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

Transposing of defendants as plaintiffs—Basic requirement for exercise of powers under Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC would be to examine if the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or to abandon his claim and the defendant seeking transposition is having an interest in the subject-matter of the suit and thereby, a substantial question to be adjudicated against the other defendant

May 12, 2019 sclaw

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1083 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 823 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Civil Appeal No.…

C P C

Un­ necessary Amendment—Amendment was sought belatedly when suit was fixed for final arguments—Further, suit could still be decided even without there being any necessity to seek any amendment in the plaint—Application for amendment of plaint held to be rightly dismissed by Trial Court.   

May 5, 2019 sclaw

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1027 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 838 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Civil Appeal No.…

C P C

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34-Suit for declaration-Public Temple or Private Temple-Mahant of temple/Dera–The onus of proving that the appellant-Shri Ram Mandir falls within the description of private temple is on the appellant who is asserting that the temple is a private temple and that he is the Mahant of the temple

Apr 30, 2019 sclaw

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 994 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 780 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hontile Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy Civil Appeal No.…

C P C

Injunction—Remand of Case—When the plaintiff’s injunction application stood dismissed by the Trial Court and the same was not carried in appeal at his instance, the same could not have been revived by the High Court in a writ petition filed by the plaintiff against the order of appellate court in favour of defendant

Apr 29, 2019 sclaw

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 969 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 777 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Civil Appeal No.…

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…

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