APTEL
LEGAL SUBJECT
Civil Procedure and Evidence
Judgment analyses where this is the main or secondary subject.Latest analyses
30 ARTICLES
Delhi High Court
A party cannot defeat execution of a settlement through unsupported claims or unilateral alteration.
The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 30 November 2015 concerning division of property bearing Nos. B-2 and B-3, Main Market, Gokapuri, Delhi.3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Interim injunctions blocking foreign divorce proceedings are appealable under the Family Courts Act, Delhi High Court rules
The Petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Family Court’s order dated 25 March 2026 granting an ad-interim anti-suit injunction against him.3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Mere allegation of enemy-property vesting neither ousts Rent Controller jurisdiction nor defeats eviction.
The Petitioners challenged the order dated 26 May 2026 of the learned ARC-02, Central District, Delhi, whereby their application for leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order was passed under Section 14(1)(e...4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Grant of leave to defend does not preclude eviction upon adjudication of bona fide requirement.
The Petitioner-tenant challenged the judgment dated 24.04.2023 of the learned ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, which allowed the Respondent-landlord’s eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(e...4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Section 25B(8) revision cannot substitute the Rent Controller’s factual assessment absent jurisdictional error.
The Petitioners challenged, under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), the judgment dated 17 February 2026 by which the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed their evic...3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Section 25B(8) revision is confined to jurisdictional errors and does not permit reappreciation of evidence.
The Petitioner-tenant challenged, under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), the order dated 19 February 2026 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (West), Delhi, in ARC No...4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Section 25-B(8) revision does not permit factual reappreciation absent manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity.
The petitioner-tenant challenged, under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), the eviction order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ, North-East Distric...4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
A former director lacks locus standi to challenge winding-up orders in his individual capacity.
The appellant, V.K. Sharma, preferred an appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order dated 1 July 2026 passed by the Company Judge.4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Unreasoned ex parte Section 17 status quo orders passed without demonstrated urgency cannot stand.
The National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) awarded the respondent an Engineering, Procurement and Construction contract dated 19 January 2024 for construction of a section of the Vadodara–Mumbai Expressway in G...4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Fresh Section 21 arbitration notice not required after award is set aside, Delhi High Court rules
The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with the Union of India.3 MIN READ↗
Supreme Court
Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a coercive mechanism for recovering money in civil disputes.
The second respondent alleged that he was induced to pay ₹10 lakhs in two instalments during 2019–2020 towards the purchase of a flat, but neither received the flat nor obtained a refund. He further alleged that the a...3 MIN READ↗
Supreme Court
An appellate court must decide every Order XLI Rule 27 application before final judgment.
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 instituted O.S. No. 485 of 1999, subsequently renumbered as O.S. No. 86 of 2006, before the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties des...3 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Mere adverse revenue entries do not trigger limitation for declaration absent a clear and unequivocal threat.
The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of land bearing Sy. No. 143, formerly Sy. No. 92/3, measuring 4 acres 11 guntas at Managi Village, Sira Taluk, asserting that it had been granted to him in 1951 and subse...4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Union of India’s unilateral arbitrator appointment void without express waiver; Delhi HC sets aside awardરની
The Union of India invited bids for the supply of malted milk food with cocoa for defence procurement.4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
A suit may be decreed under Order XXIII Rule 3 on lawful settlement terms filed under seal.
The plaintiff, M/s. Vaishno Enterprises, and the defendant, M/s. Hamilton Medical AG, reached an out-of-court settlement recorded in a Settlement Agreement dated 1 August 2026.3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Mere non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot disprove bona fide passenger status.
The deceased, Rajeev, allegedly purchased a valid journey ticket from Dankaur to Ghaziabad and travelled by Train No. 64107, later corrected to Train No. 64152, on 14 November 2018.4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Employer-employee disputes fall outside the Commercial Courts Act; plaints must be returned, not dismissed.
The Appellant was appointed as Senior Manager/General Manager of Hintek Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on 1 August 2016.3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
MACT must allow impleadment and evidence on composite negligence in head-on collision cases.
On 6 October 2021, a scooter driven by Pulkit, with Ranjeet as pillion rider, collided with truck No. DL-1MA-2953, resulting in Ranjeet’s death.3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Written-statement limitation in commercial suits begins upon complete service of summons, not appearance.
BC Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the order dated 12 May 2026 passed by the District Judge, Commercial Court-02, North-West, Rohini Courts in CS(CO...2 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Failure to adjudicate material contentions vitiates an eviction order and warrants remand under Section 25B(8).
Absterge Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. initiated an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against Masihi Sahitya Sanstha concerning the tenanted premises.3 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court holds injunction breaches under Order XXXIX Rule 2A are judged on a high civil standard, not beyond reasonable doubt; directs Khadi body to pay ₹2.5 lakh costs
The Khadi & Village Industries Commission (“KVIC”) obtained an interim injunction dated 14 December 2022 restraining the Mumbai Khadi & Village Industries Association (“MKVIA”), its representatives and persons acting...5 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
A charge-sheet reply’s admission remains admissible despite the domestic enquiry being vitiated.
The Appellant was appointed as a Sales Clerk with the Delhi State Co-operative Union Ltd. in 1971.4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Motor accident compensation must apply the multiplier based on the deceased’s age, not the mother’s age.
On 14 July 2015 at approximately 5:20 p.m., the deceased, Sakib, aged 20 years, was travelling by motorcycle from Noida to Delhi with Vikar Ahmad when a DTC bus bearing registration no. DL-IPC-8903 struck the motorcyc...3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Functional disability must reflect occupational earning loss, not mechanically halve limb disability.
The appellant, Kuldeep, sustained injuries in a motor accident in 2011 and suffered permanent disability assessed at 50% in relation to his left upper limb.3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Liability for an accident caused by a minor driver rests with the vehicle owner.
On 30 November 2006, Parvati was crossing a road near Rama Park when motorcycle No. DL-4SAL-8316, driven by the appellant Karan Sharma, struck her. She sustained serious injuries and died on 5 December 2006.3 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 relief may preserve hypothecated assets, but cannot routinely secure monetary claims.
Tata Capital Limited advanced financial facilities to the respondents for purchasing construction equipment. The parties executed Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024, under which the equipment was...5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 permits receivership to preserve hypothecated assets, but not routine attachment securing monetary claims.
Tata Capital Limited financed the respondents’ purchase of construction equipment under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024.5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 permits receivership to preserve hypothecated movable assets, but not routine security for monetary claims.
Tata Capital Limited sanctioned construction-equipment finance to the respondents under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024. The respondents agreed to repay the loans in instalments and created a f...5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 permits receivership to preserve hypothecated movable assets, but not routine security for monetary claims.
Tata Capital Limited financed the respondents’ purchase of construction equipment under Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024.5 MIN READ↗No articles match these filters.