Code of Civil Procedure

Supreme Court Allows Tenant to Challenge Eviction Despite Previous Orders: Rekha Gurunath Mhashelkar vs. Yashwant Vichare (2018)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order IX Rule 13, Eviction, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Allows Tenant to Challenge Eviction Despite Previous Orders: Rekha Gurunath Mhashelkar vs. Yashwant Vichare (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tenant can pursue legal remedies against an eviction order despite prior ex-parte decrees and execution. CASE TYPE: Civil (Eviction) Case Name: Rekha Gurunath Mhashelkar vs. Yashwant Vichare Judgment Date: 19 September 2018 Date of […]

Supreme Court Allows Tenant to Challenge Eviction Despite Previous Orders: Rekha Gurunath Mhashelkar vs. Yashwant Vichare (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Auction Sale of Hotel, Clarifies Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act: ITC vs. Blue Coast Hotels (2018)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 21, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S. A. Bobde, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(3A), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 31(i)

Supreme Court Upholds Auction Sale of Hotel, Clarifies Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act: ITC vs. Blue Coast Hotels (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the failure to reply to a borrower’s representation under Section 13(3A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) invalidates subsequent actions by the

Supreme Court Upholds Auction Sale of Hotel, Clarifies Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act: ITC vs. Blue Coast Hotels (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies payment appropriation in contract dispute: Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Kurien E. Kalathil (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 7, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 89, Breach of contract, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 34, Contract Act, Contract Act with Clause E1.079, Judges, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court clarifies payment appropriation in contract dispute: Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Kurien E. Kalathil (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Contractual payment appropriation and interest calculation CASE TYPE: Contract/Civil Case Name: Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and Anr. [Judgment Date]: 9 March 2018 Date of the Judgment: 9 March 2018 Citation:

Supreme Court clarifies payment appropriation in contract dispute: Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Kurien E. Kalathil (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court mandates strict compliance with treasury challan rules for election petitions: Sitaram vs. Radhey Shyam Vishnav & Ors. (2018) INSC 182 (06 March 2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order VII Rule 11, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Election Law, Election Petitions, Judges, Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009

Supreme Court mandates strict compliance with treasury challan rules for election petitions Date of the Judgment: 06 March 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 182 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Can an election petition be dismissed if the treasury challan is not submitted along with the petition? The Supreme Court addressed this

Supreme Court mandates strict compliance with treasury challan rules for election petitions: Sitaram vs. Radhey Shyam Vishnav & Ors. (2018) INSC 182 (06 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Injunction Violations in Arbitration Cases: RK Arora vs. M/S Ace Enterprises (2018)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Contempt of Courts Act, Contempt of Courts Act with Section 10, Contempt of Subordinate Courts, Injunction, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Injunction Violations in Arbitration Cases: RK Arora vs. M/S Ace Enterprises (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Procedure for addressing violations of injunction orders in the context of arbitration proceedings. CASE TYPE: Civil, Arbitration Case Name: R K Arora General Manager & Anr. vs. M/S Ace Enterprises Judgment Date: 7 February 2018 Date

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Injunction Violations in Arbitration Cases: RK Arora vs. M/S Ace Enterprises (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order: Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 21 Rule 35, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 with Section 11(2)(b), Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 with Section 11(3), R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the eviction order passed by the Trial Court. CASE TYPE: Eviction/Rent Control Case Name: Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim [Judgment Date]: 17 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 17 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 657 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can a

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order: Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Extinguishment of Redemption Right After Auction Sale: Allokam Peddabbayya vs. Allahabad Bank (2017)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXIV, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Rights of Mortgagor, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 60, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 91

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the right to redeem a mortgaged property is extinguished after an auction sale and issuance of a sale certificate, even if the purchaser of the equity of redemption was not a party to the foreclosure suit. CASE TYPE: Civil (Mortgage Redemption) Case Name: Allokam Peddabbayya and another vs. Allahabad Bank and others

Supreme Court Upholds Extinguishment of Redemption Right After Auction Sale: Allokam Peddabbayya vs. Allahabad Bank (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the scope of Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC in setting aside ex-parte decrees: Bank of India vs. M/s Mehta Brothers (23 September 2008)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 9 Rule 13, Dalveer Bhandari, Judges, Tarun Chatterjee

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2008 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: Justice Tarun Chatterjee, Justice Dalveer Bhandari When can a court set aside a decree against some defendants when only one defendant applies to set aside an ex-parte decree? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court settles the scope of Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC in setting aside ex-parte decrees: Bank of India vs. M/s Mehta Brothers (23 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rules for amending written statements in property disputes: Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly (2008)

/ Amendment of Pleadings, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure with Order VIII Rule 5, Indian Evidence Act, Indian Evidence Act with Section 58, Judges, S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2008 Judges: S.B. Sinha, J., V.S. Sirpurkar, J. Can a party be allowed to amend their written statement to retract admissions made earlier? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a property dispute arising from a will. The court examined the circumstances under which

Supreme Court clarifies rules for amending written statements in property disputes: Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles liability of partners in firms: Ashutosh vs. State of Rajasthan (30 August 2005)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 21 Rule 49, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 21 Rule 50, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 144, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 24, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 25, Judges, Ruma Pal, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 53

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 30 August 2005 Judges: Ruma Pal & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan Can a partner’s personal assets be used to pay off a firm’s debts? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in the case of Ashutosh vs. State of Rajasthan. This case examines the extent to which partners are

Supreme Court settles liability of partners in firms: Ashutosh vs. State of Rajasthan (30 August 2005) Read Post »

Scroll to Top