Supreme Court weekly roundup featuring 6 key rulings on cheque-bounce notice, compromise decrees, BNSS cognizance, arbitration, Delhi-NCR safety and pay parity.
Read Full ArticleSupreme Court holds that a compromise decree passed without impleading a necessary party is a nullity, allowing the affected legal heirs to seek recall despite Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC.
Supreme Court sets aside decrees for specific performance, holding that a fresh suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC after the plaintiff omitted the relief from an earlier suit without obtaining leave.
Kerala High Court directs numbering of a ‘John Doe’ suit, holding that insisting on the address of an unidentified defendant under Order VI Rule 14A CPC defeats the purpose of such proceedings.
The Bombay High Court held that an assignee under a deed executed before a specific performance suit cannot be added as a co-plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 CPC, as the assignment was not pendente lite.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a divorce decree does not by itself bar a spouse from seeking permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and granted the wife liberty to appro...
Delhi High Court vacates trademark injunction against Nugenesys, finding Celagenex suppressed material facts and citing James Bond's “three times is enemy action” observation.
Delhi High Court restrains Varun Beverages from using 'SMOOTH', finding it deceptively similar to Parle Agro's 'SMOODH' and calling the letter substitution “smart copying.”
Allahabad High Court refers alleged calls by a Divisional Commissioner to a trial judge for criminal contempt scrutiny, while dismissing the transfer plea as infructuous.
Supreme Court holds that an Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree or reinterpret its terms while implementing it, and sets aside Himachal Pradesh HC's execution order.
Supreme Court holds that the Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC exemption protecting a judgment-debtor's residential house from attachment is personal and cannot be claimed by legal representatives.
Supreme Court rules that time spent in winding-up proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for a separate money recovery suit, as the two remedies are fundamentally differ...
Supreme Court rules that a single composite appeal can challenge a common judgment deciding both a suit and counterclaim, provided separate grounds are stated and court fees are paid for both.
Supreme Court sets aside Karnataka HC judgment, holding that an appellate court must decide an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC before disposing of an appeal.
Delhi High Court holds that a father cannot adjust his daughter's PPF funds against his independent legal obligation to pay maintenance.
Judiciary
Judiciary
Judiciary
Judiciary