- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
Introduction In this 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that a compromise decree passed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can only be challenged by filing a recall application before the same court. A separate suit challenging the validity of the compromise on the ground of coercion or fraud is barred under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC. Order 23 Rule 3 CPC – Compromise of suit. Order 23 Rule 3A CPC – Bar to....
Read MoreBench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan Introduction The Supreme Court, in this matrimonial dispute, quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against the parents-in-law of the complainant-wife. The Court emphasized the need for courts to be cautious while accepting allegations at face value, especially when made after years of marriage and in the backdrop of divorce litigation. It held that generic and delayed allegations against relatives should not result in criminal trials unless supported by specific instances of cruelty....
Read MoreBench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Introduction: The Supreme Court in this case reaffirmed that the principle of res judicata applies to criminal proceedings, especially when findings of fact have been recorded by a criminal court in a prior adjudication on merits. The Court held that re-litigation of the same issue in subsequent criminal proceedings is barred, and continuing such proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law. Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908....
Read MoreBench: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be used to challenge the final judgment of the Supreme Court itself. The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial finality, the doctrine of res judicata, and the structured remedies of review and curative petition provided under the Constitution. Facts of the Case The petitioners were retired government employees who were denied pensionary benefits under....
Read Morethe Bench Comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti Introduction This Supreme Court judgment deals with the interpretation of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, focusing on when the limitation period begins in suits for declaration. The Court clarified that limitation begins when the cause of action first arises, not when the plaintiff acquires “full knowledge” of the dispute. The judgment also reiterates the principle that a time-barred suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC,....
Read MoreBench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta Introduction The Supreme Court, in this significant judgment, set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant in a child rape and murder case. The Court found grave procedural irregularities during the trial, including the illegal admission of confessional statements and lapses in the handling and proof of DNA evidence. The ruling reaffirms the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving capital punishment. Indian Penal....
Read MoreIntroduction: The Supreme Court, in this case, interpreted Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, emphasizing that a judgment on admission can be passed even dehors (outside) the pleadings, and that such power can be exercised suo moto by the Court without a formal application. Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on admissions Order X Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Examination of parties Facts of the Case: The petitioner’s father was a tenant of the....
Read MoreIntroduction The Supreme Court of India clarified the interpretation of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected merely because one of the reliefs sought is barred by law, as long as other reliefs are maintainable and within the jurisdiction of the civil court. Facts of the Case The plaintiff (Smt. Prabha Jain) filed a civil suit seeking three distinct reliefs concerning a property mortgaged to the Central Bank....
Read MoreBench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan Introduction: The Supreme Court held that a civil suit can be dismissed as time-barred even if no specific issue of limitation was framed during trial. The Court emphasized the mandatory duty cast on courts by Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to reject any suit filed beyond the limitation period, irrespective of whether the defendant raised it in the pleadings. Section 3, Limitation Act, 1963 – Bar of limitation to be considered....
Read MoreBench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan Introduction: The Supreme Court in this case dealt with the validity of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The key question was whether such clauses are barred by law, especially when there is a disparity in bargaining power between an employer and an employee. The Court held that exclusive jurisdiction clauses are valid as long as they do not absolutely bar access to....
Read More
