Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

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…

C P C Uncategorized

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a complete code for resolving all disputes, including against strangers to the decree. – The Executing Court could not have dismissed the execution petition by treating the decree to be inexecutable merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession to a third party/encroacher.

Aug 27, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER — Respondent (…

C P C

A plea of non est factum can be taken by an executor or signatory of the deed to plead that the said document is invalid as its executor/signatory was mistaken about its character at the time of executing/signing it. It is a latin maxim which literally means “it is not the deed.” A plea of non est factum is a defence available in Contract Law allowing a person to escape the effect of a document which she/he may have executed/signed.

Aug 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMATHAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. K. RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 17 Rule 2 – Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed – Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court would be at liberty to proceed with the case as if such party were present

Aug 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH Y.P. LELE — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

You missed

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw