Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

(CPC) – S 92 – A suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the suit, and persons interested would be barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue. While deciding on a scheme for administration in a representative suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC the court may, if the title is contested, have to decide if the property in respect of which the scheme for administration and management is sought belongs to the Trust.

Oct 2, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE JAMIA MASJID — Appellant Vs. SRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

C P C

(CPC) – Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Findings of fact – Second appeal – Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be – Findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence – Jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.

Sep 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

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…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw