Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Supreme Court Upholds Will Despite Challenges: Thangam vs. Navamani Ammal (2024)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 5, Suspicious Circumstances, Testamentary Succession, Validity of Will

Supreme Court Upholds Will Despite Challenges: Thangam vs. Navamani Ammal (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a Will challenged on grounds of suspicious circumstances. CASE TYPE: Civil – Testamentary Succession Case Name: Thangam and Another vs. Navamani Ammal Judgment Date: March 04, 2024 Date of the Judgment: March 04, 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 164 Judges: C.T. […]

Supreme Court Upholds Will Despite Challenges: Thangam vs. Navamani Ammal (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies liability of legal heirs in development agreements: Vinayak Dube Case (2024)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 2(11), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 50, Consumer Law, Development Agreements, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 37, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 40, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 306, Liability of Legal Representatives

Supreme Court Clarifies Liability of Legal Heirs in Development Agreements: Vinayak Dube Case (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Liability of legal representatives for obligations under a development agreement. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Vinayak Purshottam Dube (Deceased) Through LRs vs. Jayashree Padamkar Bhat & Others [Judgment Date]: 01 March 2024 Date of the Judgment: 01 March

Supreme Court clarifies liability of legal heirs in development agreements: Vinayak Dube Case (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court restricts amendment of pleadings at fag end of trial: Basavaraj vs. Indira (2024) INSC 151

/ Amendment of Pleadings, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXIII Rule 3, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 59

Supreme Court on Amendment of Pleadings: Basavaraj vs. Indira (2024) INSC 151 Date of the Judgment: February 29, 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 151 Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Rajesh Bindal, J. Can a party amend their pleadings at the fag end of a trial to introduce a new claim, especially when a previous compromise decree exists?

Supreme Court restricts amendment of pleadings at fag end of trial: Basavaraj vs. Indira (2024) INSC 151 Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Maintenance for Wife: Yagwati vs. Ghanshyam (2024)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 9 Rule 13, Family Law, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 with Section 18, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 with Section 20, Maintenance

Supreme Court Enhances Maintenance for Wife: Yagwati vs. Ghanshyam (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Enhancement of maintenance awarded to a wife under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. CASE TYPE: Family Law Case Name: Yagwati @ Poonam vs. Ghanshyam [Judgment Date]: 29 January 2024 Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 76 Judges:

Supreme Court Enhances Maintenance for Wife: Yagwati vs. Ghanshyam (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies set-off rights during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: Bharti Airtel vs. Vijaykumar Iyer (2024)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 6, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 30(2)(b)(ii)

Supreme Court Clarifies Set-Off Rights in Corporate Insolvency: Bharti Airtel vs. Vijaykumar Iyer (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a creditor can claim a set-off against a corporate debtor during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). CASE TYPE: Corporate Insolvency Case Name: Bharti Airtel Limited and Another vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer and Others [Judgment Date]: January 3,

Supreme Court clarifies set-off rights during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: Bharti Airtel vs. Vijaykumar Iyer (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rules on Adverse Possession in Property Dispute: Brij Narayan Shukla vs. Sudesh Kumar (2024)

/ Adverse Possession, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 145, Limitation, Property Law

Supreme Court Rules on Adverse Possession in Property Dispute: Brij Narayan Shukla vs. Sudesh Kumar (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court on the issue of adverse possession. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Brij Narayan Shukla (D) THR. LRS. vs.

Supreme Court Rules on Adverse Possession in Property Dispute: Brij Narayan Shukla vs. Sudesh Kumar (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Discipline in Property Dispute: Mary Pushpam vs. Telvi Curusumary (2024)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 11, Doctrine of Merger, Judicial Discipline, Property Law

Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Discipline in Property Dispute: Mary Pushpam vs. Telvi Curusumary (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a lower court can interpret a High Court judgment differently in a subsequent proceeding when the High Court has already determined the scope of the property in dispute. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Mary Pushpam vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Discipline in Property Dispute: Mary Pushpam vs. Telvi Curusumary (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rules on document production during cross-examination in civil suits: Mohammed Abdul Wahid vs. Nilofer & Anr. (2023) INSC 1075 (14 December 2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VII Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 1A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XIII Rule 1, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 120, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 137, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 155

Supreme Court Clarifies Document Production During Cross-Examination in Civil Suits Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 1075 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sanjay Karol, J. Can a party to a civil suit be treated differently from a witness when it comes to producing documents during cross-examination? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court clarifies rules on document production during cross-examination in civil suits: Mohammed Abdul Wahid vs. Nilofer & Anr. (2023) INSC 1075 (14 December 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Allows Stay on Conviction in UP Gangsters Act Case: Afjal Ansari vs. State of UP (2023) INSC 1071

/ Appellate Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 389, Disqualification of Members, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 8, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 with Section 3

Supreme Court Partially Allows Stay on Conviction in UP Gangsters Act Case: Afjal Ansari vs. State of UP (2023) INSC 1071 LEGAL ISSUE: Suspension of conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, specifically related to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Case

Supreme Court Partially Allows Stay on Conviction in UP Gangsters Act Case: Afjal Ansari vs. State of UP (2023) INSC 1071 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Appeals Under Jogighopa Act: North Eastern Chemicals vs. Ashok Paper Mill (2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure with Section 2(14), Code of Civil Procedure with Section 2(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Jogighopa Act with Section 22(6), Jogighopa Act with Section 22(7), Jogighopa Act with Section 22(8), Jogighopa Act, 1990, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 116, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Appeals Under Jogighopa Act: North Eastern Chemicals vs. Ashok Paper Mill (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Jogighopa Act and the concept of “reasonable time” for appeals when no specific limitation is prescribed. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, specifically concerning statutory interpretation and limitation periods.

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Appeals Under Jogighopa Act: North Eastern Chemicals vs. Ashok Paper Mill (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintainability of Revision Petition against Order IX Rule 13 CPC: The Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society vs. Ameena Begum (2023) INSC 1065

/ Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLIII Rule 1(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 115

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintainability of Revision Petition against Order IX Rule 13 CPC: The Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society vs. Ameena Begum (2023) INSC 1065 Date of the Judgment: 01 December 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 1065 Judges: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Can a revision petition be filed before the High Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintainability of Revision Petition against Order IX Rule 13 CPC: The Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society vs. Ameena Begum (2023) INSC 1065 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Suit for Damages After Possession Decree: Bharat Petroleum vs. ATM Constructions (2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order II Rule 4, Mesne Profits, Possession of Property, Property Law

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Suit for Damages After Possession Decree: Bharat Petroleum vs. ATM Constructions (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a separate suit for damages for use and occupation of property is maintainable after a decree for possession has been obtained in an earlier suit. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Property Law Case Name: M/s Bharat Petroleum

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Suit for Damages After Possession Decree: Bharat Petroleum vs. ATM Constructions (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top