Supreme Court of India Judgements

47050 Judgements hosted as on 18/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Consent decree – Estoppel – It is well settled that consent decrees are intended to create estoppels by judgment against the parties, thereby putting an end to further litigation between the parties – A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake

Feb 24, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPACK ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. BEANT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) SLP…

C P C

(CPC) – Section 89 – Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 69A – Refund of Court fees – Settlement of disputes outside the Court – Parties who have agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention under Section 89, CPC are even more deserving of this benefit.

Feb 23, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL — Appellant Vs. M.C. SUBRAMANIAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

C P C

(CPC) – Orders 21 Rule 92 and Orders 21 Rule 94 – Once the sale is confirmed and the sale certificate has been issued in favour of the purchaser, the same shall become final.Appeal against the decree passed with the consent of the parties shall be barred.No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.

Feb 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH H.S. GOUTHAM — Appellant Vs. RAMA MURTHY AND ANOTHER ETC — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

C P C

Suit for injunction – Trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction – – rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of Limitation applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.

Feb 9, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH A. SUBRAMANIAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. R. PANNERSELVAM — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

You missed

Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw