Supreme Court of India Judgements

47050 Judgements hosted as on 20/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Agreement to Sell—Increase in Price—Mere escalation of price is no ground for interference with concurrent findings of court below granting the decree. Abatement of Appeal—Omission to implead legal representatives of a deceased defendant, would not lead to abatement of appeal as a whole by itself.

Jan 13, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3095 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1860 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.66–Auction Sale—Setting aside of- -Inadequate Publicity—Authorities committed error in not giving adequate publicity in leading newspaper keeping in view, the value and the potentiality of the land—Directions issued to re-auction the land in question by giving wide publicity in various leading national newspapers having circulation all over India

Jan 6, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3338 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1939 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39 R.I & R.2 and O.41 R.23–Injunction- Temporary Injunction—Rejection of stay application—Remand of Case- Held; No adequate reason is given in the impugned order for not granting stay; and secondly, the reason given does not in itself justify the rejection having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition-­ Case remanded to be decided afresh.       

Dec 30, 2018 sclaw

           2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3298 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1792 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Civil…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41 R.23—Remand of Case—Suit was based on legality of compromise entered between the parties—Matter was remanded back to be decided afresh on merits-Held; This implied that the question of consideration of compromise petition was required to be decided first- -It is for the simple reason that if the compromise was held to be legal and proper, there was no need to decide the second appeal on merits—In other words, the need to decide the second appeal on merits would have arisen only if the compromise would have been held illegal and not binding on the parties concerned—Matter remanded again to be decided afresh accordingly.      

Dec 30, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3269 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1788 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Civil Appeal…

C P C

Amendment of decree–Court may not have suo moto power to award a decree but same would not mean that court cannot rectify a mistake–If a property was subject matter of pleadings and court did not frame an issue which it ought to have done, it can, at later stage when pointed out may amend the decree — Decree–When the parties have brought on records by way of pleadings and/or other material that apart from property mentioned by plaintiff in his plaint, there are other properties which could be a subject matter of partition, the court would be entitled to pass a decree even in relation thereto.

Dec 26, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 14 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7008 of 2008…

You missed

Service

Government Service — Recruitment — Challenge to Selection Process — A candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot challenge the rules or method of selection after being declared unsuccessful.

Jan 20, 2026 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw