Civil Procedure Code

Supreme Court restores conjugal rights, overturns divorce decree based on unsubstantiated cruelty allegations: Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Section 100, Cruelty, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act with Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act with Section 9, Judges, R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Restores Conjugal Rights, Overturns Divorce in Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree of divorce can be granted based on unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty and a subsequent criminal complaint of dowry harassment that ended in acquittal. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute Case Name: Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj [Judgment Date]: March 3, 2020 […]

Supreme Court restores conjugal rights, overturns divorce decree based on unsubstantiated cruelty allegations: Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Remand in Property Dispute: Jose vs. Johnson (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order 41 Rule 23A, Civil Procedure Code with Order 43 Rule 1(w), Civil Procedure Code with Section 96, Indira Banerjee, Judges

Supreme Court Restores Remand in Property Dispute: Jose vs. Johnson (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for a bare injunction requires the court to only consider possession or also the title of the property when the right to the property is challenged. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Jose vs. Johnson Judgment Date: 02 March 2020

Supreme Court Restores Remand in Property Dispute: Jose vs. Johnson (2020) Read Post »

Property Rights and Second Appeals: Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration in Gajaraba Bhikhubha Vadher Case (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order 20 Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code with Section 100, Civil Procedure Code with Section 96, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 52

Supreme Court Remands Property Dispute Case: Gajaraba Bhikhubha Vadher & Ors. vs. Sumara Umar Amad (D) Thru Legal Heirs & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court appropriately addressed substantial questions of law in a second appeal concerning a property dispute. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Gajaraba Bhikhubha Vadher & Ors. vs.

Property Rights and Second Appeals: Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration in Gajaraba Bhikhubha Vadher Case (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Claims for Interest on Delayed Payments: Shanti Conductors vs. Assam State Electricity Board (2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order VII Rule 6, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 19, Navin Sinha, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Claims for Interest on Delayed Payments: Shanti Conductors vs. Assam State Electricity Board (2019) Date of the Judgment: December 18, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1234 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can a suit for interest on delayed payments be sustained if filed beyond the

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Claims for Interest on Delayed Payments: Shanti Conductors vs. Assam State Electricity Board (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “commercial dispute” under Commercial Courts Act: Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order VII Rule 10, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 2(1)(c)(vii), Commercial Dispute, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies “commercial dispute” under Commercial Courts Act: Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “commercial dispute” concerning immovable property under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. CASE TYPE: Civil, Commercial Dispute Case Name: Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 4 October 2019

Supreme Court clarifies “commercial dispute” under Commercial Courts Act: Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 33, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10A, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when re-presenting a petition in the

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies private temple ownership: Ramesh Das vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Section 100, Judges, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 with Section 115, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies private temple ownership: Ramesh Das vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of ownership of a temple and its associated land. CASE TYPE: Civil Law Case Name: Ramesh Das (Dead) Thr.Lrs. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Judgment Date: July 22, 2019 Date of the Judgment: July 22, 2019

Supreme Court clarifies private temple ownership: Ramesh Das vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies inheritance rights of adopted children in Christian families: Pharez John Abraham vs. Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam (2019)

/ Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Section 96, Indian Succession Act, Intestate Succession, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court clarifies inheritance rights of adopted children in Christian families: Pharez John Abraham vs. Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether adopted children in a Christian family have inheritance rights similar to biological children. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Partition Case Name: Pharez John Abraham (Dead) By Lrs. vs Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam K.

Supreme Court clarifies inheritance rights of adopted children in Christian families: Pharez John Abraham vs. Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Judgment on Admissions in Property Dispute: Hari Steel vs. Daljit Singh (2019)

/ Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order XII Rule 6, Judges, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 16

Supreme Court Rejects Judgment on Admissions in Property Dispute: Hari Steel vs. Daljit Singh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a judgment on admissions can be granted based on disputed facts and allegations of forgery in a specific performance suit. CASE TYPE: Civil – Specific Performance of Contract Case Name: Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. &

Supreme Court Rejects Judgment on Admissions in Property Dispute: Hari Steel vs. Daljit Singh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Belated Amendment to Plaint in Property Partition Suit: Vijay Hathising Shah vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi (2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Amendment of Pleadings, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order VI, Rule 17, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Partition Suits, Property Law

Supreme Court Rejects Belated Amendment to Plaint in Property Partition Suit: Vijay Hathising Shah vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court is justified in rejecting a belated application for amendment of a plaint when the trial is nearing completion. CASE TYPE: Civil (Property Partition) Case Name: Vijay Hathising Shah & Anr.

Supreme Court Rejects Belated Amendment to Plaint in Property Partition Suit: Vijay Hathising Shah vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Kalua @ Koshal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (2019)

/ Appeals, Concurrent Findings, Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Kalua @ Koshal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified based on the evidence presented. CASE TYPE: Criminal

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Kalua @ Koshal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for compromise decrees in second appeals: Muni Reddy vs. C. Nagaraju (20 September 2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order XXIII, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for compromise decrees in second appeals: Muni Reddy vs. C. Nagaraju (2018) Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Can a High Court, after setting aside a compromise decree in a second appeal, proceed to decide the case

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for compromise decrees in second appeals: Muni Reddy vs. C. Nagaraju (20 September 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top