[Order VIII Rule 6A CPC] Counter Claim Cannot Be Filed After Framing Of Issues: SC
[Order VIII Rule 6A CPC] Counter Claim Cannot Be Filed After Framing Of Issues: SC [Read Order] Ashok Kini 9 Feb 2020 7:22 PM The Supreme Court has reiterated that…
Section 92 CPC Procedure Not Applicable In Suit By A Trust: SC
Section 92 CPC Procedure Not Applicable In Suit By A Trust: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 31 Jan 2020 7:26 PM The Supreme Court has observed that the procedure…
Unequivocal Statements Made By Counsel Will Be Binding On Clients: SC
Unequivocal Statements Made By Counsel Will Be Binding On Clients: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 1 Feb 2020 11:45 AM The Supreme Court has observed that unequivocal statements made…
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
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…
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
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…
Can pleadings be amended after a trial has begun? HELD application to amend the pleadings in a civil suit can be allowed after the commencement of trial, only under a specific condition.
Can pleadings be amended after a trial has begun? Supreme Court answers Supreme Court delves into the question of when an amendment application can be allowed under Order VI Rule…
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.
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,…
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
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.…
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.
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…
Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 – Section 3 read with Section 4 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 6 – Claim for interest – Exemption – Proviso of Order VII Rule 6, which has been added by Act 104 of 1976, which provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any ground not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. — Appellant Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer…