Category: C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 10 and 25 – Succession Act, 1925 – Section 270 – Suit for partition – Transfer of – A petition u/s 25 of the Code, however, is not decided on consideration on the “First past the post” . Bombay High Court, which is hearing the Testamentary petition (Probate), will decide the partition suit as well.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH SHAMITA SINGHA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RASHMI AHLUWALIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose, J. ) Transfer Petition (Civil)…

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 23 Rule 3A – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Bar to suit – Compromise decree – Merely because the appellant was not party to the compromise decree in the facts of the present case, will be of no avail to the appellant, much less give him a cause of action to question the validity of the compromise decree passed by the High Court by way of a substantive suit before the civil Court to declare it as fraudulent, illegal and not binding on him

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TRILOKI NATH SINGH — Appellant Vs. ANIRUDH SINGH(D) THR. LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC HELD Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC HELD Rule 3A of Order 23 CPC put a specific bar that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. D/ MAY 06, 2020

Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 6 May 2020 5:54 PM The Supreme Court…

Chit Funds Act, 1982 – Section 64 (1)(A) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 89 and Section 151 – Auction – Merely a guarantor and not a borrower and that the entire due amount was deposited by respondent No. 1 with the respondent No. 2 – Chits Company, HELD since the Revision had been filed within less than a week of the auction and entire dues had been settled, the confirmation of the auction was not justified. – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAUL — Appellant Vs. T. MOHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

The instant suit by the legal heirs of “G” was filed more than 30 years later on 11.11.1987 after his death – Plaintiffs failed to established or lead any evidence with regard to availability of funds with “G” so as to make an endeavour to purchase his own property in the auction sale through Govindan. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 66(1) – Auction sale

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALANIAMMAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMALAKANNAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed