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

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. )…

C P C

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

May 6, 2020 sclaw

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…

C P C

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.

Apr 26, 2020 sclaw

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

C P C

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

Mar 20, 2020 sclaw

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

C P C

Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 5 and 14 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 90 – Auction sale – Setting aside of – Extension of time – Section 5 of the Act which deals with extension of time or condonation of delay is not applicable to proceedings under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC

Mar 20, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AARIFABEN YUNUSBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MUKUL THAKOREBHAI AMIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 92 and 92(1) – Public Charities – Public charity is perpetual and the Court is the guardian of a charity HELD If in respect of a trust which had set up a hospital, a request was made for framing of a proper scope of administration by appointing trustee from medical profession and from public for proper and effective administration of the Trust, the matter would definitely fall within the scope of Section 92 of the Code

Mar 3, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. SITALAXMI SAHUWALA MEDICAL TRUST AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and…

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