Tag: Code of Civil Procedure

When a Society Becomes a “Trust”: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Mismanagement in Charitable NGOs
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When a Society Becomes a “Trust”: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Mismanagement in Charitable NGOs

The Supreme Court ruled that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, can be construed as a constructive trust under Section 92 CPC if it is created for public charitable purposes and its properties are held in a fiduciary capacity. This allows aggrieved parties to sue for breach of trust and seek remedies like a scheme for administration. Facts Of The Case: In 2005, Operation ASHA, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was established to provide healthcare services, particularly tuberculosis treatment, to underprivileged sections of society. A dispute arose in 2020 when its co-founder and CEO, Sandeep Ahuja (Respondent No. 3), terminated the services of another co-founder, Dr. Shelly Batra (Respondent No. 1), alleging misrepresentation ...
Read More
Supreme Court Restores Ejectment Decree: ‘ND’ Postal Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice Under Transfer of Property Act
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Restores Ejectment Decree: ‘ND’ Postal Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice Under Transfer of Property Act

The Supreme Court held that a notice sent via registered post under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, even if returned with an "ND" (Not Delivered) endorsement. The High Court erred in setting aside the ejectment decree by ignoring this legal presumption of service. The Trial Court's decree was restored, affirming the landlord's right to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent and other charges. The judgment reinforces the principle that proper dispatch of a registered notice fulfills statutory service requirements unless rebutted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (since deceased and represented by his legal heir), was the landlord of a property in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, which ...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling :How Non-Disclosure of Death in Court Cases Can Backfire
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling :How Non-Disclosure of Death in Court Cases Can Backfire

The Supreme Court ruled that failure to comply with Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, which mandates lawyers to inform the court about a party's death, prevents the opposing side from claiming abatement due to non-substitution of legal heirs. The Court emphasized that no party can benefit from their own wrong (nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria). It clarified that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice and remanded the case for fresh consideration, highlighting the distinction between joint and indivisible decrees in abatement cases. The judgment reinforces the duty of pleaders to ensure fair litigation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Title Suit No. 106 of 1984 filed by the appellants (Binod Pathak & others) before the Sub-Judge, Gopalganj, ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules : Res Judicata Can’t Be Decided at Plaint Stage
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules : Res Judicata Can’t Be Decided at Plaint Stage

The Supreme Court held that the plea of res judicata cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as it requires an in-depth examination of pleadings, issues, and decisions from the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of a plaint rejection application. The Court emphasized that only the averments in the plaint must be considered, and defenses or external documents cannot be relied upon. The judgment clarified that issues like fraud, collusion, or jurisdictional defects in a prior decree must be examined during trial, not at the preliminary stage. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored for expeditious disposal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Pandurangan, purchased a disputed property from Hussain Babu in 1998, who had earlier acquired ...
Read More