Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Specific Performance Denied: Supreme Court Orders Refund in Property Sale Case: Shenbagam vs. Rathinavel (20 January 2022)

/ AS Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order II Rule 2, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 16, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 20

Supreme Court Refuses Specific Performance, Orders Refund in Property Sale Dispute: Shenbagam vs. Rathinavel (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff was “ready and willing” to perform their obligations in a contract for the sale of property, a prerequisite for specific performance. CASE TYPE: Civil (Specific Performance of Contract) Case Name: Shenbagam & Ors. vs. K.K. […]

Specific Performance Denied: Supreme Court Orders Refund in Property Sale Case: Shenbagam vs. Rathinavel (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance in Property Sale Dispute: Shenbagam & Ors. vs. KK Rathinavel (20 January 2022)

/ AS Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order II Rule 2, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 16, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 20

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance in Property Sale Dispute: Shenbagam & Ors. vs. KK Rathinavel (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract demonstrated continuous “readiness and willingness” to fulfill their obligations under the contract. CASE TYPE: Civil – Specific Performance of Contract Case Name: Shenbagam & Ors.

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance in Property Sale Dispute: Shenbagam & Ors. vs. KK Rathinavel (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Leave to Defend Granted: Supreme Court overturns High Court in B.L. Kashyap vs. JMS Steels (2022)

/ Agency Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXXVII, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 2(d), Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 230, Judges, Leave to Defend, Summary Suits, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Allows Leave to Defend in Summary Suit: B.L. Kashyap vs. JMS Steels (2022) Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 41 Judges: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Can a contractor be held liable in a summary suit for payments when the purchase orders were issued on behalf of

Leave to Defend Granted: Supreme Court overturns High Court in B.L. Kashyap vs. JMS Steels (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Leave to Defend in Summary Suit: B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. vs. JMS Steels and Power Corporation (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXXVII, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 2(d), Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 230, Judges, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Allows Leave to Defend in Summary Suit: B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. vs. JMS Steels and Power Corporation (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether leave to defend should be granted in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. CASE TYPE: Civil (Commercial) Case Name: B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd.

Supreme Court Allows Leave to Defend in Summary Suit: B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. vs. JMS Steels and Power Corporation (2022) Read Post »

Leave to Defend Granted: Supreme Court overturns High Court in B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. vs. JMS Steels and Power Corporation (2022)

/ Agent, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 2(d), Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 230, Judges, Leave to Defend, Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Summary Suit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court allows leave to defend in money recovery suit: B.L. Kashyap vs. JMS Steels (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the defendant in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is entitled to leave to defend when they assert they acted as an agent and not a principal in a

Leave to Defend Granted: Supreme Court overturns High Court in B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. vs. JMS Steels and Power Corporation (2022) Read Post »

Specific Performance vs. Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Resolves Land Dispute in Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 3

Supreme Court Decision on Specific Performance and Adverse Possession: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance can be enforced against a subsequent bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. Also, the question of adverse possession on a small portion of land when

Specific Performance vs. Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Resolves Land Dispute in Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Against Krishna Veni in Land Dispute (17 January 2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 3

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Against Krishna Veni in Land Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree of specific performance can be enforced against a bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. CASE TYPE: Property Law/Civil Case Name: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni Judgment Date: 17 January

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Against Krishna Veni in Land Dispute (17 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b)

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance can be enforced against a subsequent bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni Judgment Date: 17 January 2022 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Maintenance: Uma Priyadarshini vs. Suchith K Nair (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 151, Family Law, Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Maintenance, Matrimonial Disputes

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Maintenance: Uma Priyadarshini vs. Suchith K Nair (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of maintenance for a wife and child in matrimonial disputes. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute/Family Law Case Name: Uma Priyadarshini S. vs. Suchith K Nair Judgment Date: January 6, 2022 Date of the Judgment: January 6, 2022

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Maintenance: Uma Priyadarshini vs. Suchith K Nair (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of representative consumer complaints under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Brigade Enterprises Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors. (17 December 2021)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order I Rule 8, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with Section 35(1)(c), Consumer Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Representative Consumer Complaints: Brigade Enterprises Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consumer complaint can be filed in a representative capacity on behalf of numerous consumers having the same interest, and the criteria for determining “sameness of interest”. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Brigade Enterprises Limited

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of representative consumer complaints under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Brigade Enterprises Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors. (17 December 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Impleadment in Recovery Suit: IL&FS Engineering vs. Bhargavarama Constructions (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 96, Impleadment of Parties, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Impleadment in Recovery Suit: IL&FS Engineering vs. Bhargavarama Constructions (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can set aside a trial court’s decree solely on the basis of allowing an impleadment application in a first appeal, without considering the merits of the case. CASE TYPE: Civil Recovery

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Impleadment in Recovery Suit: IL&FS Engineering vs. Bhargavarama Constructions (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Karta’s Authority in Joint Hindu Family Property Sale: Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath (2021)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XIV Rule 1, Hindu Law, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Succession Act with Section 8, Joint Hindu Family, Judges, Karta, Legal Necessity, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Karta’s Authority in Joint Hindu Family Property Sale: Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Authority of a Karta to sell joint Hindu family property, and the requirement of legal necessity. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Case Name: Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath and Another [Judgment Date]: 13

Supreme Court Upholds Karta’s Authority in Joint Hindu Family Property Sale: Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top