Code of Civil Procedure 1908

13th Jun, 2018

Ratio of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. Vs. Chander Sen and Ors reiterated

The Delhi High Court reiterated the law laid down in the landmark judgment of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. vs. Chander Sen and Ors. – if a person dies after passing of the […]
8th Jun, 2018

There cannot be inequitable partition of property held jointly and equally by parties

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that an unequitable partition of a property cannot take place when all co-owners have equal right in the property. This was held by the Hon’ble High Court at […]
18th May, 2018

In commercial transaction effected through several interconnected agreements, all parties are subject to the arbitration clause contained in the main agreement even if there is no arbitration clause in the ancillary agreement.

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that where several parties are involved in a single commercial project executed through several interconnected agreements/contracts then all parties can be covered by the arbitration clause in […]
17th May, 2018

Readiness and willingness under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Performance Act has to be supported by documentary evidence

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in an appeal filed under Section 96, CPC has held that readiness and willingness as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Performance Act can only exist if the same […]
5th Mar, 2018

Section 100 of CPC mandates that the substantial question of law be framed at the admission stage of a second appeal

The Supreme Court restated the import of Section 100 of CPC by ruling that the “substantial question of law” which is the very basis of maintainability of a second appeal, is to be framed by […]
5th Mar, 2018

Mention of specific date, day and time of appearance in a summon is a mandatory requirement of Order V Rule 20

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that mentioning of date, day and time of appearance in a summons issued under Order V Rule 20 was a mandatory statutory requirement and not an empty […]
22nd Feb, 2018

Interim order under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 passed by the first appellate court is not appealable under Order 43 as the latter is exhaustive in nature

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court ruled that while entertaining the Regular Civil Appeal, if the First Appellate Court passes interim order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, it […]
1st Feb, 2018

Findings of fact as well as of law of the Arbitrator/ Arbitral Tribunal are ordinarily not amenable to interference under Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that “the finding of facts as well as of law by the Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal is not be interfered with unless the finding is either contrary to […]
1st Feb, 2018

If there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit premises, then any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors. decided on 25.01.2018 that the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make […]
1st Feb, 2018

In a suit under Order XXXVII, the period of Limitation under Article 35 of Limitation Act commences from the date of dishonour of cheque and not from the date of cheque

In a recent judgement, the Delhi High Court held that for the purpose of Article 35 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the cause of action arises not on the date mentioned in the cheque but […]
1st Feb, 2018

Substituted Service is an exception to the normal mode of service hence its compliance must be strictly followed

The Supreme Court held that substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 Code of Civil Procedure is an exception to the normal mode of service. It further held that while ordering substituted service the court […]
22nd Jan, 2018

Admissions in pleadings or judicial admission admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission.

It was held that the object of the First Proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act is to give benefit of those cases where a person has been defrauded or intimidated or there is […]