Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: C P C

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 115 and Order 22 Rule 5 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15 – Will – Legal representatives – Appellant is the sole claimant to the estate of the deceased on the basis of Will – Executing Court has found that the appellant is the legal representative of the deceased competent to execute the decree – Appellant as the legal representative is entitled to execute the decree and to take it to its logical end HELD The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. No rs judicata

Jan 22, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VARADARAJAN — Appellant Vs. KANAKAVALLI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 5673…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 1 – Decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell – Right to file written statement – within the shorter timeline of 90 days HELD – taking a lenient view given the unique circumstances of the case, and without laying down the discretion being exercised hereinafter, as a precedent, This Court direct that the written statement filed by the appellant on 02.11.2017 (as claimed), be taken on record – Cost Rs 25000

Jan 20, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DESH RAJ — Appellant Vs. BALKISHAN (D) THROUGH PROPOSED LR MS. ROHINI — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 96 and 100 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Right to property – Second Appeal – Appellants were not the parties to the suit nor in the regular appeal – High Court has held that insofar as the locus of the appellants, they being third parties had no right to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court HELDSubstantial questions raised have not been appropriately dealt with and answered the matter would require reconsideration by the High Court – Appeal disposed of.

Jan 14, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GAJARABA BHIKHUBHA VADHER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUMARA UMAR AMAD (DEAD) THRU LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi,…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39 – Temporary injunction – Jurisdiction – Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere – Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest

Jan 6, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KS INFRASPACE LLP LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ.…

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,…

You missed

Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw