Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Execution of Decree—Protection of Possession—Appellants, even though they are strangers to the decree, are entitled to get their claim to remain in possession of the property independent of the decree, adjudicated in course of execution proceedings and not by a separate suit Resjudicata—Failure of the parties to raise a matter, which “might and ought” to have been made in a former suit, cannot be raised in a latter suit

Apr 21, 2019 sclaw

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 884 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 726 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Civil Appeal…

C P C

Second Appeal—Scope of—While deciding the second appeal, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner Second Appeal—Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the second appeal under Section 100 CPC is confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law

Apr 21, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 835 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 720 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageshwara Rao Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah Civil Appeal No.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 11 – Res judicata contained in Section 11 of the Code, which has also application to the labour/industrial proceedings – State had no jurisdiction to make a reference(s) to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the ID Act to re-examine the question of age reduction made by the appellant(PSU). A fortiori, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference(s) to adjudicate the question(s) referred in the reference(s).

Apr 14, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRANVANCORE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY FACT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent…

C P C

Territorial .Jurisdiction—Place of Suing—Interpretation of word “portion of the property” in S.17 CPC cannot only be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being portion of one property situated in jurisdiction of two courts but would include more than one property or properties located at different locations.

Apr 8, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 804 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 714 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honlrie Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Civil Appeal No. 1052…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.144–Restitution–Restoration of Possession—There was no decree or order of the Trial court by virtue of which the appellant was given possession of the property, nor did any decree or order mandate that the respondent hand over possession to the appellants—In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 144, CPC were not attracted

Apr 8, 2019 sclaw

  2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 801 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 713 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Civil…

C P C

Adverse possession – Co‐sharer – It is a settled principle of law that the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers, it cannot be adverse to them, unless there is a denial of their right to their knowledge by the person in possession, and exclusion and ouster following thereon for the statutory period. [See Mohammad Baqar and Others vs. Naim-un-Nisa Bibi and Others, AIR 1956 SC 548]

Apr 6, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T. RAMALINGESWARA RAO (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. N. MADHAVA RAO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre…

You missed

C P C

A party should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel, and a restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC can serve as an application for condonation of delay if it explains the reasons for the delay, so that courts should focus on the merits of a case rather than being hindered by procedural technicalities A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — An application under Order 9 Rule 13 can also serve as an application for condonation of delay — The court cites Bhagmal and Ors Vs. Kunwar Lal and Others, to support its finding that where the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC is explained within the application itself, there is no need for a separate application for condonation of delay — The court emphasizes that the procedure is a handmaid of justice, and hyper-technical interpretations of rules should not stand in the way of achieving a just outcome.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail

Anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, especially in serious offenses like murder, and that courts must consider the severity of the charges, the evidence, and the materials on record, including the charge sheet Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — The Supreme Court overturned the Patna High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to respondents in a murder case — The case originated from an incident where the appellant’s nephew was allegedly set on fire by the respondents — The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted mechanically, particularly in severe offenses like murder, and the High Court had erred in not considering the gravity of the charges and the evidence, including the charge sheet which stated that the case against the accused persons was found to be true — The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender to the trial court and apply for regular bail, to be considered on its merits — The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of a thorough review of case details and allegations before granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases of serious crimes.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Regularization of services for long-term, part-time employees — The court found that the appellants’ continuous service for over a decade, performing essential duties, should not be disregarded simply because their initial appointments were labeled as part-time or contractual — The court noted the indispensable nature of their work, the lack of any performance issues, and that their duties were similar to those of regular employees — The court emphasized that the nature of their work was perennial and fundamental, requiring their classification as regular posts — The court also found that the appellants’ abrupt termination was unjustified and violated principles of natural justice, and the argument against their regularization based on educational qualifications was untenable — The court noted discriminatory practices as other employees with similar or shorter service had been regularized — The court clarified that the Uma Devi judgment was not intended to penalize employees who have served long years in essential roles and that “irregular” appointments should be considered for regularization, especially when they are not “illegal” and the employees have served continuously against sanctioned functions.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw
Child Custody Matrimonial

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw