C P C Archives - Page 45 of 53 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

December 22, 2025 8:21 am

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 15, Rule 1 – Withdrawal of admission – Where the defendants have admitted that part of the property was joint family property but later on such admission sought to be withdrawn, by amendment of written statement

Jul 6, 2017 sclaw

AIR 1998 SC 618 : (1997) 9 JT 267 : (1997) 7 SCALE 196 : (1998) 1 SCC 278 : (1997) 5 SCR 277 Supp : (1998) 1 UJ…

C P C

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Declaration-Suit for a mere declaration without relief of recovery of possession is not maintainable-The plaintiff, who was not in possession, had in the suit claimed only declaratory relief along with mandatory injunction-Plaintiff being out of possession, the relief of recovery of possession was a further relief which ought to have been claimed by the plaintiff.

Jun 28, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 464 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 604 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Civil Appeal…

C P C

Suit for perpetual injunction – The appellant had filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from converting the green belt into a petrol pump to be run by the first respondent – Court are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court

Jun 26, 2017 sclaw

(1996) 4 AD 416 : (1996) 4 JT 94 : (1996) 3 SCALE 337 : (1996) 8 SCC 109 : (1996) 3 SCR 695 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WELFARE…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 1, Rule 10 – Impleading Necessary Parties – Where the question related to interest chargeable on the loan advanced by the Bank and rate of interest was being decided on the basis of circulars issued by Reserve Bank of India – In such circumstances RBI allowed to be impleaded as a party.

Jun 24, 2017 sclaw

(1998) 6 AD 371 : AIR 1998 SC 3000 : (1998) 94 CompCas 569 : (1998) 2 CTC 381 : (1998) 5 JT 655 : (1998) 4 SCALE 651…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 47, Rule 4 – Review – Limitations – High Court without considering the question whether judgment/order sought to be reviewed suffered from any error, reappreciating the evidence, not correct.

Jun 24, 2017 sclaw

(2002) ACJ 1822 : AIR 2003 SC 2095 : (2002) 1 JT 549 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RAJENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAMBHAI AND OTHERS —…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Appeal – Second appeal – Non-consideration of material evidence by First Appellate Court – Wrong assessment of facts – Second Appellate Court can decide true nature of a transaction on the basis of admitted facts – Interference in second appeal affirmed.

Jun 24, 2017 sclaw

AIR 1971 SC 1049 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RADHA NATH SEAL (DEAD) BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES — Appellant Vs. HARIPADA JANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.…

C P C

Partnership Act, 1932 – Section – 69 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 30 Rule 4 – Promissory note – The respondents filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 58,880 on the foot of a promissory note dated April 1, 1960 to recover the principal sum of Rs. 46,380 and interest which accrued thereon – The respondent- firm is a registered partnership firm and under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, the suit is maintainable

Jun 23, 2017 sclaw

(1996) 8 AD 562 : (1997) 1 BC 503 : (1996) 10 JT 38 : (1996) 8 SCALE 17 : (1996) 11 SCC 480 : (1996) 7 SCR 152…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section – 144 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article – 136 – Restitution of application – There is no question of interference under Article 136 of the Constitution in this Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court by which the trial court is directed to decide the restitution application under Section 144 C.P.C. at the earliest

Jun 22, 2017 sclaw

(1999) 10 JT 423 : (2000) 9 SCC 200 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DEV DUTTA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

C P C

Rejection of Plaint–That if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. Rejection of Plaint–While deciding the application, few lines or passage should not be read in isolation and the pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import.

Jun 21, 2017 sclaw

2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3264 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce P. Sathasivam Civil Appeal No. 4626 of…

C P C

Additional Evidence at Appellant Stage—Having impleaded the appellants as parties in the first appeal, in terms of Order 41 Rule 27, the High Court ought to have afforded an opportunity to the appellants to adduce oral and documentary evidence and make their submissions

Jun 15, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 420 : 2016 LawHerald.Qrg 2527 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr Justice R.K, Agrawal The Hon’ble Mrs, Justice R. Banumathi CM! Appeal…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

Category: C P C

You missed