Civil Procedure

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017)

/ Amendment of Plaint, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi. This was a two-judge bench. Can a High Court summarily dismiss a case without addressing the merits? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the amendment of a plaint. The core […]

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses DDA Appeals Based on Prior Judgment: Delhi Development Authority vs. J.B.M. Builder Pvt. Ltd. (2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Civil Law, Civil Procedure, Delhi Development Authority, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of prior judgment in similar cases CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. M/S. J.B.M. Builder Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 06 October 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 06 October 2017 Citation: Not Available Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J., and Amitava Roy, J. Can a

Supreme Court Dismisses DDA Appeals Based on Prior Judgment: Delhi Development Authority vs. J.B.M. Builder Pvt. Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Service Till 60 Years: Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017)

/ Appeals, Civil Procedure, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Retirement Age, Service Law

Can employees claim the right to continue in service until the age of 60? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a batch of appeals, including the case of Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. This judgment, delivered on September 14, 2017, allows the appellants’ claim for continued service up to

Supreme Court Allows Service Till 60 Years: Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Second Chance for Written Statement in Civil Suit: Siddalingayya vs. Gurulingappa (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure with Order VIII, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Written Statement

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court should allow a defendant to file a written statement after the initial time has expired. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Siddalingayya vs. Gurulingappa & Ors. Judgment Date: 05 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 05 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 772 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Supreme Court Allows Second Chance for Written Statement in Civil Suit: Siddalingayya vs. Gurulingappa (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Contractor Claims in Construction Dispute: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appeals, Breach of contract, Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Dipak Misra, Evidence, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 38, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Payment Disputes

Can a contractor claim additional payments for work when there’s a discrepancy in government-prescribed rates? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil appeal concerning a construction contract. The court upheld the High Court’s decision, which had rejected certain claims made by a contractor for extra work. This case clarifies how

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Contractor Claims in Construction Dispute: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Claims for Extra Work in Construction Contract: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (23 August 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appeals, Breach of contract, Civil Procedure, Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Dipak Misra, Evidence, Judges, Pleadings, Terms and Conditions

Can a contractor claim additional payments for work beyond the original contract? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a construction contract dispute. The court examined whether a contractor was entitled to extra payments for stone pitching and water lead, ultimately ruling against the contractor. This judgment highlights the

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Claims for Extra Work in Construction Contract: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (23 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers PIL on Building Concessions: Janhit Manch vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Appeals, Ashok Bhushan, Building Regulations, Civil Law, Civil Procedure, Development Control Regulations, Floor Space Index, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning building concessions should be transferred to the Supreme Court when related Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) are already pending. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Civil Case Name: Janhit Manch & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Judgment Date: 31 July 2017 Introduction Can a Public Interest

Supreme Court Transfers PIL on Building Concessions: Janhit Manch vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Landlord’s Bonafide Need, Limits High Court’s Revisional Power in Rent Control Cases (27 July 2017)

/ Appellate Jurisdiction, Bonafide Requirement, Civil Procedure, Eviction, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Rent Control Law, Revisional Jurisdiction, Revisional Powers

LEGAL ISSUE: The scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Rent Control Acts concerning findings of fact by lower courts. CASE TYPE: Rent Control/Eviction Case Name: Gandhe Vijay Kumar vs. Mulji @ Mulchand [Judgment Date]: 27 July 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 27 July 2017 Citation: Not Available Judges: Kurian Joseph, J.,

Supreme Court Upholds Landlord’s Bonafide Need, Limits High Court’s Revisional Power in Rent Control Cases (27 July 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the effect of non-registration of public trusts on lawsuits: Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan vs. Nand Lal & Ors. (25 July 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 with Section 29, Suits

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit filed by an unregistered public trust is maintainable under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959. CASE TYPE: Civil Law Case Name: Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan vs. Nand Lal & Ors. Judgment Date: 25 July 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2017 Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court clarifies the effect of non-registration of public trusts on lawsuits: Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan vs. Nand Lal & Ors. (25 July 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court condones delay in land acquisition appeal, enhances compensation for pomegranate and lime trees (July 19, 2017)

/ Appeals, Civil Procedure, Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. Banumathi, Sufficient Cause

Can a delay of 3671 days in filing an appeal be condoned? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a land acquisition case. The Court considered whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal due to the delay and also looked into the adequacy of compensation for fruit-bearing trees. This

Supreme Court condones delay in land acquisition appeal, enhances compensation for pomegranate and lime trees (July 19, 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court upholds eviction order despite undertaking in conducting agreement case: Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar (2017)

/ Civil Procedure, D.Y. Chandrachud, Frivolous Litigation, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges, Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 with Section 41, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Undertaking

Date of the Judgment: March 1, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 154 Judges: Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Can a party who has given an undertaking to vacate premises still challenge the eviction order? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a long-standing dispute

Supreme Court upholds eviction order despite undertaking in conducting agreement case: Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court condones delay in filing appeal: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Essar Projects Ltd. (2013)

/ Appeal under Income Tax Act, 1961, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Condonation of Delay, Delay in Filing Appeal, Dipak Misra, H.L. Dattu, Income Tax Act, 1961, Judges

Date of the Judgment: July 08, 2013 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5338 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34192 of 2012) Judges: H.L. Dattu, J., Dipak Misra, J. Can a delay in filing an appeal be excused if it was due to circumstances beyond the party’s control? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court condones delay in filing appeal: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Essar Projects Ltd. (2013) Read Post »

Scroll to Top