Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Judgments

Recent judgments citing this act

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Sri Papitla Muthaiah @ Yesu on 07 November, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana7 Nov 2023

   Case Name: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Sri Papitla Muthaiah @ Yesu on 07 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 07 November, 2023 Bench: P. Sam Koshy J and N. Tukaramji J Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Key Legal Propositions 1. Appeals under Section 13 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be withdrawn with the consent of parties. 2. Settlement reached before a Lok Adalat is binding and confirms the award passed by the Tribunal. 3. Withdrawal of an appeal results in its dismissal, with no order as to costs. Judgment Summary Background: The present appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against an award dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, in M.V.O.P.No.371 of 2011. Concurrent petitions for condonation of delay and stay of proceedings were also filed. Held: A. On Appeal Withdrawal: Majority View: The appeal was withdrawn by the Insurance Company following a settlement reached before the Lok Adalat on 09.09.2023. The Lok Adalat award was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Dissenting View: None. B. On Costs: Majority View: There was no order

2. Dr. Chandra Mouli vs. K. Suguna on 20 March, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Mar 2023

   Case Name: Dr. Chandra Mouli vs. K. Suguna on 20 March, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 March, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu Subject: Civil Appeal – Mandatory Injunction, Encroachment, Limitation Key Legal Propositions 1. An appellate court must assign reasons when remanding a matter to the trial court. 2. Remanding a suit for measurement of land is futile if the appointed Commissioner is unable to execute the warrant due to existing structures. 3. A suit for mandatory injunction requires proof of encroachment, and oral evidence alone may be insufficient without corroborating evidence. Judgment Summary Background: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction to remove constructions allegedly encroaching upon her property and for mesne profits. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge reversed the decision and remanded the matter for execution of a commission warrant. The appellant/defendant challenges this remand order. Held: A. On Remand of the Suit & Order XLIII Rule 1(u), Section 104 CPC: Majority View: The Co

3. The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Avula Kalamma on 23 February, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana23 Feb 2023

   Case Name: The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Avula Kalamma on 23 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 23 February, 2023 Bench: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Appeal against award of compensation – Validity of Driver’s License Key Legal Propositions 1. An insurance company is liable to pay compensation even in the absence of a valid driving license held by the driver of the vehicle. 2. The insurance company can recover the paid compensation from the vehicle owner. 3. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in *National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh* govern the liability of the insurance company in such cases. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, awarding Rs. 4,50,000/- to the claimants. The appellant argued that the driver did not possess a valid driving license and therefore, the insurance company was not liable. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court judgment in *National Insurance Compa

4. The State Project Director cum Commissioner Director of, School Education vs T. Ramesh on 28 March, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Mar 2023

   Case Name: The State Project Director cum Commissioner Director of, School Education vs T. Ramesh on 28 March, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 March, 2023 Bench: Ujjai'- Bhuyan, C.J. and N. Tukaramji, J. Subject: Administrative Law, Education Law, Writ Appeal, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Re-engagement of Teachers. Key Legal Propositions 1. A writ appeal becomes infructuous when the academic year to which it pertains has concluded and the benefit of the order has already been extended to the concerned parties. 2. Courts may dispose of appeals as infructuous while reserving the right of parties to seek redressal for future grievances. 3. Disposal of a writ appeal as infructuous does not preclude the closure of any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the same matter. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a common order dated 20.11.2015 passed by a learned Single Judge, which set aside proceedings directing the non-re-engagement of Inclusive Education Resource Teachers for the academic year 2015-16. A Division Bench had previously disposed of similar writ appeals as infructuous with liberty to parties to address

5. Kishore kumar vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 19 October, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana19 Oct 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. 2. 3. Judgment Summary Background: This Writ Appeal pertains to a challenge against an order dated 14 February 2008 in WP No. 11263 of 2000, concerning the potential demolition of a property. An interim prayer for stay of demolition was also filed (I.A. No. 1 of 2008). Held: A. On Non-Prosecution: Majority View: The Writ Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's counsel stating they had no instructions to argue the matter. All miscellaneous petitions were also closed. Dissenting View: None. B. On Stay of Demolition: Majority View: Not addressed as the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Dissenting View: None. C. On Costs: Majority View: No costs were awarded. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs awarded and all pending miscellaneous petitions closed. --- Additional Required Fields Case Title: Kishore kumar vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 19 October, 2023 Keywords: writ appeal, non-prosecution, dismissal, demolition, stay, high court, municipal corporation, property, legal representation Case Ty

6. B.Thukaram vs The Secunderabad Club on 15 March, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana15 Mar 2023

   Case Name: B.Thukaram vs The Secunderabad Club on 15 March, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 15 March, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A. Santhosh Reddy Subject: Civil Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution does not attract costs. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed upon dismissal of the appeal. Judgment Summary Background: This is a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against a judgment and decree dated 02.01.2000. The appeal was preferred against the decree in O.S.No.598 of 1996. Held: A. On Appeal for Non-Prosecution: Majority View: The Court dismissed the Second Appeal for non-prosecution due to the appellant's lack of interest in pursuing the matter, despite listing it under the caption "for dismissal." Dissenting View: None. B. On Costs: Majority View: The Court ordered no costs to be awarded. Dissenting View: None. C. On Pending Applications: Majority View: Any pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand closed. Dissenting V

7. The State of Telangana vs P Venkata Ramana on 04 September, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. 2. 3. Judgment Summary Background: The State of Telangana filed a Writ Appeal against an order dated 27.11.2022 passed in W.P. No. 1826 of 2019. A Miscellaneous Petition seeking suspension of the impugned order was also filed. Held: A. On Withdrawal of Appeal: Majority View: The Court granted permission to the appellants (State of Telangana) to withdraw the Writ Appeal with liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law. Dissenting View: None. B. On Miscellaneous Petition: Majority View: Any pending Miscellaneous Petitions were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Costs: Majority View: There shall be no order as to costs. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue legal remedies. --- Additional Required Fields Case Title: The State of Telangana vs P Venkata Ramana on 04 September, 2023 Keywords: writ appeal, withdrawal, liberty to pursue remedies, school education, government pleader, miscellaneous petition, high court, telangana Case Type: Writ Appeal Sections and Acts Mentioned: 151 CPC

8. National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research vs Tholu Hemanth Kumar on 29 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana29 Aug 2023

   Case Name: National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research vs Tholu Hemanth Kumar on 29 August, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 29 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti Subject: Service Law, Employment, Selection Process, Right to Information Act Key Legal Propositions 1. A selection process as outlined in a notification must be strictly adhered to; deviations are impermissible. 2. A Selection Committee’s decision finding no candidates suitable must be based on a proper evaluation of all candidates as per the prescribed procedure. 3. An employer cannot unilaterally alter the rules of a selection process once it has commenced, even if attempting to comply with a court order. Judgment Summary Background: The Writ Appeal arises from a Single Judge’s order directing the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) to consider a candidate (Respondent No.1) for appointment to the post of Accountant, finding the initial non-selection contrary to the employment notification. NIPER argued the Selection Committee found no candidates suitable, and the R

9. United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Shaik Raheem on 25 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana25 Jul 2023

   Case Name: United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Shaik Raheem on 25 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 25 July, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu Subject: Motor Accident Claims Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be disposed of through settlement at a Lok Adalat. 2. A Lok Adalat award is binding and operates as a decree, resolving the dispute between parties. 3. Pending miscellaneous petitions in an appeal are automatically closed upon disposal of the main appeal. Judgment Summary Background: This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACMA) filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against an order and decree dated 15 February 2018 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam. A petition seeking a stay of further proceedings was also filed. Held: A. On Appeal Disposal: Majority View: The appeal was disposed of in terms of the award passed by the Lok Adalat on 10 June 2023, having been referred to Lok Adalat during pendency. No order as to costs was passed. Dissenting View: None. B. On Pending Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: All pending miscellaneous petitions in the appeal

10. K. Ravinder vs The State of Telangana on 04 September, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Sept 2023

    Case Name: K. Ravinder vs The State of Telangana on 04 September, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 04 September, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti Subject: Service Law – Suspension of Employee – Payment of Subsistence Allowance – Illegality Key Legal Propositions 1. An employee cannot be continued under suspension without payment of subsistence allowance, rendering the suspension order illegal. 2. Failure to conclude a departmental enquiry within a reasonable time, despite court directions, reinforces the illegality of continued suspension. 3. Consistent application of pay scales to similarly situated employees is a principle of fairness in employment matters. Judgment Summary Background: The Writ Appeal arises from a challenge to a Single Judge’s order disposing of a Writ Petition concerning the suspension of the Appellant, a Chief Executive Officer of a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. The Appellant was suspended on allegations of financial irregularities, and the Single Judge directed the respondents to conclude an enquiry. The Appellant contended that the suspension wa

11. Danam Laxmareddy @ Danam Laxmappa vs Danam Mahesh & Ors. on 21 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana21 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Danam Laxmareddy @ Danam Laxmappa vs Danam Mahesh & Ors. on 21 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 21 February, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao Subject: Criminal Revision, Maintenance Petition, Lok Adalat Award, Interim Maintenance Key Legal Propositions 1. A compromise reached before a Lok Adalat, while generally akin to a civil court decree, does not automatically preclude a subsequent claim for maintenance if the original settlement did not explicitly address maintenance for minor children. 2. Courts have the discretion to grant interim maintenance to minor children, even after a previous settlement, if their needs are not adequately addressed by the prior agreement. 3. The scope of a Lok Adalat award is limited to the terms explicitly agreed upon by the parties; it does not operate as a comprehensive resolution of all potential claims. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Case arises from an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodangal, regarding a maintenance petition (M.C. No. 19 of 2015) filed on behalf of minor children. The petitioner/respondent (Danam Laxmareddy)

12. P. Moses (died) per LRs vs P. Samuel Kumar & Ors on 14 September, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana14 Sept 2023

    Case Name: P. Moses (died) per LRs vs P. Samuel Kumar & Ors on 14 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 14 September, 2023 Bench: Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Civil Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC can be filed against a judgment and decree. 2. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed upon disposal of the main appeal. 3. The Court can direct parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings, including the final decree. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal suit arises from a common judgment and decree dated 30 March 2009, in O.P. No. 761 of 2000 and O.S. No. 111 of 2002, passed by the XVII Additional Chief Judge, cum III Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appeal was filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the CPC. An application for stay of proceedings was also filed (I.A. No. 1 of 2009). Held: A. On Appeal Suit No. 345 of 2009: Majority View: The Appeal Suit is disposed of with a direction to the parties to appear before the trial court to proceed with the final decree. No costs were awarded. Dissenting View: None. B. On I.A.

13. Smt C. Mallika & Sri C. Venugopal vs Sullur Siva Kumar Reddy & Ors on 09 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Prolonged pendency of an appeal, coupled with the appellant’s lack of interest in prosecution, justifies dismissal for default. 2. A court may dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution despite requests for adjournment when the appellant fails to demonstrate genuine effort to engage counsel or pursue the matter. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements of Order 41 CPC is essential, but the court retains discretion to dismiss for default in the face of consistent non-prosecution. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal (CCCA No. 270 of 2004) stemmed from a judgment dated 14.06.2004 of the Court of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellants, Smt. C. Mallika and Sri C. Venugopal, had filed the original suit. The respondents are Sullur Siva Kumar Reddy, Kalvala Kondaiah, and Mr. R. Narayana. The appeal had been pending for nearly two decades. Counsel for the appellants repeatedly sought adjournments citing lack of contact with the clients, and ultimately filed a memo stating the clients were not evincing interest. Counsel for the respondents urged the court for disposal of the app

14. Anjaiah, S/o. Vittal Das vs Ramesh Rao, S/o. Shesha Rao on 10 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Anjaiah, S/o. Vittal Das vs Ramesh Rao, S/o. Shesha Rao on 10 February, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 10 February, 2023 Bench: Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy Subject: Civil Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. A suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession requires the plaintiff to establish their own title, and failure to do so warrants dismissal of the suit. 2. A suit can be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, particularly when other legal heirs are not included. 3. Pleading adverse possession and title simultaneously is not permissible, and the claimant must choose one. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of land. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a prior civil court decree and alleged permissive possession, while the defendants asserted ownership through purchase and long-term possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. Held: A. On Issue of Limitation & Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties: Majority View: The Court held that the suit was barred by limitation and was not maintainable du

15. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Susheela Bai and Anr. on 31 August, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana31 Aug 2023

    Case Name: The National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Susheela Bai and Anr. on 31 August, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana Date of Judgment: 31 August, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice M.G. Priyadarsini Subject: Workmen’s Compensation Act – Appeal against award – Employee-Employer Relationship – Quantum of Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. The Workmen’s Compensation Act (now Employees’ Compensation Act) is a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interests of employees. 2. In appeals under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the High Court is limited to examining substantial questions of law and not questions of fact. 3. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is the final authority on facts, and the High Court will not interfere with findings of fact unless there is a clear error of law. Judgment Summary Background: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises from an award dated 21.06.2001 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in W.C. No. 10 of 2000. The appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd., challenges the award, alleging errors in determining the employee-employer relationship and the quantum of compensation. The claim originated

16. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs. SAMPATI SRINU & ANR. on 27 March, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Mar 2023

    Case Name: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs. SAMPATI SRINU & ANR. on 27 March, 2023 Court: HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD Date of Judgment: 27 March, 2023 Bench: Single Judge - Justice M. Laxman Subject: Workmen’s Compensation Act – Appeal – Settlement – Lok Adalat Award Key Legal Propositions 1. Parties may settle disputes out of court, leading to the disposal of pending appeals. 2. Appeals can be disposed of in terms of an award passed by a Lok Adalat. 3. Withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant results in its dismissal, potentially confirming the lower court's order. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arose from an order dated 22.10.2010 in Workmen’s Compensation Case No. 110 of 2008. The Appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., filed the appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The dispute involved compensation for an injured lorry driver, Sampati Sinu. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. Held: A. On Disposal of Appeal: Majority View: The Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 11.02.2023. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were clos

17. M/s. Orugallu Darries and Carpet Manufacturers vs M/s. Suresh Yarn Trading Co. on 29 August, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana29 Aug 2023

    Case Name: M/s. Orugallu Darries and Carpet Manufacturers vs M/s. Suresh Yarn Trading Co. on 29 August, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 29 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Sarath Subject: Civil Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution/default when there is no representation from the appellant. 2. A court may direct listing a matter “for dismissal” if no representation appears on a specified date. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications in an appeal are closed upon dismissal of the appeal. Judgment Summary Background: This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against a judgment and decree dated 05-11-2002 in O.S.No. 33 of 1993. A petition for stay of proceedings was also filed (I.A. No. 1 of 2003). The matter was listed for dismissal due to the appellant’s lack of representation. Held: A. On Appeal Dismissal: Majority View: The appeal (CCCA No. 198 of 2003) was dismissed for non-prosecution/default due to the appellant’s continued lack of representation. Dissenting View: None. B. On Miscellaneous Applications: Majority View: All pending miscellaneous applicat

18. Shaik Habeeb Ahmed vs. S. Venkateswarlu on 01 September, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana1 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Shaik Habeeb Ahmed vs. S. Venkateswarlu on 01 September, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 01 September, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy Subject: Civil Revision Petition – Execution Proceedings – Arbitration Award Key Legal Propositions 1. An arbitration award, if unchallenged, is enforceable through execution proceedings. 2. Findings in a criminal case have no bearing on execution proceedings stemming from an arbitration award. 3. A Civil Revision Petition lacking merit is liable to be rejected. Judgment Summary Background: The Civil Revision Petition challenges an order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in E.P. No. 1 of 2018 in ABR No. 113 of 2017. The petition seeks a stay of further proceedings in the execution petition based on an arbitration award. Held: A. On Enforceability of Arbitration Award: Majority View: The Court held that since the arbitration award dated 22.07.2017 has not been challenged, it is enforceable. Allowing a challenge to the execution proceedings at this juncture, in the absence of a challenge to the award itself, would be improp

19. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. FlqQne S!ygq on 01 October, 2012

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana1 Oct 2012

    Case Name: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. FlqQne S!ygq on 01 October, 2012 Court: High Court of Telangana Date of Judgment: 21 December, 2023 Bench: Alok Aradhe, CJ and Anil Kumar Jukanti, J. Subject: Land Acquisition, Writ Appeal, Delay and Laches, Compensation, Title Dispute Key Legal Propositions 1. Revenue records are not conclusive proof of title and cannot be treated as documents of title. 2. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary, and courts may refuse relief to a party who has unduly delayed pursuing their rights (delay and laches). 3. A long, unexplained delay in pursuing legal remedies can be a ground for denying relief, even if some evidence supports the claim. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals arise from a common order dated 01.10.2012 in W.P.No.24882 of 2011 concerning land acquisition and compensation. The petitioner (in W.A.No.955/2013) claimed to be the grandson of the legal heir of the original landowner and sought compensation for land allegedly allotted by the State Government to economically weaker sections. The State Government (appellant in W.A.No.1309/2013) appealed against the Single Judge’s directio

20. M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs M/s Hari Traders on 21 September, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana21 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution/default when there is no representation from the appellant despite multiple opportunities granted. 2. Pending miscellaneous applications are automatically dismissed upon dismissal of the main appeal. 3. No costs are awarded in cases of dismissal for non-prosecution/default. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal (CCCA No. 312 of 2003) stemmed from a judgment and decree dated 27 February 2002 in O.S. No. 649 of 1991, originating from the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant, M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, filed the appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. A petition for stay of the judgment and decree was also filed (I.A. No. 1 of 2004). Held: A. On Appeal Dismissal: Majority View: The Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution/default due to the consistent absence of representation for the appellant despite multiple listings and requests for adjournment. Dissenting View: None. B. On Pending Applications: Majority View: All pending miscellaneous applications were directed to be dismissed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Cos

Search all 50,194 judgments →