C P C Archives - Page 33 of 52 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 11–Res judicata–“When the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law” it does not operate as res judicata–Res judicata will not operate as a bar for entertaining a fresh cause of action

Dec 25, 2018 sclaw

2010(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 787 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik Civil Appeal No. 3038 of 2007…

C P C

Fraudulent decree–A fraud puts an end to everything–Settled position that such decree is nothing, but a nullity.

Dec 25, 2018 sclaw

2010(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 751 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Civil Appeal No. 1881 of…

C P C

Revision—Scope of—An erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate court which has no relation to questions of jurisdiction of that court cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115 CPC.

Dec 23, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1777 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Civil Appeal No. 10853…

C P C

Cross Objection—First Appellate Court in an appeal by plaintiff cannot reverse the finding on an issue favour of plaintiff in absence of cross objection by defendant on that issue

Dec 23, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2999 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1775 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice 8. Abdul Nazeer Civil Appeal…

C P C

Pecuniary Jurisdiction—Objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be taken for the first time before the appellate court —Section 21 CPC contains a legislative policy which policy has an object and purpose—The object is also to avoid retrial of cases on merit on basis of technical objections

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2800 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1741 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Civil Appeal Nos. 9051…

C P C

Jurisdiction–Suits u/s. 92–District Courts and Sub- ordinate Courts have concurrent jurisdiction without reference to any pecuniary limits–Pecuniary limits mentioned in S. 12 of the Civil Courts Act, do not apply to suits u/s. 92 of CPC.

Nov 23, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 483 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Civil Appeal No. 852 Of 2010…

C P C

No delay was caused by petitioner in filing application for restoration–Petitioner had been diligently prosecuting the litigation since 1982–Improper to punish petitioner for non-appearance of his counsel–Orders of the High Court set aside.

Nov 21, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 392 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha Civil Appeal Nos. 7648-7649 of 2009…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 4, R. 2–Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 149–Court Fee Act, 1870, S. 4–Deficit Court fee–Plaintiff sought permission to make up deficiency–Court whether can allow the application without notice to the opposite party–Held; Yes–Court fee is a matter between State and the suitor.–Mention of a wrong provisions or non-mentioning of a provisions does not invalidate an order if the Court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction.

Nov 20, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 346 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma Civil Appeal No. 4643 of 2009…

C P C

Pleadings—A litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stands in the same case

Nov 19, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2637 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1620 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

C P C

Amendment of written statement–Petitioners were fully aware of the Will in question, but had not even mentioned the same in their written statement–Petitioners attempted to introduce a new story by way of defence in order to prolong the disposal of the appeal–Amendment of pleadings not allowed.

Nov 13, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 232 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3592…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 11–Res judicata–“When the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law” it does not operate as res judicata–Res judicata will not operate as a bar for entertaining a fresh cause of action

Fraudulent decree–A fraud puts an end to everything–Settled position that such decree is nothing, but a nullity.

Revision—Scope of—An erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate court which has no relation to questions of jurisdiction of that court cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115 CPC.

Cross Objection—First Appellate Court in an appeal by plaintiff cannot reverse the finding on an issue favour of plaintiff in absence of cross objection by defendant on that issue

Jurisdiction–Suits u/s. 92–District Courts and Sub- ordinate Courts have concurrent jurisdiction without reference to any pecuniary limits–Pecuniary limits mentioned in S. 12 of the Civil Courts Act, do not apply to suits u/s. 92 of CPC.

No delay was caused by petitioner in filing application for restoration–Petitioner had been diligently prosecuting the litigation since 1982–Improper to punish petitioner for non-appearance of his counsel–Orders of the High Court set aside.

Pleadings—A litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stands in the same case

You missed

Developer liable for refund with agreed interest for delayed possession; interest on allottee’s loan not developer’s direct liability, though loan financing can be a factor in awarding general compensation

Demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989 are valid even if raised after delivery of goods, unlike punitive charges for overloading which must be recovered before delivery.

High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC is limited to determining a prima facie case from the FIR, without appreciating defence evidence or conducting a mini-trial.

Supreme Court of India Judgements

Category: C P C

You missed