Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on12/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Second Appeals – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – The case revolves around the scope of Section 100 of the CPC and Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, specifically regarding the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in second appeals – The petitioner argues that the High Court’s judgment was within its powers under Section 41 of the Punjab Act, and the Will in question was invalid due to suspicious circumstances – The respondent argues that the First Appellate Court’s findings were correct, the Will was genuine, and the High Court erred in its interference – The Supreme Court reviewed its previous judgment, acknowledging an error based on the legal position in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors, (2016) 6 SCC 157, and decided to hear the Civil Appeal afresh on merits – The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled its previous judgment, and decided the Civil Appeal on its merits, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court’s judgment.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 429 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…

C P C I B C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rule 3(6)(b) — Suit for Recovery — Impact of Moratorium under IBC — The appellants argued that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) should halt the proceedings — However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the moratorium only applies to cases where the company is undergoing insolvency proceedings — In this case, the suit was not against a company undergoing insolvency, and therefore, the moratorium did not apply.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER — Appellant Vs. HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant…

C P C

Pre-emption Suit – The case revolves around a dispute over land in Haryana, where a pre-emption suit was filed and decreed, requiring a deposit of Rs. 9,214 minus 1/5th already deposited. The appellants deposited Rs. 7,600 instead of Rs. 7,614 due to a calculation error. The main issue was whether the appellants should suffer for a minor deficit due to a bona fide error and if the court can extend the time for deposit in such cases. The appellants argued that the error was not intentional and even the court ordered the deposit of 7,600. The respondents argued that the appellants failed to comply with the decree’s terms and did not provide sufficient reason for the delay in depositing the correct amount. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellants to deposit the deficit of 14 and directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondents for prolonged litigation. The court concluded that parties should not suffer due to errors in judicial proceedings and granted relief to the appellants.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 374 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. SUKHI RAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and…

C P C

“Illegal Construction on Disputed Land: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order Permitting Compound Wall, Demands Impleading Affected Parties:” Land Dispute – The case involves a dispute over land ownership and the construction of a compound wall, which was permitted by the High Court under police protection without considering the rights of affected third parties – The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the construction of the compound wall under police protection, and whether necessary parties were impleaded – The petitioners argued that the High Court’s order was illegal due to non-joinder of necessary parties and that the principles of natural justice were not followed – The respondents claimed that no one was prejudiced by the construction of the compound wall and that the rights of adjacent landowners were not adversely affected – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the writ petition, and directed the High Court to decide the case afresh after impleading all necessary parties – The Court found that the High Court ignored the affidavits of government officers indicating that third parties would be affected by the wall’s construction – The Court emphasized that orders based on “Minutes of Order” are not consent orders and must be lawful, considering the rights of all affected parties – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was illegal and remanded the case for a fresh decision, with the possibility of demolishing the compound wall if found illegal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 353 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MEHER K. PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

C P C

“Supreme Court Remands Title Suit Substitution Dispute: Procedural Errors Found in High Court’s Order on Legal Representative” Title Suit – The case involves a title suit regarding property in Bihar, with ‘S1’ as one of the defendants – After his death, two claimants sought substitution in the Second Appeal pending before the Patna High Court – The main issue was determining the legal representative (LR) for substitution in the Second Appeal after Swami ‘S1’s death – The appellant, argued for substitution in place of ‘S2’, whose claim was previously dismissed by the High Court – The respondent, was upheld as the LR by the High Court based on the Trial Court’s report – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on substitution, emphasizing the correct procedure for determining LRs – The Supreme Court found procedural errors in the High Court’s decision-making process regarding the substitution of LRs – The Court referenced Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, which outlines the procedure for determining LRs and the appellate court’s role in considering the subordinate court’s report and objections – The Supreme Court directed the High Court to make a fresh decision on substitution, without commenting on the merits of the claimants’ rights – Appeal was disposed of, and Sadhavi Sarojanand now seeks substitution as the appellant in the pending Second Appeal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 352 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SWAMI VEDVYASANAND JI MAHARAJ (D) THR LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHYAM LAL CHAUHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 – Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree –Property Dispute – Suit for specific performance – A compromise was reached in 1978, and a decree was passed in 1979 – The main issue is the executability of the 1979 decree, challenged by the respondents claiming it to be a nullity and questioning the jurisdiction – The petitioner, as the decree holder, argues that the decree is executable and that the objections under Section 47 CPC by the respondents are not maintainable – The respondents contend that the decree is without jurisdiction and a nullity, and that the property was jointly owned, thus the compromise with only one defendant is invalid – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the Executing Court’s order, rejecting the objections under Section 47 CPC – The Court found that the property was solely owned by Defendant No. 1, and the compromise was valid – The procedural requirements were met, and the objections by the respondents were an abuse of the legal process – The Court reasoned that the compromise was properly recorded and verified, fulfilling the requirements of Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the CPC, and the execution of the decree was contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions by Defendant No. 1. – The Supreme Court concluded that the Executing Court was correct in rejecting the objections and that the decree dated 09.05.1979 was based on a valid compromise – The opinion by Justice Vikram Nath emphasized the validity of the compromise and the decree, and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process by the respondents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 329 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REHAN AHMED (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. AKHTAR UN NISA (D) THR. LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Appeal from original decree -The core issue revolves around the validity of the agreement and the Arbitrator’s award, given that the original ex-parte decree in favor of the plaintiff was set aside and the suit was to proceed from the stage of the State filing its written statement – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit on merits based on evidence – The Court reasoned that the agreement dated 30.07.1991 lost its credibility as the basis of the agreement, the ex-parte decree, was set aside, and the suit was to be continued from a specific stage.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 315 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. SATISH JAIN (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…

C P C

Easements Act, 1882 – Sections 4, 13 and 15 – Easements of necessity and quasi-easements – The court reasons that the Appellant ‘s failed to prove uninterrupted use of the road for over 20 years and that there is an alternative way to access their land – The court examines the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and relevant case law to determine the absence of easementary rights by prescription, necessity, or agreement – The court concludes that the Appellant ‘s have not acquired any easementary rights over the disputed road and upholds the decisions of the appellate courts and the High Court.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra,…

You missed

SARFAESI

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Auction Sale — Compliance with Rule 9 — Mandatory Nature — Payment of Balance 75% Beyond 15-Day Period — No Written Agreement for Extension — Sale Set Aside — Article 142 — Redemption Opportunity Granted to Legal Heirs of Deceased Guarantor.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Third Judge under S. 392 CrPC cannot disturb unanimous Division Bench findings; reference confined to disagreed accused only.–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 392 — Third Judge — Power to give independent opinion — Options available — When an appeal is heard by a Division Bench and the Judges are divided in opinion, the appeal is laid before a third Judge under S. 392 — The third Judge is not confined to choosing between the two views expressed by the Division Bench Judges — The third Judge may: (i) agree with either of the two opinions expressed; (ii) form an independent view at divergence with both opinions; or (iii) where warranted, receive additional evidence under S. 391 before forming an opinion — The opinion of the third Judge governs and the judgment follows therefrom.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226(1) — Territorial jurisdiction — Writ petition by CAPF personnel — Delhi High Court — Jurisdiction based on situs of respondent’s office —The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition preferred by any enrolled member of the Border Security Force or any Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) who is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, by reason of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General of the concerned CAPF in New Delhi — and this jurisdictional competence subsists notwithstanding that the impugned order of termination was issued from a place outside the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court and that no part of the cause of action arose within such limits — The Union of India and the Director General, BSF are necessary parties to such a writ petition by virtue of Ss. 4 and 5 of the BSF Act and the requirement under R. 22(4) of the BSF Rules that every order of dismissal/removal be reported to the Director General; there is, moreover, a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Compensation — Death of homemaker — New head of ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — Basis and quantum — The conventional method of computing compensation upon the death of a homemaker suffers from an inherent disadvantage — Notional income, as assigned by earlier decisions, fails to capture the economic, emotional and managerial contributions that a homemaker makes to the household and to nation-building at large — In recognition of the multifarious yet unquantified roles of a homemaker — (i) contribution towards smooth functioning of the household; (ii) loss of maternal support to children; and (iii) loss of spousal/parental support — a composite sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month shall be added under the head ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — This sum shall serve as the stand-in monthly income where the homemaker has no conventional monetary income — It shall be revised cumulatively by 10% every three years — Where the homemaker is part of the paid workforce, this head shall be in addition to the proved monthly income.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw