Supreme Court of India Judgements

46960 Judgements hosted as on 08/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – High Court erred in not recording a finding on the question of law formulated later, to account for the Court Surveyor’s report, vis-à-vis the legal battle over the suit land. Without the decision on the relevant aspect which goes to the root of the dispute, the impugned judgment in our assessment, fails the scrutiny of law.

Sep 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MATADIN SURAJMAL RAJORIA (DECEASED) THROUGH SOLE LEGATEE LALITA SATYANARAYAN KHANDELAWAL — Appellant Vs. RAMDWAR MAHAVIR PANDE (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

C P C

C P C – Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the plaint.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN — Appellant Vs. VINAY KUMAR G.B. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C

Second Appeal – Power of High Court to determine issues of fact – If the appellants’ arguments were to prevail, the findings of fact based upon an entirely erroneous appreciation of facts and by overlooking material evidence would necessarily have to remain and bind the parties, thereby causing injustice – It is precisely for such reasons that the High Courts are empowered to exercise limited factual review under Section 103 CPC. However, that such power could be exercised cannot be doubted.

Sep 18, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.N. NAGARAJAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. H. NARASIMHA REDDY — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

C P C

IMP : Suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property – High Court was right in holding that the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title, as filed by the plaintiff, was not maintainable .

Sep 16, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY — Appellant Vs. M. MALLAPPA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C

(CPC) – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Reappreciation of evidence – Merely because the High Court refers to certain factual aspects in the case to raise and conclude on the question of law, the same does not mean that the factual aspect and evidence has been reappreciated.

Sep 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M. AROCKIASAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy,…

C P C

(CPC) – Or 41 R 4 and 27 – Suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession – One of several plaintiff or defendants may obtain reversal of whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all – Plaintiff has not made out any case for declaration of title over the disputed property in her favour – Appeal dismissed.

Sep 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. ISHWARI BAI — Appellant Vs. ANJANI BAI AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C

(CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971- High Court without taking note of these aspects of the matter has wrongly invoked the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint, when in the instant facts there is neither express nor implied bar under any law – On the other hand, the learned Munsif was justified in passing the order holding the suit to be maintainable

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATUL MAHANTA — Appellant Vs. NIRMALENDU SAHA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 4627 of…

C P C

Res judicata, rejection of plaint – “Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.”

Aug 10, 2021 sclaw

“Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw