Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

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)…

C P C

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

May 8, 2020 sclaw

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. )…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw