Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: TYC

Categories
Reference, Review, Revision

Municipal Corporation of City v. Shiv Shankar Gauri Shankar Mehta (1998) 9 SCC 197

ISSUE:

Whether the statements made by the high Court after answering the questions referred to it by rejecting the references, binding on the parties?

RULE:

Section 113 CPC deals with References made to High Court. It states that any Court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court, and the High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

Order 46 rule 3 of CPC states that once the HC has heard the parties, it shall decide the point so referred and shall transmit a copy of its judgment, under the signature of the Registrar, to the Court by which the Reference was made. Such Court shall, on the receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with the decision of the High Court.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Appeals

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, 2000 (3) KLT 354

ISSUE:

Can the high court entertain a prayer for review of its order if such a review can disturb the order earlier passed by the Supreme court?

When the orders of HC and SC have merged by affirmation, can a review petition be filed against the order of the High Court?

RULE:

Order 47 Rule 1 subrule (1) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 states that an Application for review of judgment can be filed by Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Appeals

Shri Bhagwan Narvadeshwar Ji Maharaj Mandir v. Sunita Singh MANU/UP/4692/2018

ISSUE:

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant under Order XVII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. on the ground that the application was placed before the trial court to adduce evidence in the form of oral evidence and, therefore, there was no occasion to dismiss the suit?

Whether the trial court has rejected the application by wrongly interpreting the provisions for adducing and taking the evidence under Order XVIII Rule 2 read with Rule 3 (A) of C.P.C?

Whether the lower appellate court could not have decided the issues on merits merely by placing reliance on the findings returned by the trial court while disposing of the injunction application?

RULE:

Rule 3A Order XVIII and Rule 2 Order XVIII of Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Judgement, Decree, Costs

Satnam Singh & Ors v. Surnder Kaur & Anr (2009) 2SCC 562

ISSUE:

Whether the court, in a partition suit, has the power to pass a decree with respect to a property that was not mentioned in the plaint but later on mentioned in the written statement?

Whether a court can amend and rectify a decree is it feels that it has committed an error?

RULE:

A decree has been defined in section 2(2) as the formal expression of an adjudication which conclusively determines the right of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy.

A decree can be preliminary or final or partly preliminary and partly final.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Judgement, Decree, Costs

Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande 1995 AIR 1211, 1995 SCC (3) 413

ISSUE:

When does the Limitation begin to run for filing an application to pass the final decree on stamped papers?

RULE:

Order 20 Rule 7 of CPC envisages that the decree "shall bear the day on which the judgment was pronounced, and, when the judge has satisfied himself that the decree has been drawn up in accordance with the judgment, he shall sign the decree".

Section 2(2) of CPC defines "decree" to mean "the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final".

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Interim Relief Void Agreements

Gujarat Bottling Company Limited v Coca Cola, 1995 SCC (5) 545

ISSUE:

Whether the 1994 agreement superseded the existing 1993 agreement?

Whether the 1993 agreement was in restraint of trade under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

RULE:

Section 42 Specific Relief Act, 1963- Where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, in such a case, if the court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement, it will not prevent it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Interim Relief

Wander v. Antox India (P) Ltd., (1990) Supp SCC 727

ISSUE:

Can appellate courts interfere with interlocutory orders passed by lower courts?

RULE:

Except in cases where it can be demonstrated that the first instance court's discretion was used arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or in cases where the court disregarded well-established legal rules governing the granting or refusing of interlocutory injunctions, the appellate court will not substitute its own discretion for the first instance court's discretion.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Pleadings

B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Paremswaran, (2000) 1 SCC 712

ISSUE:

Whether prolonged delay is grounds for rejection of amendment to pleadings where other party could be compensated by costs?

RULE:

The purpose of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is to allow either party to amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow an amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings.

The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence so long as by the proposed amendment, the other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn.

Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Pleadings

Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. KK Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385

ISSUE:

Whether the appellant’s application for amendment should be allowed?

RULE:

The first part of Order 6 Rule 17 is discretionary while the second is imperative and enjoins the court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Pleadings

T Arivandanam v T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467

ISSUE:

What are the duties of the court in curbing frivolous and vexatious cases?

RULE:

For rejection of plaints under order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for lack of cause of action, each case must be evaluated to determine whether the plaintiffs’ requested relives can be granted or not and if none of the reliefs can be granted, the case should be dismissed outright.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here