Supreme Court

16th Feb, 2019

Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt

It was held by the Supreme Court that if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars at a later […]
14th Feb, 2019

Transfer by Erroneous Representation of title will hold good if transferor acquires title later

Applying the principle of “feeding the grant by estoppel” under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court granted relief to a party, who was misled to purchase a property by erroneous […]
2nd Feb, 2019

Section 144 is attracted only when a decree or an order is varied or reversed in appeal, revision or any other proceeding or is set aside

The Apex Court held that a court of first instance may order for restitution only when a decree or an order is varied, reversed or set aside or modified. Such court is empowered to pass […]
1st Feb, 2019

Mere Agreement to Sell of the Leased Property to the tenant would not terminate Landlord-Tenant relationship

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court observed that mere agreement to sell the property of the landlord to the tenant would not result in termination of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties unless there is […]
21st Jan, 2019

‘Cheque Bounce’ Complaint based on second notice after Re-Presentation of Cheque Maintainable

The Supreme Court has held that a ‘cheque bounce’ complaint filed based on the second statutory notice issued after re-presentation of cheques, is maintainable. The said ruling was held in the mater of M/s Sicagen […]
11th Jan, 2019

Former employee not disqualified from acting as an Arbitrator, even after 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

The Supreme Court has held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not disqualify a former employee from acting as an arbitrator provided that there are no justifiable doubts as to his independence and […]
11th Jan, 2019

Dismissal of application to file a suit as an indigent person is not a bar against filing an appeal as an indigent person.

The Supreme Court of India held in a judgment that if an application of the person to file a suit as an indigent person under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter […]
11th Jan, 2019

Readiness and willingness to perform a contract is the most important issue for considering grant of specific performance of a contract

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court, held that in the present case, readiness and willingness to perform a contract is a question of fact and the same is to be determined during appreciation of […]
8th Jan, 2019

Mere transfer of ownership of vehicle does not absolve the registered owner from liability to a third person

The Supreme Court held that a registered owner cannot wriggle out of liability towards a third person in event of an accident, on the mere pretext of the ownership of the vehicle being transferred, if […]
24th Dec, 2018

Notice under Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC mandatory for filing ‘Class Action’ Consumer Complaints u/s 12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act.

The Supreme Court observed that ‘Class Action’ consumer complaints filed by one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest will be maintainable only where the complaint fulfils all the requisite […]
21st Dec, 2018

Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 subject to the mandatory time limit of thirty days

The Apex court reiterated that benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the time period of thirty […]
19th Dec, 2018

Appeal abates as a whole if legal heirs of deceased defendants are not impleaded and allowing the appeal against remaining respondents would result in two contradictory decrees with respect to the same subject matter

The Supreme Court held that if the interests of the co-defendants are separate, a suit will abate under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC only as regards the particular interest of the deceased party, however […]