Tag: Cause of Action

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Grounds for Rejecting a Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Grounds for Rejecting a Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to restore the suit, affirming that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a threshold scrutiny. Contentions regarding cause of action, limitation, and res judicata are mixed questions requiring a full trial, not adjudication at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a civil suit (O.S. No.26246 of 2023) filed by the respondents (Archbishop of Bangalore & Others) against the appellant, C.M. Meenakshi, and others. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of absolute ownership over a scheduled property in Bangalore, cancellation of two sale deeds from 2014 and 2020, and permanent injunctions to prevent any alteration or alienation of the property. During the suit's pendency, defendants 1 to 8 f...
Read More
Key Ruling: Supreme Court Upholds NGT’s Decision, Stresses Strict Timelines for Environment Appeals
7Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Ruling: Supreme Court Upholds NGT’s Decision, Stresses Strict Timelines for Environment Appeals

The Supreme Court held that for calculating limitation under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010, the period commences from the earliest date of communication of the environmental clearance by any duty bearer. The obligation to communicate rests on multiple authorities, and limitation is triggered upon the first clear and complete public communication. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Talli Gram Panchayat, sought to challenge an Environmental Clearance (EC) granted on January 5, 2017, for a limestone mining project in Gujarat. The Panchayat filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010, but the appeal was delayed. It contended that it first learned of the EC through a Right to Information reply received on February 14, 2017, and t...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed

The Supreme Court held that a counter-claim by impleaded defendants against a co-defendant is not maintainable in a suit for specific performance. Such a claim must be incidental to the original suit's cause of action and cannot be independently raised against another defendant. The Court set aside the admitted counter-claim. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Sanjay Tiwari, filed a suit for specific performance against the first respondent, Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao, based on an alleged oral agreement dated 02.12.2002 for the sale of 0.93 acres of land. The plaintiff claimed full payment was made and he was put in possession. The first defendant, in his written statement, contended that defendants 2 and 3 were in possession of part of the property, making the suit defective for non-joinde...
Read More
Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of an infringement suit from Delhi to Bombay High Court under Section 25 of the CPC, prioritizing the suit filed earlier in time to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. It held that a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act constitutes an independent cause of action, but consolidation is necessary when legal and factual issues substantially overlap. Facts Of The Case: Atomberg Technologies launched its "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier on June 20, 2025. Shortly after, its competitor, Eureka Forbes Limited, allegedly made oral threats to Atomberg's distributors, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action. In response, Atomberg filed a suit for "groundless threats...
Read More
How a Defective Arbitration Clause & the Pandemic Shaped a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Limitation
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

How a Defective Arbitration Clause & the Pandemic Shaped a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Limitation

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause is not rendered invalid merely because the named arbitrator becomes statutorily ineligible; courts retain authority under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint a neutral arbitrator. Additionally, the limitation period for filing the application was extended by excluding the COVID-19 period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Offshore Infrastructures Limited, was awarded a contract by the respondent, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (formerly Bharat Oman Refineries Limited), for composite works at the Bina Refinery. The work, accepted on 31 December 2016, was to be completed by 30 May 2017 but was ultimately finished on 31 January 2018. The appellant raised its final bill on 20 Ma...
Read More
Supreme Court Interprets New MV Act Law: Injury Claims Survive to Legal Heirs
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Interprets New MV Act Law: Injury Claims Survive to Legal Heirs

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that under Section 167(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inserted by Act 32 of 2019, the right to claim compensation for personal injuries survives to the legal representatives of an injured person upon their death. This survival of the cause of action is applicable irrespective of whether the death has any nexus to the accident injuries. The Court thus overruled the contrary view taken in Bhagwati Bai. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a motor accident in which the original claimant, Dhannalal, suffered injuries that resulted in 100% disability. He initially filed for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the awarded amount, he appealed to the High Court, which enhanced the compensation. Still see...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary issue of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be permanently foreclosed by an arbitrator based on a demurrer. The Court clarified that such a decision on demurrer is not a final adjudication on merits and does not preclude a subsequent examination based on evidence, as it would violate the fundamental mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) dated 23.07.2008 between Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (Petitioner) and Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The Petitioner invested Rs. 25 Crore, with a clause stipulating a refund if certain "Conditions Precedent" were not fulfilled within 90 days. The Respondent...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

The Supreme Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and a suit filed against the proprietor personally is maintainable. Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is merely enabling and does not bar a suit against the proprietor, who remains the real party in interest for all transactions conducted in the trade name. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, owners of a property, leased it to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad, via a registered lease deed. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate, prompting the appellants to file an eviction suit. The original suit named the lessee as defendant no.1 (Aditya Motors), along with the sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants amended the plaint, substituti...
Read More
Supreme Court : Sale Deeds Executed After Property Power of Attorney Revoked Are Invalid
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Sale Deeds Executed After Property Power of Attorney Revoked Are Invalid

The Supreme Court clarified that an unregistered agreement to sell or power of attorney does not confer title or interest in immovable property. The Court emphasized that property transfer requires a registered deed of conveyance. It also ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected entirely under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if even one distinct cause of action is triable. Facts Of The Case: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. (appellant) claimed ownership of agricultural land and obtained a loan of Rs. 7.5 crores from Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent No. 1) in May 2014. The appellant's Board of Directors authorized their Managing Director and Respondent No. 1 to sell the property. Subsequently, an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell were executed in favor of Respondent No. 1 on May 24, 2014.In A...
Read More