Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Supreme Court dismisses appeals due to intervening developments: Fidaali Moiz Mithiborwala vs. Aceros Fortune Industries (2018)

/ Civil Appeal, Civil Law, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order 41, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court dismisses appeals due to intervening developments: Fidaali Moiz Mithiborwala vs. Aceros Fortune Industries (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Effect of intervening developments on pending appeals. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal Case Name: Fidaali Moiz Mithiborwala vs. M/S Aceros Fortune Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors. Judgment Date: May 02, 2018 Date of the Judgment: May 02, 2018 […]

Supreme Court dismisses appeals due to intervening developments: Fidaali Moiz Mithiborwala vs. Aceros Fortune Industries (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of status quo orders in petroleum dealership guidelines: K.K. Gupta & Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh Petroleum Dealers Association & Anr. (2018)

/ Civil Law, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order 39, Contempt Jurisdiction, Contempt of Court, Interim Orders, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha, Scope of Contempt, Status Quo

Supreme Court Clarifies Status Quo Orders in Petroleum Dealership Guidelines: K.K. Gupta vs. Himachal Pradesh Petroleum Dealers Association (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of status quo orders in the context of policy guidelines. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal, Contempt Jurisdiction Case Name: K.K. Gupta & Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh Petroleum Dealers Association & Anr. [Judgment Date]: April

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of status quo orders in petroleum dealership guidelines: K.K. Gupta & Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh Petroleum Dealers Association & Anr. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Government’s Right to Resume Land Under Old Grant: Union of India vs. Vijay Krishna Uniyal (23 October 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Burden of Proof, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Section 100, Evidence Act, Evidence Act with Section 110, Evidence Act with Section 97, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Old Grants

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court, after upholding a lower court’s finding on land ownership, can make observations that could potentially reopen the settled issue of title. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Land Resumption Case Name: Union of India vs. Vijay Krishna Uniyal (D) through L.Rs. Judgment Date: 23 October 2017 Date of the Judgment: 23

Supreme Court Upholds Government’s Right to Resume Land Under Old Grant: Union of India vs. Vijay Krishna Uniyal (23 October 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Rights Based on Patta: Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar vs. Rameshwar Lal (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Injunction, Judges, Land Disputes, Patta, Permanent Injunction, Property Law, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person can claim permanent injunction on the basis of a Patta granted to their predecessor-in-title. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name: Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar vs. Rameshwar Lal & Anr. Judgment Date: 10 October 2017 Date of the Judgment: 10 October 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No.10833 of 2010 Judges:

Supreme Court Upholds Land Rights Based on Patta: Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar vs. Rameshwar Lal (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. vs. Atwal Rice Mills (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 35, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order 21 Rule 2, Judges, Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Enforceability of an arbitral award as a decree of a civil court. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law. Case Name: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Atwal Rice & General Mills Rep. by its Partners. [Judgment Date]: July 11, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. vs. Atwal Rice Mills (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Arbitration Appeal for Fresh Hearing: Navnirman Development Consultants vs. Divisional Commissioner (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11(6), Arbitration Law with Section 37, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order 41 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order 41 Rule 19, Judges, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing an arbitration appeal without proper consideration of facts and legal grounds. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: The Navnirman Development Consultants (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Divisional Commissioner & President District Sports Complex Executive Committee [Judgment Date]: July 05, 2017 Date of the Judgment: July 05,

Supreme Court Remands Arbitration Appeal for Fresh Hearing: Navnirman Development Consultants vs. Divisional Commissioner (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Expedited Trial in Property Dispute: Akriti Land Con Pvt. Ltd. vs. Krishna Bhargava (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order 39, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Section 151, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Temporary Injunctions

Can a court interfere with a lower court’s decision on a temporary injunction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute case. The core issue revolves around a family disagreement over inherited land and the subsequent sale of that land. This case involves a dispute between family members and a

Supreme Court Directs Expedited Trial in Property Dispute: Akriti Land Con Pvt. Ltd. vs. Krishna Bhargava (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top