Code of Civil Procedure 1908 CPC

In Ashok Kumar Kalra v Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri [2019 (4) KLT 790], the Supreme Court (SC) held that while a counterclaim need not always be filed along with the written statement, it must not be entertained once the suit has substantially progressed.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held, in Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal [2025:BHC-AUG:15227], that elderly parents cannot be compelled to let son & daughter-In-law stay in their house against their wishes.

A suit for cancellation of an instrument can only be filed by a person who was a party in the execution of that instrument. A stranger to an instrument cannot sue for cancellation, under The Specific Relief Act, 1973.

The court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder, for attachment to be sold, if the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small. This is not a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the court, says the Supreme Court (SC), in Ambati Narasayya v M. Subba Rao & Another [1990 AIR 119].

The Supreme Court (SC) in Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust & Anr Versus U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Others [2025 INSC 791] enlists essential elements of a legal notice.

The High Court of Kerala in paragraph 19 of the judgement in Shajeev George v The Chief Registrar Of Births And Deaths states that the declaratory decrees can be made by a court only after being satisfied with sufficient proof available on record for declaration of the civil death.

In the issue whether the Principal District Court can modify arbitral awards under Section 34 & Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act) the five member Constitutional Bench  in Gayatri Balasamy v M/S Isg Novasoft Technologies Limited [2025 INSC 605] decided that under the Sections 34 & 37, the Principal District Court has no power to modify the award.

A suit, which was dismissed for default, can be set aside and restored to file under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), on the basis of an application made by the Advocate on the strength of Vakalatnama executed by the plaintiff in his favour in the interest of justice, says the High Court of Kerala in Balakrishnan v Geetha N G.

When a party to the suit denies a lawful compromise, the person has to go back to the Trial Court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1906 ( CPC) and ask that Court to decide whether the compromise is valid, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Sakina Sultanali Sunesara ( Momin) v Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj & Others [2025 INSC 570].

If someone has falsely personated another, and got registered by a registration officer any deed, which is detrimental to the interest of another person, the registration of such deed can be cancelled by the Inspector General of Registration (IG of Registration) in Kerala, under Section 83 A of the Registration Act, 1908.