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

Remand of Case—After allowing the application for additional evidence in appeal High Court not justified in remanding the case to trial court for recording of the evidence—It can be done by competently by first Appellate Court Additional evidence of appellate stage—Allowing of application does not mean that document are to be directly exhibited as record on file—Such documents are required to be proved as per law before being considered

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3186 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1927 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice DipakMisra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.…

C P C

Execution of decree—Objections—Revisionary Court is under legal obligation to decide the legality and correctness of the findings recorded by the executing court on its merits rather than remanding it to executing court Execution of Decree—Objections—Revision—Additional evidence by way of documents not to be placed in revision against dismissal of objections by executing court

Feb 16, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3205 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1930 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal…

C P C

Auction Sale—Deposit of Bid amount—An amount of bid in which the decree holder is a purchaser can be set off—In present case, respondent-corporation is not only auction purchaser but also decree holder, there is no question of deposit of the auction amount as there was no other prospective buyer to offence bid.      

Feb 16, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3195 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1928 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Civil Appeal No. 9651…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151–Trade Marks Act, 1999–Temporary injunction–Temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their officers, etc. from using ‘Skyline’ as a part of their trademark in relation to their activities in the field of education–No similarity in the name of two parties–Appellant using the name ‘skyline’ as a prefix with the institute of technology and engineering and the respondent using ‘skyline business school’–A student would not get any deception by both names–

Feb 11, 2019 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 285 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan…

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