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

Whether the acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition results in a concluded contract, irrespective of whether the offerer accepts the further condition proposed by the acceptor, Held, Acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition does not result in a concluded Contract.

Jan 17, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. PADIA TIMBER COMPANY(P) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST THROUGH ITS SECRETARY — Respondent ( Before :…

C P C

C P C – Or 2, R 2 – Suit to include the whole claim – Plea of Bar – The plea of bar under Or 2, R 2 is a technical plea which has to be pleaded and satisfactorily established. If the plea of bar is not taken, the Court should not suo moto decide the plea. It cannot be raised before Supreme Court if not raised in the High Court.

Sep 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B. SANTOSHAMMA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. D. SARALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Leave to appeal – It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the Judgment – Mere saying that the appellants are prejudicially affected by the decree is not sufficient – Appeal dismissed.

Aug 21, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI V.N.KRISHNA MURTHY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SRI RAVIKUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari and…

C P C

Object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) are made out. Hence suit filed after 3 years of registered deed is barred under, Art 59 Limitation Act.

Jul 9, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAHIBEN — Appellant Vs. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA)(D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Indu Malhotra,…

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.

Jun 28, 2020 sclaw

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

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