The Supreme Court affirmed the setting aside of a 1994 compromise decree in a partition suit, holding that Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC requires a written agreement signed by the parties, that an advocate's implied authority does not extend to signing away a client's substantive property rights without express authorisation or exigency, and that a roughly 25-year delay could be excused where a fraudulent compromise decree defeated substantive rights.
The Supreme Court accepted that the correct standard for producing additional documents under Order XI CPC in a commercial suit is 'reasonable cause', not 'sufficient cause' — yet dismissed the appeal, holding that even on that lower threshold there was no justification for a 2023 application to add emails, vendor agreements and server data that were always in the applicant's own possession. The Commercial Courts Act's timelines do not permit a piecemeal approach to evidence, however voluminous the record.
The Supreme Court restored a decree for title and possession, holding that Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC bars only those grounds a plaintiff 'might and ought to have' raised earlier, judged by reasonable diligence against the ambit and nature of the earlier controversy — and that suits to cancel specific sale deeds did not oblige the owner to also litigate his undisputed title to the residual estate.
Setting aside a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment for the second time, the Supreme Court held that a court cannot substitute valuer-assessed compensation for a decree of mandatory injunction that was never sought, cannot direct an Executing Court to 'assess' a value once the underlying decree is gone, and cannot dispose of a second appeal without actually framing and answering substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC.
The Delhi High Court held that a plaintiff who accepts the amount conferred on it under an NCLT-approved resolution plan and then withdraws its connected recovery suit has 'settled' its claim within Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 — and is entitled to a full refund of court fee. A digest of the facts, the holding, and how the Court extended the M.C. Subramaniam line to the insolvency context.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court revived the 'Idhayam' trademark suits, holding that the unauthorised affixing of a registered mark in India on goods meant solely for export is a triable cause of action for infringement. A digest of the facts, the Order VII Rule 11 error, and the export-as-use question under the Trade Marks Act 1999.
A five-judge Constitution Bench overruled the rule in Asian Resurfacing that interim stays lapse automatically after six months. A digest of the holding, the Article 142 limits the Court drew, and what it now means for litigants relying on a High Court stay.
In 2013 the Supreme Court consolidated the scattered principles governing condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act into a single authoritative set of propositions — the standard checklist on what counts as sufficient cause.
On 19 April 2024, a two-judge bench restated the narrow scope of the Order XLVII review jurisdiction, protected reserved forest land against a private title claim, and imposed ₹5 lakh costs recoverable from the officers who filed collusive affidavits.
On 28 March 2018, a three-judge Bench held in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI that interim stays of trial granted by a High Court in civil and criminal proceedings would automatically vacate after six months, unless extended by a speaking order. The rule operated for almost six years before, on 29 February 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UP held it constitutionally unsustainable and overruled it. A digest of both judgments, the practitioner architecture they produced, and the constitutional position that now obtains.