Supreme Court Civil Digest

  • Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another Vs M/s. Ashok Saw Mill-16/07/2009 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Sections 13 and 17—Enforcement of security interest—Jurisdiction of DRT with regard to post 13(4) events—DRT is entitled to question the action taken by secured creditor and transactions entered into by virtue of Section 13(4)—DRT has been vested with authority to even set aside a transaction including sale and to restore possession to borrower in appropriate cases—DRT has jurisdiction to deal with a post 13(4) situation—Action taken by a secured creditor in terms of Section 13(4) is open to scrutiny and cannot only be set aside but even status quo ante can be restored by DRT. 
  • Kale and others VS Deputy Director of Consolidation and others- 21/01/1976 - FAMILY SETTLEMENT-the family settlement arrived at by the parties was oral, and the petition filed by them on August 7, 1956 before the Assistant Commissioner was merely an information of an already completed oral transaction. In other words, the petition was only an intimation to the Revenue court or authority that the matters in dispute between the parties had been settled amicably between the members of the family, and no longer required determination and that the mutation be effected in accordance with that antecedent family settlement. Since the petition did not itself create or declare any rights in immovable property of the value of Rupees 100 or upwards, it was not hit by Sec. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, and as such was not compulsorily registrable.
  • Kashi Math Samsthan and Another Vs Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and Another-02/12/2009 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order 41, Rule 5 and Section 151—Injunction—By impugned judgment, High Court rejected interim applications filed by appellants seeking status quo and stay of execution of decree in a suit for declaration and injunction.
  • KRISHNA PRASAD VERMA (D) THR. LRS. VS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 26/09/2019 - We are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned.
  • Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others-20/09/1990 - This was done in spite of the clear provisions in the L. R. Manual laying down detailed procedure for appointment, termination and renewal of tenure and the requirement to first consider the existing incumbent for renewal of his tenure and to take steps for a fresh appointment in his place only if the existing incumbent is not found suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of renewal
  • M/s. Julien Educational Trust Vs Sourendra Kumar Roy and ors-02/12/2009 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Injunction-Prima facie case made out by appellant-Trust as to agreement for sale, which has to go to trial—Whether there was a concluded contract or not between appellant-Trust and the respondents is a matter of evidence and can only be gone into during trial of suit—Interim order is required to be passed to maintain status quo of suit property—Prima facie case is in favour of appellant-Trust
  • Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar-30/01/2020 - The principal argument of the appellant is that the statement made by his counsel before the High Court was not binding on him, as it was made without his instructions.We hasten to add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer's statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. We may add that in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting the client.
  • P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs L. Lakshmi Reddy-05/12/1956 - Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession—Co-owner—Permissibility—Sole possession by one co-owner is not sufficient—There must be open assertion of hostile title against the other.
  • Sahu Madho Das and others Vs Mukand Ram and another-22/03/1955 - Family arrangement—Implied arrangements—Conduct of members of family can be considered to ascertain that family arrangement in fact existed—Circumstances in which registration of family arrangement necessary, indicated.
  • Samarendra Das Versus The State of West Bengal and others-16/01/2004 - Assistant Public Prosecutors (Qualifications, Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974-We hold that the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was Civil Post under the State in terms of Section 15 of the said Act 1985.
  • Satyendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Raj Nath Dubey & Ors-06/05/2016 - No equitable principle or estoppel can impede powers of the Court to determine an issue of law correctly in a subsequent suit which relates to another property founded upon a different cause of action though parties may be same.
  • Shiv Cotex Vs Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Others-30/08/2011 - SECOND APPEAL-It is, open to the High Court to reframe substantial question of law or frame substantial question of law afresh or hold that No. substantial question of law is involved at the time of hearing the second appeal but reversal of the judgment and decree passed in appeal by a court subordinate to it in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code is impermissible without formulating substantial question of law and a decision on such question.
  • Smt. Asha Devi Vs Dukhi Sao and another-08/08/1974 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100 and 101—Appeal—Letters Patent Appeal—Scope of—A Division Bench hearing appeal against the Judgment of single Judge is not limited to question of law as in case of Second Appeal but whole matter is open in respect of both questions of law as well as fact.
  • Sri Prabodh Ch. Das and Anr. Vs. Mahamaya Das and Ors-13/12/2019 - whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the second appeal on merits in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellants.
  • State of U.P. and another Vs Johri Mal-21/04/2004 - The age old tradition on the part of the States in appointing the District Government counsel on the basis of the recommendations of the District Collector in consultation with the District Judge is based on certain principles. Whereas the District Judge is supposed to know the merit, competence and capability of the concerned lawyers for discharging their duties, the District Magistrate is supposed to know their conduct outside the Court vis-a-vis the victims of offences, public officers, witnesses etc. The District Magistrate is also supposed to know about the conduct of the Government counsel as also their integrity.
  • State of U.P. and Ors. etc. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association and Ors. etc- 25/01/1994 - The appointment of lawyers by the Government and the public bodies to conduct work on their behalf, and their subsequent removal from such appointment have to be examined from three different angles viz., the nature of the legal profession, the interests of the public and the modes of the appointment and removal.
  • Suresh Chand and Anr. Vs. Suresh Chander (D) through LRS. and Ors- 19/02/2020 - Second appeal- Pre-emption-whether a right of pre-emption was available to Beni Prasad who is alleged to be a joint owner in possession of the disputed courtyard. This has arisen in the context of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act 1961.
  • Umer khan Vs Bismillabi @ Babulal Shaikh and others-28/07/2011 - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law