Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for SUSME BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY...

Checking relevance for State Bank of India VS Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch...

Checking relevance for Yash Developers VS Harihar Krupa Co-Operative Housing Society Limited...

Checking relevance for A. P. Paper Mills LTD. VS Govt. of A. P. ...

Checking relevance for Vasantha (Dead) through LRs. VS Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) through LRs. ...

Vasantha (Dead) through LRs. VS Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) through LRs. - 2024 2 Supreme 271 : Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a court shall not make a declaration of title or right where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration, omits to do so. If a suit is filed solely for a declaration of title without seeking consequential relief such as recovery of possession, it is not maintainable and the court cannot proceed with the suit. This principle was affirmed in multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Ram Saran vs. Ganga Devi (1973) 2 SCC 60, Vinay Krishna vs. Keshav Chandra (1993) Supp. (3) SCC 129, and Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran (2017) 3 SCC 702. The court may dismiss such a suit on maintainability grounds, and the plaintiff must amend the plaint to include the consequential relief if they wish to proceed. Therefore, if a suit is hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the SRA, 1963, the court cannot ignore the bar and proceed with the same suit unless the plaintiff amends the plaint to seek additional relief.Checking relevance for Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti VS State Of Maharashtra...

Checking relevance for Frost International Limited VS Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited...

Frost International Limited VS Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited - 2022 4 Supreme 149 : Under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (as amended by Orissa), a revisional court (such as the High Court or District Court) has the power to vary or reverse an order passed in the course of a suit if the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. This power includes the authority to finally dispose of the suit, even if the suit was previously hit by Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which prohibits injunctions to restrain criminal proceedings. The court may proceed with the suit and reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the suit is barred by law (e.g., because it seeks to frustrate criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act), and such rejection constitutes a final disposal of the suit. The revisional court is not precluded from proceeding with the suit and disposing of it on merits, even if the suit is hit by Section 41(d), provided the rejection of the plaint is justified under the law and the revisional power is exercised in accordance with the second proviso to Section 115 CPC.Checking relevance for Management Of M/s Mersen India Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. By Managing Director VS Deputy Labour Commissioner And The Certifying Office Under The IE(SO) Act...

Checking relevance for Rajesh Sharma, S/O Late Sh.Madan Mohan Sharma vs Sub-Registrar - V A (Hauz Khas)...

Checking relevance for Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority...

Checking relevance for Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Commissioner...

Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Commissioner - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4598 : If a suit is hit by SRA 41h (which appears to be a reference to Section 291(a) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as used in the document), the court cannot ignore it and proceed with the same suit. The court has set aside the impugned decisions due to violation of principles of natural justice and non-application of mind, and has remanded the matter for reconsideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. Specifically, the court ordered that the CEO/SRA must afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other respondents before recommending sanction of the new public street to MCGM. This indicates that the court requires compliance with procedural fairness and cannot simply proceed with the same suit without addressing the legal defects identified, particularly the lack of proper consultation and hearing.Checking relevance for Somayya Belchada, S/O Korage Belchada vs Santhosh, S/O Late Gulabi Belachadthi...

Somayya Belchada, S/O Korage Belchada vs Santhosh, S/O Late Gulabi Belachadthi - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 389 : Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a court may make a declaration of title or right in favor of a plaintiff who is entitled to such a legal character or right, even without seeking further relief. However, the court shall not make such a declaration if the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief (such as possession), omits to do so. Therefore, if a suit for mere declaration is filed without seeking consequential relief like possession, the court cannot ignore the procedural defect and must dismiss the suit. The court has no discretion to proceed with a suit that fails to comply with this mandatory condition under Section 34. This principle was reaffirmed in the case where the Second Appeal was allowed because the plaintiffs failed to seek possession despite being entitled to it, rendering the suit for mere declaration un maintainable.Checking relevance for Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. LTD. VS Aksh Optifibre LTD. ...

Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. LTD. VS Aksh Optifibre LTD. - 2005 6 Supreme 15 : Under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court is required to make a prima facie determination on whether an arbitration agreement is ''''null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed'''' before referring parties to arbitration. The court''''s finding at this pre-reference stage is not final or determinative but merely prima facie. This means that even if a court finds the arbitration agreement valid and operative on a prima facie basis, the arbitral tribunal may still re-examine the issue fully during arbitration proceedings. Therefore, if a suit is hit by Section 45, the court cannot ignore the arbitration agreement and proceed with the same suit; instead, it must refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds the agreement invalid on prima facie grounds. However, the court’s decision is not binding on the arbitral tribunal, which retains the power to decide the validity of the agreement afresh after full trial.

• Suitability of ignoring Section 41H of the Specific Relief Act (SRA) - Main points and insights:
• Section 41H of the SRA generally bars courts from proceeding with a suit if there is an alternative remedy available, or if the suit pertains to matters that are already subject to another proceeding or judgment. For example, one source states: The provisions of Section 41h of the Act are not attracted in the present case, as order of Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that plaintiff has the alternative remedy... ["MAHMA SINGH @ MAHA SINGH AND ORS vs GURMEJ SINGH - Punjab and Haryana"].
• Courts may proceed with a suit despite Section 41H if the suit involves specific legal issues or if the court finds that the bar does not apply due to the nature of the matter or procedural irregularities. For instance, the suit was not barred by Section 41H of the Specific Relief Act ["Sundarlata VS Chairman, Municipality, Sadulshahar: - Rajasthan"].

• The appellate courts possess the power to decide on the maintainability of the suit if the issue is purely legal, and they can set aside lower court decisions if they find that Section 41H does not bar the suit. Example: Issue no.9 is a issue of law after evidence because issue no.9 says only that whether plaintiff's suit was not maintainable in view of Section 310 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act read with Section 41H of the Specific Relief Act... The order of the appellate court... is set aside. The plaintiff's suit is decreed ["Sundarlata VS Chairman, Municipality, Sadulshahar: - Rajasthan"].

• Can a court ignore SRA Section 41H and proceed with the same suit? - Analysis and conclusion:

• Courts can proceed with the suit if they determine that the bar under Section 41H is not applicable, especially if the suit involves issues that are not barred by the provision or if the suit falls within exceptions recognized by case law. The courts have the authority to decide on the applicability of Section 41H based on the facts and legal context.
• The decision to ignore or proceed despite Section 41H depends on whether the suit falls within the scope of the bar. For example, in one case, the court explicitly stated: The suit is not hit by the bar of Section 41H ["Sundarlata VS Chairman, Municipality, Sadulshahar: - Rajasthan"].
• Ultimately, the courts have the discretion to ignore Section 41H if they find that the suit involves legal issues that warrant continuation, or if procedural requirements are met, as reflected in the appellate decisions where suits were allowed to proceed despite potential applicability of Section 41H ["Sreekumaran Nair VS Velayudhan Nair - Kerala"], ["MAHMA SINGH @ MAHA SINGH AND ORS vs GURMEJ SINGH - Punjab and Haryana"].

Summary:While Section 41H of the SRA generally bars courts from proceeding with certain suits where alternative remedies exist or where issues are already pending, courts may ignore this provision and proceed if they find that the suit does not violate the section's scope or if the bar is not applicable to the specific facts. The appellate courts have the authority to decide on the maintainability of suits concerning Section 41H, and their discretion depends on the nature of the issues involved ["Sundarlata VS Chairman, Municipality, Sadulshahar: - Rajasthan"].