Category: C P C

CPC- In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAHUL S SHAH — Appellant Vs. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, C.J.I., L. Nageswara Rao and S.…

Consent decree – Estoppel – It is well settled that consent decrees are intended to create estoppels by judgment against the parties, thereby putting an end to further litigation between the parties – A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPACK ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. BEANT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) SLP…

(CPC) – Section 89 – Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 69A – Refund of Court fees – Settlement of disputes outside the Court – Parties who have agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention under Section 89, CPC are even more deserving of this benefit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL — Appellant Vs. M.C. SUBRAMANIAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

(CPC) – Orders 21 Rule 92 and Orders 21 Rule 94 – Once the sale is confirmed and the sale certificate has been issued in favour of the purchaser, the same shall become final.Appeal against the decree passed with the consent of the parties shall be barred.No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH H.S. GOUTHAM — Appellant Vs. RAMA MURTHY AND ANOTHER ETC — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Suit for injunction – Trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction – – rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of Limitation applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH A. SUBRAMANIAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. R. PANNERSELVAM — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

You missed