Supreme Court of India Judgements

47270 Judgements hosted as on 05/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: C P C

C P C

INJUNCTION – The division bench held that there is no documentary evidence to prima facie show that the Appellant – Developer is in physical possession of the suit property. Furthermore, the issue whether the Appellant – Developer has paid part consideration for the entire suit property was required to be determined in the trial. The division bench took the view that the Appellant – Developer had not made out a prima facie case for grant of Temporary Injunction. The Respondents being the lawful owners of the suit property, granting such an injunction would cause irreparable loss and hardship to them.

Dec 25, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAKETA VAKSANA LLP AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KAUKUTLA SARALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna…

C P C

Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 – Section 3 read with Section 4 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 6 – Claim for interest – Exemption – Proviso of Order VII Rule 6, which has been added by Act 104 of 1976, which provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any ground not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint

Dec 22, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. — Appellant Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer…

C P C

Second Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed On Merits When Appellant Is Unrepresented HELD Explanation to subrule (1) of Rule 17 of Order 41 CPC The reason for introduction of such an Explanation is due to the fact that it gives an opportunity to the appellant to convince the appellate court that there was sufficient cause for nonappearance. Such an opportunity is lost, if the courts decide the appeal on merits in absence of the counsel for the appellant.

Dec 14, 2019 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI PRABODH CH. DAS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MAHAMAYA DAS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 41 Rule 5 – Section 96 and Order 41 – Determination – Recovery of loss – A chart showing the original price as against the resale price, thereby projecting the net loss suffered by the appellant, the correctness of the same cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding of the present nature arising out of a writ proceeding – The matter being contractual and also requiring factual determination

Nov 28, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ODISHA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. M/S ANUPAM TRADERS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy,…

C P C

Right To File Regular Appeal Cannot Be Curtailed Merely Because Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree Was Dismissed. heldBut where the defendant has been pursuing the remedy bona fide under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, if the court refuses to condone the delay in the time spent in pursuing the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the defendant would be deprived of the statutory right of appeal.

Nov 21, 2019 sclaw

Right To File Regular Appeal Cannot Be Curtailed Merely Because Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree Was Dismissed: SC [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI21 Nov 2019 6:07 PM But where…

C P C

Section 100 CPC – The order of the High Court interfering with concurrent findings of facts by two courts is, therefore, held to be unsustainable in exercise of the powers under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The order of the High Court is consequently set aside. The orders dated 06.03.1998 and 13.06.2002 of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are restored. The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. The present appeal is allowed.

Nov 20, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HEMANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 144 and 151 – Principle of Doctrine of Restitution – the possession was handed over to the appellant ­plaintiff pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court, pending first appeal which finally came to be dismissed, its logical consequence was to restore back the peaceful possession of the subject property to respondents-defendants. In the given circumstances, the provisions of Section 144 CPC are not attracted as there being no variation or reversal of a decree or order

Nov 5, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANSIDHAR SHARMA(SINCE DECEASED) REP BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M.…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw