Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

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.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

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.…

C P C

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

Dec 6, 2023 sclaw

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,…

C P C Property Matters

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.

Nov 12, 2023 sclaw

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.…

C P C

Execution of decree – All questions between the parties can be decided by the executing court – But the important aspect to remember is that these questions are limited to the “execution of the decree” – Executing court can never go behind the decree – Under Section 47, CPC the executing court cannot examine the validity of the order of the court which had allowed the execution of the decree in 2013, unless the court’s order is itself without jurisdiction.

Nov 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP MEHRA — Appellant Vs. HARIJIVAN J. JETHWA (SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu…

C P C

In a suit filed for partition, the courts must endeavour to comprehensively adjudicate and decide the right entitlement and share of the parties in the same proceeding and must avoid multiplicity of proceedings or relegating parties to a fresh round of litigation – Partial adjudication in the circumstance of the case is erroneous and ought to have been avoided – Matter remitted to Learned Single Judge of High Court

Oct 15, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIKRANT KAPILA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PANKAJA PANDA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw