Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

The expression ‘appeal’ has not been defined in the CPC. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edn.) defines an appeal as “a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher authority.” It is a judicial examination of the decision by a higher court of the decision of a subordinate court

Feb 12, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALLURU MALLAPPA(D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. KURUVATHAPPA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 115 and Order 22 Rule 5 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15 – Will – Legal representatives – Appellant is the sole claimant to the estate of the deceased on the basis of Will – Executing Court has found that the appellant is the legal representative of the deceased competent to execute the decree – Appellant as the legal representative is entitled to execute the decree and to take it to its logical end HELD The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. No rs judicata

Jan 22, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VARADARAJAN — Appellant Vs. KANAKAVALLI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 5673…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 1 – Decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell – Right to file written statement – within the shorter timeline of 90 days HELD – taking a lenient view given the unique circumstances of the case, and without laying down the discretion being exercised hereinafter, as a precedent, This Court direct that the written statement filed by the appellant on 02.11.2017 (as claimed), be taken on record – Cost Rs 25000

Jan 20, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DESH RAJ — Appellant Vs. BALKISHAN (D) THROUGH PROPOSED LR MS. ROHINI — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 96 and 100 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Right to property – Second Appeal – Appellants were not the parties to the suit nor in the regular appeal – High Court has held that insofar as the locus of the appellants, they being third parties had no right to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court HELDSubstantial questions raised have not been appropriately dealt with and answered the matter would require reconsideration by the High Court – Appeal disposed of.

Jan 14, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GAJARABA BHIKHUBHA VADHER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUMARA UMAR AMAD (DEAD) THRU LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi,…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39 – Temporary injunction – Jurisdiction – Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere – Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest

Jan 6, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KS INFRASPACE LLP LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ.…

C P C

INJUNCTION – The division bench held that there is no documentary evidence to prima facie show that the Appellant – Developer is in physical possession of the suit property. Furthermore, the issue whether the Appellant – Developer has paid part consideration for the entire suit property was required to be determined in the trial. The division bench took the view that the Appellant – Developer had not made out a prima facie case for grant of Temporary Injunction. The Respondents being the lawful owners of the suit property, granting such an injunction would cause irreparable loss and hardship to them.

Dec 25, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAKETA VAKSANA LLP AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KAUKUTLA SARALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna…

You missed

C P C

A party should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel, and a restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC can serve as an application for condonation of delay if it explains the reasons for the delay, so that courts should focus on the merits of a case rather than being hindered by procedural technicalities A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — An application under Order 9 Rule 13 can also serve as an application for condonation of delay — The court cites Bhagmal and Ors Vs. Kunwar Lal and Others, to support its finding that where the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC is explained within the application itself, there is no need for a separate application for condonation of delay — The court emphasizes that the procedure is a handmaid of justice, and hyper-technical interpretations of rules should not stand in the way of achieving a just outcome.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail

Anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, especially in serious offenses like murder, and that courts must consider the severity of the charges, the evidence, and the materials on record, including the charge sheet Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — The Supreme Court overturned the Patna High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to respondents in a murder case — The case originated from an incident where the appellant’s nephew was allegedly set on fire by the respondents — The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted mechanically, particularly in severe offenses like murder, and the High Court had erred in not considering the gravity of the charges and the evidence, including the charge sheet which stated that the case against the accused persons was found to be true — The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender to the trial court and apply for regular bail, to be considered on its merits — The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of a thorough review of case details and allegations before granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases of serious crimes.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Regularization of services for long-term, part-time employees — The court found that the appellants’ continuous service for over a decade, performing essential duties, should not be disregarded simply because their initial appointments were labeled as part-time or contractual — The court noted the indispensable nature of their work, the lack of any performance issues, and that their duties were similar to those of regular employees — The court emphasized that the nature of their work was perennial and fundamental, requiring their classification as regular posts — The court also found that the appellants’ abrupt termination was unjustified and violated principles of natural justice, and the argument against their regularization based on educational qualifications was untenable — The court noted discriminatory practices as other employees with similar or shorter service had been regularized — The court clarified that the Uma Devi judgment was not intended to penalize employees who have served long years in essential roles and that “irregular” appointments should be considered for regularization, especially when they are not “illegal” and the employees have served continuously against sanctioned functions.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw
Child Custody Matrimonial

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw