C P C Archives - Page 53 of 54 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

March 2, 2026 9:25 pm

Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 17 and 23 – Fraudulent terms – Avoidance of creditor – Rules of Voluntary Provident Fund Trust providing that in case of insolvency of subscriber, the property standing to his credit will vest in the Trust and not the Official Receiver – Such clause if allowed would be fraud perpetrated on insolvency law and therefore is not valid or binding.

Apr 9, 2017 sclaw

AIR 1956 SC 336 : (1956) 2 LLJ 215 : (1956) 1 SCR 100 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MUKTI LAL AGARWALA — Appellant Vs. TRUSTEES OF THE PROVIDENT FUND…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21, Rule 52 – Non-compliance – Effect of – Attachment without notice to the court or public officer in whose custody the property was entrusted – Sale without such notice is not void ab initio.

Apr 9, 2017 sclaw

AIR 1958 SC 725 : (1959) 1 SCR 333 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA KANHAIYALAL — Appellant Vs. D.R. BANAJI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Syed Jaffer Imam, J;…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39, Rule 2(3) – Disobedience of order – Ambiguous order – Susceptibility of order to two possible meanings – A party bona fide acting on his own interpretation cannot be held to have willfully disobeyed the order.

Apr 9, 2017 sclaw

AIR 1961 SC 221 : (1961) 1 SCR 728 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE STATE OF BIHAR — Appellant Vs. RANI SONABATI KUMARI — Respondent ( Before : S.…

C P C

Revisional Jurisdiction—Finding of fact not to be interfered by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 920 of…

C P C

Exparte Decree–Setting aside of–Merely because the learned counsel appearing for the defendants did not take proper care and caution that cannot be a ground to loose sight of the prejudice caused to the plaintiff/respondent.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 922 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari Civil Appeal No. 876 of…

C P C

Auction sale of immovable property–Confirmation of–Only because the sale was confirmed within a period of 30 days from the date of acceptance of bid, the same by itself, was not decisive to set aside the sale after 8 years. Auction sale–Deposit of amount–Term ‘immediately’– Required to be construed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 631 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 6129 of 2000…

C P C

Partition–Appellants purchased property from other co-sharer; entitled to be impleaded as necessary party. Decree–Partition–Preliminary decree passed in the absence of necessary party cannot stand.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 617 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Civil Appeal No. 262 of…

C P C

Second Appeal–Substantial question of law–Second appeal–It is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of the first appellate Court without doing so.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 577 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Civil Appeal No. 301 of…

C P C

Leave to defend–Refusal of–Where leave to defend the leave refused in a summary suit, the consequences of passing a decree cannot be avoided. Leave to defend–Refusal of–Where an appeal lies under Section 96 of the Code, ordinarily an application under Article 227 of the Constitution would not be maintainable.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 476 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2007…

C P C

Mortgage Sale—Mortgaged property could not be sold in execution without an attachment. Mortgage Sale—It is not possible to come to the conclusion that the suit to enforce the equitable mortgage is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code in view of the earlier suit for recovery of the mid term loan, especially in the context of Order 34 Rule 14 of the Code.

Apr 6, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 353 IN THE Supreme Court of India Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramaniyan Appeal (civil) 175 of 2007 (Arising…

You missed

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deduction of amounts received under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Supreme Court clarifies that only benefits directly replacing lost income are deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. Other benefits, such as pensions or life insurance, remain unaffected.

Feb 28, 2026 sclaw

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Adjudicating authority must satisfy itself that a financial debt exists and there is a default — Pre-existing dispute is not a bar to admitting an application by a financial creditor under Section 7, unlike in the case of an operational creditor under Section 9.

Feb 28, 2026 sclaw

I B C

Companies Act, 1956 — Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 238 (IBC) — Overriding effect of IBC — Scheme of arrangement (SOA) under Companies Act vs. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under IBC — Delay and non-compliance with statutory timelines in the SOA process renders it defunct — IBC provisions prevail over inconsistent provisions in other laws — Adjudicating Authority under IBC can initiate CIRP even if SOA proceedings are pending, especially if SOA is defunct.

Feb 28, 2026 sclaw

I B C

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Jurisdiction — Orders passed under Benami Act cannot be questioned before authorities under IBC — NCLT lacks jurisdiction to entertain challenges to provisional attachment orders under Benami Act — Remedy lies exclusively before competent forum under Benami Act — IBC cannot be converted into a parallel appellate forum to review validity of attachment orders under specialised enactment — Doing so would render appellate machinery of Benami Act otiose.

Feb 28, 2026 sclaw

Category: C P C

You missed