the already constructed buildings may not be in the interest of any of the parties as the same can be considered at the time of passing of final decree, with reference to the construction, authorised by the local authority.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S MULTICON BUILDERS — Appellant Vs. SUMANDEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.