Category: Uncategorized

Amendment of Plaint – Amendment of the plaint in a suit for partition of ancestral property -The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court, holding that the amendment was not permissible as it would change the nature and character of the suit, cause prejudice to the appellant, and was barred by limitation and res judicata -The Court relied on the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 and Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the precedents of this Court (M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by legal representatives and others, (2019) 4 SCC 332 ) on the scope and limitations of amendment of pleadings and challenge to compromise decrees.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BASAVARAJ — Appellant Vs. INDIRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2886 of…

Civil Law – It is settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses, the principle arising from the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, i.e., “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has”. In the present case, the plaintiff’s vendor having been denied the right of title in the land by the Commissioner’s order, could not have conveyed the same to her vendee.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. KISHORE KUMAR — Appellant Vs. VITTAL K. PATKAR — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Acquittal in POCSO cases cannot be treated as a clean acquittal when prosecutrix and witnesses cited by the prosecution turned hostile, the trial Court passed an order, acquitting the respondent of the charges framed under Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act – Appointment to post of police constable unsuitable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHUPENDRA YADAV — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 18 – Appeal against conviction – An appeal against conviction could not have been treated as infructuous merely for the reason that the convicted appellant had served out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in any case, the appeal could not have been dismissed as infructuous – Appeal remanded

2022) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 394 : (2022) 1 CriCC 387 : (2022) 1 RCR(Criminal) 119 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURJANT SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB —…

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a complete code for resolving all disputes, including against strangers to the decree. – The Executing Court could not have dismissed the execution petition by treating the decree to be inexecutable merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession to a third party/encroacher.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER — Respondent (…

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 3 – An establishment contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood ought not to be closed down only on the ground of the technical irregularity of not obtaining prior Environmental Clearance irrespective of whether or not the unit actually causes pollution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S PAHWA PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DASTAK NGO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari,…

(CrPC) – Section 188 – Sanction – In terms of Section 188, even if an offence is committed outside India, (a) by a citizen whether on the high seas or anywhere else or (b) by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India, the Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARTAJ KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

(CPC) – Rejection of plaint – Underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

You missed