Tag: procedural law

Liberty to Sue Doesn’t Mean Relitigation: Supreme Court Restores Appeal in Ryotwari Act Dispute
12Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Liberty to Sue Doesn’t Mean Relitigation: Supreme Court Restores Appeal in Ryotwari Act Dispute

The Supreme Court held that High Courts under Section 100 CPC must frame only correct and appropriate substantial questions of law; erroneous formulation vitiates the second appellate judgment. Liberty to sue reserved in statutory proceedings does not permit reconsideration of concluded issues. Matter remanded for fresh admission and framing of proper substantial questions. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, concerning land in Tamil Nadu. The appellant-temple authority obtained patta grants in its favour through orders passed under the Act. However, when the matter reached the High Court in its appellate statutory capacity, the Court by order dated 22.09.1989 confirmed the grant of patta...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Defective Affidavit Can Be Corrected in Insolvency Petitions
10Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Defective Affidavit Can Be Corrected in Insolvency Petitions

The Supreme Court held that a defective affidavit filed in support of a Section 7 IBC application is a curable procedural irregularity and does not render the application non est. The Court emphasized that the mandatory notice under Section 7(5)(b) of the IBC must be specifically issued to the applicant before rejection, and procedural rules should not defeat substantive rights. Facts Of The Case: HDFC Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for a defaulted loan of ₹5.5 crores. The application, verified on July 26, 2023, was supported by an affidavit deposed on July 17, 2023. The NCLT Ahmedabad Bench rejected the petition at the threshold, citing this date discrepancy in the affidavit as a fatal ...
Read More
Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case

The Supreme Court held that in appeals challenging eviction orders under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings Act, the Appellate Authority is not required to mandatorily re-initiate the entire Section 12 procedure. The deposit of admitted arrears, as determined by the Rent Controller, is a precondition to contest the appeal, unless supervening events warrant a fresh application. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are landlords who filed eviction petitions against the respondent-tenant for two shops in Kochi, alleging non-payment of rent since early 2020. The Rent Controller, relying on a prior money decree for arrears, passed orders under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings Act, directing the tenant to pay substantial outstanding and future rents. Upon the tenant's failure to comply, e...
Read More
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 on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases
4Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. Duri...
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 Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree
29Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a decree under Section 2(2). Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it constitutes a final adjudication, not merely an interlocutory order restricted by the proviso. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court. The respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. Their ground was that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The...
Read More
Supreme Court: Death of Appellant Before Hearing Renders Appellate Judgment Void
20Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Death of Appellant Before Hearing Renders Appellate Judgment Void

The Supreme Court held that a decree passed in favor of deceased appellants, whose legal heirs were not substituted, is a nullity. Consequently, the original trial court decree revives and is executable, as a null appellate decree cannot supersede a valid prior decree. Facts Of The Case: The legal heirs of Arjunrao Thakre filed a civil suit challenging the re-allotment of his agricultural land to defendants 3 to 5. The trial court decreed the suit in 2006, declaring the plaintiffs as owners and the subsequent allotment illegal. Defendants 4 and 5 appealed. During the pendency of this first appeal, both appellants died—defendant 4 in 2006 and defendant 5 in 2010—but their legal heirs were never brought on record. Unaware of the deaths, the first appellate court heard and partl...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case

This Supreme Court judgment affirms that claims of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction. The Court held that a juvenile offender cannot be detained beyond the statutory maximum period prescribed under the Act, and such excess detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, born on 10th June 1969, was convicted for a murder allegedly committed on 2nd November 1981, when he was approximately 12 years and 5 months old. The trial court, in its 1984 order, recognized his juvenility under the Children Act, 1960 and directed his placement in a children's home instead of prison. Following a reversal of his acquittal by the Supreme Court in 2009, the petitioner absconded and was subsequently arrested...
Read More