Supreme Court Condones Delay Due to Illness in Family Dispute Appeal: Ummer vs. Pottengal Subida (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay in filing an appeal can be condoned due to the appellant’s illness. CASE TYPE: Family Law Case Name: Ummer vs. Pottengal Subida & Ors. [Judgment Date]: March 08, 2018 Date of the Judgment: March […]
Supreme Court Upholds Res Judicata in Land Dispute: Andanur Kalamma vs. Gangamma (2018) Date of the Judgment: March 6, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 174 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Can a land dispute be re-litigated after multiple rounds of litigation in revenue and writ jurisdiction? The Supreme Court addressed
Supreme Court directs expeditious disposal of appeal in trust property dispute: B. Muthukrishnan vs. S.T. Reddiar Educational & Charitable Trust (2018) Date of the Judgment: February 23, 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: R. K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can interim orders of a High Court be challenged in the Supreme Court? The
Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order for Not Providing Opportunity to Rebut Additional Evidence in Partition Suit: Akhilesh Singh vs. Lal Babu Singh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appellate court must provide an opportunity to the contesting party to rebut or explain additional evidence admitted under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of
Supreme Court Remands Second Appeal Due to Procedural Errors: Surat Singh vs. Siri Bhagwan (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Procedural compliance in second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Surat Singh (Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. Judgment Date: 19 February 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment:
Supreme Court Orders Rehearing in Compensation Case Due to Lack of Opportunity to be Heard: Mohd. Anwar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can set aside an order of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner without providing the affected party an opportunity to be heard. CASE TYPE: Employees’ Compensation Law Case
Supreme Court Remands Specific Performance Case Due to Unreasoned High Court Order: G. Saraswathi vs. Rathinammal (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court’s dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal without providing reasons is legally sound. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal regarding Specific Performance of an Agreement. Case Name: G. Saraswathi & Anr. vs. Rathinammal & Ors.
Supreme Court Clarifies Execution of Arbitration Awards Across India: Sundaram Finance vs. Abdul Samad (2018) Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 124 Judges: J. Chelameswar, Sanjay Kishan Kaul Can an arbitral award be executed directly in a court where the assets are located, or does it need to be first filed
Supreme Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Due to Defective Summons: Auto Cars vs. Trimurti Cargo Movers (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an ex-parte decree can be set aside if the summons issued for substituted service does not specify the exact date and time for the defendant’s appearance. CASE TYPE: Civil Procedure Case Name: Auto Cars vs.
Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Determining Legal Representatives in Pending Appeals Date of the Judgment: 8 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 89 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Can a High Court allow multiple claimants to represent a deceased party in an appeal without first determining who the actual legal representative is? The
Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Substituted Service in Specific Performance Suit: Neerja Realtors vs. Janglu (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the procedure for substituted service of summons was correctly followed in a suit for specific performance. CASE TYPE: Civil (Specific Performance) Case Name: M/S Neerja Realtors Pvt Ltd vs. Janglu (Dead) Thr. Lr. [Judgment
Supreme Court Orders Fresh Trial Due to Procedural Errors in Specific Performance Suit Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 73 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can a court set aside an ex-parte decree against all defendants when only some of them applied for it? The Supreme Court of
