Code of Civil Procedure

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case for Review of Cross-Objections: Dheeraj Singh vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023) INSC 609 (04 July 2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 41 Rule 22, Cross-Objections, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case for Review of Cross-Objections Date of the Judgment: 04 July 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 609 Judges: Krishna Murari, J. and Bela M. Trivedi, J. Can a High Court ignore cross-objections filed by a party in an appeal? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in a land acquisition […]

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case for Review of Cross-Objections: Dheeraj Singh vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023) INSC 609 (04 July 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of res judicata in eviction cases: Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash & Ors. (29 March 2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 17, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 11, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14(1)(a), J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Clarifies Res Judicata in Eviction Cases: Prem Kishore vs. Brahm Prakash (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second eviction petition is barred by res judicata when a previous petition was dismissed due to the landlord’s failure to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. CASE TYPE: Civil (Eviction) Case Name: Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash

Supreme Court clarifies the application of res judicata in eviction cases: Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash & Ors. (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reviews Land Acquisition Judgments: Impact of Indore Development Authority Ruling (17 March 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XLVII Rule 1, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 137, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 24(2), M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Supreme Court Reviews Land Acquisition Judgments Post Indore Development Authority LEGAL ISSUE: Review of judgments related to land acquisition following the overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation by Indore Development Authority. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Civil Case Name: Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department & Another vs. M/s. K.L. Rathi

Supreme Court Reviews Land Acquisition Judgments: Impact of Indore Development Authority Ruling (17 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of review of land acquisition judgments post the Indore Development Authority ruling (17 March 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XLVII Rule 1, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 137, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Review of Land Acquisition Judgments Post Indore Development Authority LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of review of judgments concerning land acquisition after a key precedent is overruled. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Civil Review Case Name: Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department & Another vs. M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of review of land acquisition judgments post the Indore Development Authority ruling (17 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit as Time-Barred in Property Dispute: Sukhbiri Devi vs. Union of India (29 September 2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XIV, Rule 2, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 136, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 58

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit as Time-Barred in Property Dispute: Sukhbiri Devi vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for declaration of co-ownership of property is barred by limitation when the suit is filed more than three years after the knowledge of a registered relinquishment deed. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit as Time-Barred in Property Dispute: Sukhbiri Devi vs. Union of India (29 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Matrimonial Case for Wife’s Convenience: N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 9, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Restitution of Conjugal Rights, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Transfers Matrimonial Case for Wife’s Convenience: N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Transfer of matrimonial proceedings based on convenience and economic dependence. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law Case Name: N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha [Judgment Date]: July 18, 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment: July 18, 2022 Citation:

Supreme Court Transfers Matrimonial Case for Wife’s Convenience: N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside decree for possession based on admissions: Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XII Rule 6, Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Tenancy Laws, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 53A

Supreme Court sets aside decree for possession based on admissions: Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can be passed solely based on the admission of a landlord-tenant relationship, without considering the tenant’s defense of an agreement

Supreme Court sets aside decree for possession based on admissions: Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies suit valuation for mandatory injunctions: Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain Verma (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order VII Rule 11, Court Fees Act, 1870, Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7(iv)(d), Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Suit Valuation, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Suit Valuation for Injunctions: Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain Verma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct method for valuing a suit seeking a mandatory injunction, particularly in cases involving property and licenses. CASE TYPE: Civil Law (Property and Injunctions) Case Name: Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain Verma & Anr. Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies suit valuation for mandatory injunctions: Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain Verma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds National Green Tribunal’s Validity and Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 100, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 22, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 3

Supreme Court Upholds National Green Tribunal’s Validity and Jurisdiction Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 488 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. (authored the judgment) Can the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, bypass the High Court’s powers under the Constitution? The Supreme Court recently addressed this crucial question regarding

Supreme Court Upholds National Green Tribunal’s Validity and Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Termination of Arbitrator Mandate Under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitrator Appointment, B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order VII Rule 11, Judges, M. R. Shah, Termination of Arbitrator Mandate

Supreme Court Clarifies Termination of Arbitrator Mandate Under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal (2022) Date of the Judgment: May 5, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 427 Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a High Court, in an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration

Supreme Court Clarifies Termination of Arbitrator Mandate Under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Interim Rent Deposit: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 17, Arbitration Law, B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXVIII Rule 5, Interim Measures, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Interim Rent Deposit: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral tribunal can order a lessee to deposit the full rental amount as an interim measure under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the lessee

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Interim Rent Deposit: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 80, Court Fees Act, 1870, Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7, Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7(i), Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7(iv), Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether ad valorem court fees are payable on the amount claimed in a suit for damages. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: State of Punjab and Others vs. Dev Brat Sharma Judgment Date: 16 March 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top