Judgments - Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
Bhikam Singh and Others vs. Ranveer Singh & Others
M/s Fives Stein India Project Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Versus State of M.P. and others
Law laid down - 1. The expression “shall” is not conclusive to determine the provision as directory or mandatory. The Court is required to ascertain the real intention of the Legislature which will include the examination, nature and design of the statute and the consequences. 2. In all cases, failure to perform a duty within the time limit, does not render the action a nullity. Where a provision lays down a period within which the public body should perform any function, the provision Full Judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Ramlal Mahobia
Law Laid Down - The question of award of interest by the writ court is not controlled or regulated by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is the Interest Act, 1978, which empowers the Court to allow interest but at the rate not exceeding the current rate of interest in terms of Section 2(b) of the said Act. After discharging duties as an employee, it is the right of the employee to get salary; therefore, if the salary Full Judgment
Veerendra Pratap Singh Versus Sanjaya Kumar Tibude
Law laid down - Amendment application based on subsequent developments can be allowed at any stage of the trial or appeal, if the same does not cause prejudice to the other side. The cross objection in the appeal against appellate order can be made. In cross objection a decree can be passed. The cross objection takes the place of appeal after it is filed. Suit for declaration of title filed without claiming a alternative relief of possession, the suit would not be barred Full Judgment
Aram Bai vs. Pratap Singh (Dead) through Lrs & Others
Motilal Gupta Versus Gaya Prasad (since deceased) and others
Law laid down - It is no longer res integra that an executing Court can neither travel behind decree nor sit in appeal over the same. It is only in limited cases where the decree is passed by a Court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus un- executable. An erroneous decree cannot be equalled with one which is nullity. Full Judgment
Kalabai Versus Smt. Devantin Bai
USHA BATRA Vs. M/S OMBIR CREATION PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Vs. Ghyanshyam Das Dwivedi
Kishorilal Dubey Vs. Premchand Shrivastava (deceased) through L.Rs. Smt.Shail Shrivastava & Others
Law laid down - "Whether the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act can be given to the respondents when the earlier suit was decided by the Court who is competent to decide the same" Held - No. “Whether when the earlier suit was decided on merits, the subsequent suit for the same relief is maintainable.” Held- No. Full Judgment
Northern Coal Fields Limited & others vs M/s Sainik Mining Allied Services Limited
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sangita & Anr
Jehangir D. Mehta Vs. The Real Nayak Sakh Sahkari Maryadit and Another
Law laid down - The order or decision of the arbitration council under Section 57 of the Madhya Pradesh Swayatta Sahakarita Adhiniyam, 1999 is an arbitration award and it is not a decree passed by the civil court as defined under Section 2(2) of the CPC, hence the stamp duty as required by the Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 is payable for its execution. Full Judgment