C P C Archives - Page 5 of 49 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

May 16, 2024 1:51 am

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Plaint is ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting.

May 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMISETTY VENKATANNA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

C P C

(CPC) – Section 151 – Recall of judgment and order – When the law provides a specific remedy, it is not open to a party to take recourse to section 151 – It preserves the inherent powers of the court to do justice in a case where the party has no other remedy under the CPC.

May 4, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat…

C P C

Power of Attorney – After the death of the original plaintiff, the Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of “V” ceased to have any effect – Though another Power of Attorney was executed in favour of said “V”, it was executed only by the appellant”L” – As such, “V” had no right to file appeal on behalf of the other legal heirs

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANI — Appellant Vs. NANJIBHAI SAGRAMBHAI CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C Constitution

HELD appellants specifically sought liberty to file a case afresh if the need arose. The mere absence of the mention of such liberty in the dismissal order cannot be taken to be a refusal of such prayer by the High Court upon application of mind. There is no indication to that effect in the order itself. Set aside

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALI HUSSAIN ISHAQ ALI VOHRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay…

C P C

Execution of Compromise decree – Compromise decree could not have been executed unless the Decree Holders were to lose their right of possession, which fact was not a possibility unless such rights stood conclusively determined by the Civil Court.

Apr 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAIFUDDIN (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. KANHAIYA LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol,…

C P C

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 — Execution of decree – Limitation of 12 years – Cause of action — the limitation period would commence only with the decree becoming enforceable and thus is capable of being executed.

Apr 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Krishna Murari & Sanjay Karol, JJ. Civil Appeal No.11040 of 2013 Decided on: 17.04.2023 Shaifuddin (Dead) thr. Lrs. – Appellant Versus Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) thr.…

C P C

CPC – Order VII R 11 -Merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint. The question was whether the plaint discloses cause of action.

Apr 17, 2023 sclaw

“For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required…

C P C

Appellants have been admitted to be owner of the property being Khasra No. 4833 the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court as well as the High Court are perverse if considered in the light of two material documents which are in the form of admission of respondents themselves regarding the identity of the property in their possession High court set aside

Apr 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MURTI SHRI DURGA BHAWANI (HETUWALI) TRUST AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. DIWAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

C P C

CPC – S 11- Res Judiciata – to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit & the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality

Apr 4, 2023 sclaw

Code of Civil Procedure – Section 11 – Res judicata- An order closing the proceedings is not final decision of the suit within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 8…

C P C

(CPC) – Or 23 R 3 – Compromise of suit – must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a completed agreement between them – To constitute an adjustment, the agreement or compromise must itself be capable of being embodied in a decree.

Apr 4, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CHARULATA SAHU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Category: C P C

You missed