Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1,350 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1–200.

KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS.versusNANJUNDASWAMY & ORS.

2023 INSC 96431 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, members of a joint family, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of family properties listed in Schedules A and B, alleging that earlier 'nominal' sale deeds were merely temporary financing measures and that the family retained possession. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Orde

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWALversusSTATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.

2023 INSC 96331 October 2023Dismissed

A batch of five review petitions was filed challenging the Supreme Court's common judgment and order dated 06‑09‑2022 in Civil Appeals No. 1661 of 2020 and No. 2568 of 2020, which interpreted the interplay between Section 48 of the Gujarat Value‑Added Tax Act, 2003 and Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. ANR.versusASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

2019 INSC 8131 August 2016Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court examined whether the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (the 1993 Act) applies retrospectively to supply orders placed before its commencement on 23‑09‑1992. The Court held that the Act is prospective, its liability arising only after the buyer

HUSSAINBHAI ALLARAKHBHAI DARIAYA & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2010 INSC 55831 August 2010Dismissed

The Samast Sunni Muslim Jamat filed a suit seeking ownership of land, which was partially decreed by the trial court. The Jamat filed an appeal, but withdrew it through a pursis citing a compromise agreement that was actually between two community groups, not the parties to the suit. The first appellate court disposed

JAMES JOSEPHversusSTATE OF KERALA

2010 INSC 56431 August 2010Dismissed

The State of Kerala issued a notification to declare certain lands as revenue forest, which the appellant's predecessor claimed title to. The Forest Settlement Officer rejected the claim, but the Additional District Judge allowed it on appeal under Section 11 of the Kerala Forest Act. The State appealed to the High Cou

C.S. MANI (DECEASED) BY LR C.S. DHANAPALANversusB. CHINNASAMY NAIDU (DECEASED) BY LRS.

2010 INSC 56531 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant obtained a money decree against Mokshammal, an agriculturist, and had his property attached on 29‑12‑1974. The Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975 (Debt Relief Act) came into force on 10‑1‑1975, and under its Section 4 the execution against agriculturists was stayed; the execut

ASHOK KUMARversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

2023 INSC 65931 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Ashok Kumar, the owner of a insured truck, filed a consumer complaint after his vehicle was stolen on 26 June 2008. The insurer, New India Assurance, repudiated the claim on the grounds of alleged breaches of policy conditions 1 (delay in intimation) and 5 (leaving the key in the vehicle). The original complaint filed

RAJA VENKATESWARLU & ANR.versusMADA VENKATA SUBBAIAB & ANR.

2017 INSC 68931 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants obtained a final decree for a permanent injunction and applied to the Execution Court for its enforcement, seeking police protection under Section 151 of the CPC. The Execution Court granted the protection, but the High Court set aside the order, holding that the application should have been filed under

STATE BANK OF INDIA THR. GENERAL MANAGERversusNATIONAL HOUSING BANK & ORS.

2013 INSC 50431 July 2013Disposed off

The National Housing Bank (NHB) sued State Bank of Saurashtra (later merged with SBI) for recovery of a large cheque amount, alleging that the cheque was drawn for the purchase of IRFC bonds and that the defendant had misappropriated the funds. The case was tried before a Special Court established under the Special Cou

K. L. SUNEJA & ANRversusDR. (MRS.) MANJEET KAUR MONGA (D) THROUGH HER LR & ANR

2023 INSC 8931 January 2023Disposed off

The case concerned a flat purchase where the buyer paid seven instalments totalling Rs 4,53,750, but the developer cancelled the allotment in April 2005 and issued a pay order for refund. The buyer filed a complaint under the MRTP Act (later transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal) seeking possession of the f

AJAY DABRAversusPYARE RAM & ORS.

2023 INSC 9031 January 2023Dismissed

Ajay Dabra filed suits for specific performance of two agreements for the sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh, where the original seller had contracted with Himalayan Ski Village Pvt. Ltd., a non‑agriculturist. The sale was conditional on obtaining permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy

M/S MONGIA REALTY AND BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITEDversusMANIK SETHI

2022 INSC 12231 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Mongia Realty and Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) sued Manik Sethi (respondent) for recovery of alleged business loans, claiming the loans were repayable within one year of the last instalment and that the suit was filed within the limitation period. The respondent denied any loan relationship, asserting the payments w

GHAT TALAB KAULAN WALAversusBABA GOPAL DASS CHELA SURTI DASS (DEAD) BY LR RAM NIWAS

2020 INSC 12331 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala Trust, sued the sevadar Baba Gopal Dass for a mandatory injunction to remove him from managing the temple and its properties. The trial court denied the injunction but ordered rendition of accounts; the first appellate court decreed in favour of the trust. The High Court set aside

SHRI RAJENDRA LALITKUMAR AGRAWALversusSMT. RATNA ASHOK MURANJAN & ANR.

2019 INSC 12131 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 08‑08‑1984, which the trial court decreed in his favour. The first appellate court reversed that decree, dismissing the suit, and the plaintiff appealed to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that it did not raise an

AMBADAS KHANDUJI SHINDE & ORS.versusASHOK SADASHIV MAMURKAR & ORS.

2017 INSC 8231 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords filed a suit for recovery of possession of a shop on the ground of bona‑fide need to start a kirana business for their unemployed sons, alleging willful default and change of usage by the tenants. The trial court and the first appellate court upheld the landlords' claim, finding a genuine need and grantin

M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHERversusATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

2023 INSC 104230 November 2023Dismissed

The dispute involved a property originally leased to Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company, whose lease expired on 31‑12‑1997. The respondent, the absolute owner, filed a suit in 2006 seeking possession of the property, which was decreed in 2010, but did not claim damages for the period of unlawful occupatio

ELDECO HOUSING AND INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusASHOK VIDYARTHI AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 104330 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, ELDECO Housing, filed a suit for specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 31‑08‑1998 concerning the sale of a property, after learning that the vendor was attempting to sell to third parties. The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking dismissal of

ANIL KUMAR SINGHversusV!JAY PAL SINGH & ORS.

2017 INSC 116130 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Anil Kumar Singh filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction over a parcel of land and obtained an ex‑parte temporary injunction. He later filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC seeking to withdraw the suit, which the trial court allowed subject to payment of Rs 350 as costs to the defendant, a deci

ARUN LAL & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2010 INSC 83530 November 2010Dismissed

The Government of India had granted 3.563 acres of land in the Agra Cantonment to Hamid Ali Khan, who built a bungalow and later sold it with its appurtenant land to the petitioners. The petitioners sued the Union of India for arrears of rent, damages, and vacant possession of the bungalow and the surrounding land, whi

PRADEEP MEHRAversusHARIJIVAN J. JETHWA (SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.) & ORS.

2023 INSC 95830 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landlord, obtained a consent decree in 2005 allowing eviction of the respondents, tenants, upon default of rent. After the tenants defaulted, the executing court on 12 February 2013 ordered execution of the decree. Four years later the tenants filed an application before the same executing court seekin

JAGDISH SINGHversusHEERALAL AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 73430 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of India advanced a loan secured by equitable mortgages on several properties, the title deeds of which were deposited with the bank. After the borrowers defaulted, the bank invoked the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and aucti

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.versusJHABUA POWER LIMITED AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 76830 September 2024Disposed off

The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) procured power through competitive bidding but accepted tariffs and quantities that deviated from standard bidding guidelines, leading to the execution of Power Supply Agreements (PSAs) for 865 MW. KSEB sought approval of these PSAs from the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory

C.S. RAMASWAMYversusV. K. SENTHIL & ORS

2022 INSC 104630 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed suits in 2015‑2016 to cancel sale deeds executed in 2005, alleging fraud. The defendant moved to reject the plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, contending the suits were barred by the 10‑year limitation period. The trial court and High Court refused to reject the plaints, holding that li

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusRAVIN CABLES LTD., AND ANR

2022 INSC 105030 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Sanghi Industries Ltd invoked performance bank guarantees issued by Ravin Cables Ltd in respect of three purchase orders and subsequently commenced arbitration. Ravin Cables filed two applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before Commercial Courts seeking to secure the disputed amoun

PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) BY LRS. & ANRversusJOSE FRANCISCO PINTO & ANR.

2021 INSC 58130 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an elder brother, purchased the southern half of a family property from his younger brother by a registered sale deed that recorded a nominal consideration of Rs 3,000, after paying Rs 12,000 to discharge the brother’s debts and avert a court‑ordered auction. The brother and his wife later claimed the de

ARUN DEV UPADHYAYAversusINTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD & ANR.

2016 INSC 120330 September 2016Dismissed

Arun Dev Upadhyaya appealed against a judgment of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court that enforced an international arbitration award against one of the respondents but not the other. The appeal raised the question of whether a Letters Patent appeal could be filed before the Division Bench under the Commercial C

SYED ZAINUL ABEDEENversusTHE RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKF

2019 INSC 98030 August 2019Dismissed

The appellant sought a declaration that a property, which had been surveyed and listed as "Wakf‑Al‑Allah" and published in the Official Gazette on 2 December 1965, was in fact "Wakf‑Al‑Aulad". He filed a suit under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 on 17 January 1967, more than one year after the Gazette publication, con

BUOY SINHA ROY (D) BY LR.versusBISWANATH DAS & ORS.

2017 INSC 82630 August 2017Disposed off

The appellant's wife died after a hysterectomy performed at a nursing home that lacked ICU facilities, despite her having uncontrolled high blood pressure and severe anemia. The appellant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence for proceeding with surgery without stabilisin

BAL GOPAL MAHESHWARI & ORSversusSANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA

2013 INSC 57930 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, landlords, filed an eviction suit against the respondent tenant for non-payment of rent. The tenant filed his written statement after the prescribed period and failed to deposit the rent as required, prompting the plaintiffs to invoke Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the defence st

RAJAN PUROHIT & ORS.versusRAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE & ORS.

2012 INSC 36330 August 2012Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined admissions to a private unaided medical college in Rajasthan where 117 students were admitted without a competitive entrance test, contrary to Regulation 5(2) of the MCI Regulations. The Court held that there was no consensual agreement between the college and the State to admit students on t

MIS. SHIV COTEXversusTIRGUN AUTO PLAST P. LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 62430 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Mis. Shiv Cotex, sued the Punjab Financial Corporation for allegedly illegal takeover of its mortgaged assets under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The trial court dismissed the suit after the plaintiff failed to produce evidence on three scheduled dates, invoking Order XVII Rule 3(a) of the

SMT. AJAMBI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusROSHANBI AND ORS.

2010 INSC 55630 August 2010Hearing Adjourned

The respondents filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a 7/8 share in a property, which was decreed in their favour. The decree was set aside by the first appellate court, but the High Court later restored it. After the original defendant died, his widow Ajambi (deceased) allegedly executed a Will on 20‑

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusBIHAR RAJYA BHUMI VIKAS BANK SAMITI

2018 INSC 64830 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award where the filing party had not issued the prior notice or filed the required affidavit under Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Patna High Court had held the provision mandatory and dismissed the petition, but the Su

R. JANAKIAMMALversusS.K. KUMARASAMY(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 31630 June 2021Case Partly allowed

The case involved a joint Hindu family of three brothers who executed a partition deed on 07‑11‑1960 but continued to live and conduct business together, later executing a compromise decree on 06‑08‑1984 to settle disputes. The plaintiff challenged the decree, alleging fraud, misrepresentation and lack of free consent,

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusDILER SINGH

2016 INSC 47930 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Constable Oiler Singh of the CRPF left his camp without permission, consumed alcohol and quarrelled with civilians. The disciplinary authority dismissed him under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. Singh filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the dismissal was illegal; the trial court s

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.versusSURENDRA MOHNOT & ORS.

2014 INSC 43230 June 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were appointed on an ad‑hoc basis as Lower Division Clerks and later regularized. They sought selection‑grade pay from the date of their initial appointment, relying on earlier circulars, while the State Government issued circulars stating that service for selection‑grade eligibility should be counted o

GAYATRI BALASAMYversusM/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

2025 INSC 60530 April 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court was asked to resolve a long‑standing controversy over whether courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can modify an arbitral award. The issue arose from the earlier decision in Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem, where the Court held that

AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE & ORS.versusMEHER K. PATEL & ORS.

2024 INSC 35330 April 2024Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that disposed of a writ petition by adopting a "Minutes of Order" signed by counsel, without impleading parties who would be affected by the construction of a compound wall. The writ petition sought police protection for the wall's construction,

SWAMI VEDVYASANAND JI MAHARAJ (D) THR LRSversusSHYAM LAL CHAUHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 35230 April 2024Disposed off

The case concerned a second appeal pending before the Patna High Court in which the original defendant, Swami Shivdharmanand, had died, and two claimants sought substitution as legal representatives. The High Court, after a trial‑court enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, substituted Swami Satyanand as the appella

Y. SAVARIMUTHUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2019 INSC 59230 April 2019Disposed off

The appellant, a government contractor, entered into an agreement with the State of Tamil Nadu to strengthen a highway. The contract was partially terminated by the Superintending Engineer on 16‑12‑1999 for alleged lack of progress, leading the appellant to file a writ petition (dismissed) and subsequently a civil suit

RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTTversusUTTARADI MUTT

2016 INSC 29130 March 2016

The appellant Raghavendra Swamy Mutt challenged an interim injunction granted by the Karnataka High Court in a dispute with Uttaradi Mutt over possession of a religious property. The High Court, without first admitting the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC or formulating the required substantial question of la

M/S. PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD.versusM/S. GANGOTRI SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. AND ORS.

2012 INSC 15330 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

In a suit for permanent injunction, the parties entered into a compromise decree dated 06‑09‑1996 requiring the defendant to pay a sum within six months. The defendant failed to pay, and the decree-holder filed an execution petition on 17‑02‑1997, before the six‑month period had expired. The defendant objected under Se

RAMESHKUMAR AGARWALversusRAJMALA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2012 INSC 15630 March 2012Dismissed

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement in 2007. In 2008 the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to implead additional parties and to detail how the consideration was paid. The High Court allowed the amendment in part, which the appellant (defendant) challenged on the ground that it al

K.K. VELUSAMYversusN. PALANISAMY

2011 INSC 24330 March 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellant, K.K. Velusamy, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which he claimed was merely a security for a loan. After the evidence was closed, he sought to reopen the evidence and recall two witnesses to cross‑examine them about admissions recorded on a compact disc, alleging that the record

URMILA DEVI & ORS.versusBRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

2020 INSC 10730 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The claimants filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act after the husband/father suffered a road accident, and the Motor Vehicle Accidental Claim Tribunal ordered the National Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,47,500. The insurer appealed to the Patna High Court, challenging its liability to pay, and the claimants filed a

THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RAGHOGARH & ANR.versusNATIONAL FERTILIZER LTD. & ORS.

2018 INSC 6930 January 2018Dismissed

The Municipal Council of Raghogarh demanded external development charges of Rs.5 per square metre from National Fertilizers Ltd. and Gas Authority of India Ltd. for colonies they had constructed on forest land within the municipal limits. The respondents, both public sector undertakings, argued that they are not coloni

SURJIT KAUR GILL & ANR.versusADARSH KAUR GILL & ANR.

2014 INSC 7130 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, acting as administrator of his deceased sister's will, filed a suit for partition of her estate and related reliefs. The defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, claiming the suit was barred by limitation. The trial judge dismissed the application, but the Division Bench of the

GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2014 INSC 6830 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Godrej & Boyce acquired a 133-acre parcel in Vikhroli, which was declared waste land and cultivated before 1951. The State later issued a show‑cause notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (notice No. WT/53) in 1956‑57, but never served it or took possession, while repeatedly granting building permiss

HASMAT ALIversusAMINA BIBI & ORS.

2021 INSC 80029 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Hasmat Ali filed a suit seeking a declaration that Amina Bibi was his tenant until 31‑03‑2003 and an order for eviction. The trial court decreed in part and directed the defendant to vacate the premises. The defendant's first appeal was dismissed, and a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC was dismissed by the Or

BISMILLAH BE (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMAJEED SHAH

2016 INSC 107329 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑owner of a house in Jabalpur, proved her title to the suit property through a series of registered sale and partition deeds and served a quit notice on the respondent, who had been a tenant of the original owner, Rai Bahadur Motiram Mathuradas. The respondent denied any landlord‑tenant relationship

M/S. PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIESversusM/S. PRAGATHI RUBBER MILLS & ORS.

2013 INSC 79829 November 2013Dismissed

The plaintiff, Paragon Rubber Industries, filed a suit in the District Court of Kottayam seeking relief under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The defendants challenged the suit's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under the 1958 Act. The trial cou

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusKARTAR SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.

2012 INSC 54929 November 2012Disposed off

The State of Haryana acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the reference court enhanced compensation in 1980, awarding 15% solatium and 6% interest. After the 1984 amendment to the Act, the landowners filed applications under CPC sections 151 and 152 in 1989 seeking the enhanced benefits of the amended

POONAMversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2015 INSC 81329 October 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a visually‑handicapped allottee of a fair‑price shop, challenged an appellate order that restored the original allottee's licence and cancelled her own allotment. The High Court dismissed her writ petition on the ground that she was not a necessary party. The Supreme Court examined whether a subsequent a

INBASEGARAM AND ANOTHERversusS. NATARAJAN (DEAD) THR. LRS.

2014 INSC 74829 October 2014Disposed off

The plaintiff (Inbasegaran) filed two suits against the defendant (S. Natarajan) – one for a permanent injunction to prevent forcible dispossession of a constructed building, and a later suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The defendant contended that the second suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the

RATHNAVATHI & ANOTHERversusKAVITA GANASHAMDAS

2014 INSC 75129 October 2014Disposed off

The plaintiff entered into a 1989 agreement to purchase a house from defendant No.2, paid the full consideration, but the seller failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff filed two suits: one for permanent injunction to prevent dispossession by defendant No.1 and No.2, and another for specific performance of the s

ZARINA SIDDIQUIversusA. RAMALINGAMALIAS R.AMARNATHAN

2014 INSC 75229 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff sought specific performance of a 1979 agreement whereby the first defendant, owner of a one‑third undivided share in a Bangalore property, through his brother (the second defendant) who held a registered power of attorney, agreed to sell the share for Rs 40,000. The plaintiff paid the full consideration b

MIS. AVK TRADERSversusKERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.

2013 INSC 73329 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

M/s AVK Traders, a registered partnership of two partners, filed a suit for recovery of dues against Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant's father, the other partner, died, causing the partnership to dissolve under its deed. The surviving partner applied to continue th

SUKHBIRI DEVI & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 103729 September 2022Dismissed

The appellants filed a declaratory suit challenging a relinquishment deed and were dismissed by the trial court on a preliminary issue of limitation, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court and the Delhi High Court. They contended that the limitation period should be extended to twelve years under Article 136

M/S PRIME PROPERTIESversusSANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED) THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS.

2022 INSC 104129 September 2022Disposed off

The case involved a series of civil suits filed in 2001 that had been repeatedly amended and impleaded, leading to a long pendency. The plaintiff sought to file a rejoinder after the defendants had filed written statements, but the trial court initially rejected the application, later allowing it on review. The High Co

AVTAR SINGH & ORS.versusBIMLA DEVI & ORS.

2021 INSC 56929 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a property on GT Road, Shahabad Markanda, where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had illegally broken the lintel of the first‑floor roof and constructed a staircase to take possession of their house. The trial court and the first appellate court, after considering the evidence including

VISHWABANDHUversusSRI KRISHNA AND ANR.

2021 INSC 57029 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Respondent No.2 sued Respondent No.1 for refund of part sale consideration. Summons sent by registered post were returned with a "refusal" endorsement, which under Order V Rule 9(5) and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is deemed to have been served. An ex‑parte decree was passed in favour of Respondent No.2, and t

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHALKI, BY ITS CHIEF OFFICERversusGURAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ANR.

2015 INSC 70829 September 2015Dismissed

The deceased respondent Gurappa filed a suit in 1984 (O.S. No. 255) for declaration of title which was dismissed for lack of proper parties and proof of possession. He later filed another suit in 1993 (O.S. No. 39) seeking declaration of title, possession, injunction and correction of revenue records. The Municipal Cou

SUDAM KISAN GAVANE (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusMANIK ANANTA SHIKKETOD (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 97729 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a decree. The High Court admitted the appeal but did not frame any substantial question of law before hearing, and only mentioned such questions in the judgment. The Supreme Court held that this procedure violates t

ASHRAF KOKKURversusK.V. ABDUL KHADER ETC.

2014 INSC 57529 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, K.V. Abdul Khader, was Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board and was elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The appellant, Ashraf Kokkurr, filed an election petition alleging that the respondent was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution because he held an office of profit. T

M/S BHAGWANDAS B. RAMCHANDANIversusBRITISH AIRWAYS

2022 INSC 76829 July 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a cargo importer, claimed damages from British Airways for loss of perishable goods shipped from Mumbai to Canada, filing suit in 2012. The trial court held the claim was not time‑barred, but the Bombay High Court dismissed it, holding that the two‑year limitation under Rule 30 of the Carriage by Air Act

RUPA ROYversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 82429 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rupa Roy, and her 10‑year‑old son were injured when a high‑speed van collided with their rickshaw van, leaving the son with a medically certified 70% permanent disability. She filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of

SHAMSHER SINGH & ANR.versusLT. COL. NAHAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 82029 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The decree‑holders obtained possession of a suit property under a decree of specific performance. Respondent No.1 (Shamsher Singh) claimed he had acquired title by adverse possession and filed an application under Order XXI Rules 98‑100 of the CPC seeking to be put back into possession. The executing court rejected the

RANJANA PRAKASH AND ORS.versusDIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANR.

2011 INSC 52729 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, a 46‑year‑old bank manager earning Rs.23,134 per month, died in a motor accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,12,936 with interest. The insurer appealed, and the High Court reduced the award by 30% on the ground of income‑tax deduction, bringing it down to Rs.16,89,055

HARYANA STATE & ANR.versusGRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KALEHRI

2016 INSC 45129 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana filed a second appeal against a judgment that declared a Gram Panchayat the owner of a 36-kanal piece of land. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that it did not raise a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the

UNION OF INDIAversusK.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.

2016 INSC 44329 June 2016Remitted to Lower Court

The Union of India filed a title suit claiming ownership of a plot of land, which the trial court dismissed on limitation and lack of evidence. The Union appealed under Section 96 of the CPC, also seeking to file additional evidence via Order 41 Rule 27, but the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine and rejected th

M/S UMESH GOELversusHIMACHAL PRADESH COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

2016 INSC 45729 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an unregistered partnership firm, entered into a construction contract with the respondent and later contested the respondent's claim in arbitration. The respondent argued that Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 barred the firm from participating in arbitral proceedings because "other proceedings

P. KUMARAKURUBARANversusP. NARAYANAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 59829 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, P. Kumarakurubaran, was assigned a vacant site in 1974 and executed a power of attorney in 1978 for construction. His father later sold the property in 1988 to the defendant without authority, which the appellant discovered in 2011 and filed a land‑grabbing complaint. In 2014 he instituted a suit seeking

K. VALARMATHI & ORS.versusKUMARESAN

2025 INSC 60629 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased Kathiresan, filed suits seeking declaration of title and injunction over a suit land purchased by Kathiresan. The respondent, a relative, invoked Article 227 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court, seeking rejection of the plaints on the ground that they were barred

PREM KISHORE & ORS.versusBRAHM PRAKASH & ORS

2023 INSC 31729 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The original landlord filed an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, but after the tenant denied the landlord‑tenant relationship, the landlord failed to produce evidence and the Rent Controller dismissed the petition without a finding on merits. After the landlord's death, his successors filed a fresh ev

PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO & ORS.versusCHARULATA SAHU & ORS.

2023 INSC 31929 March 2023Dismissed

The case involved a partition suit concerning the ancestral and self‑acquired properties of the late Kumar Sahoo, claimed by his daughter Charulata Sahu and contested by the heirs of his son Prafulla Sahoo. The trial court issued a preliminary decree allocating a one‑sixth share to the daughter in ancestral lands and o

SHIVSHANKARA & ANRversusH.P. VEDAVYASA CHAR

2023 INSC 31829 March 2023Dismissed

The appeal concerned a suit for injunction and possession of a house, filed by the plaintiff under a claim of prior possession. During the suit one defendant died, and the remaining defendants, who were also his legal representatives, continued to defend the suit. The appellants argued that the suit should abate for no

MEKHA RAM AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

2022 INSC 36029 March 2022Disposed off

The appellants, employees of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service, applied for a three‑year General Nursing Training as in‑service candidates and sought to have their study leave treated as deputation. A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court allowed the petitions, directing the State to grant deputatio

BASAVARAJversusINDIRA AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 15129 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit for partition of ancestral property in 2005, acknowledging an earlier compromise decree dated 14 Oct 2004. At the final stage of trial, they sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer that the compromise decree be declared null and void, alleging oversight and mistake. The trial court r

HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABADversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 15029 February 2024Reference answered

The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, under its Article 142 powers, it could issue blanket directions that all interim stays granted by High Courts should automatically lapse after six months and that High Courts must dispose of such cases on a day‑to‑day basis. The Court examined the object of interim order

H. ANJANAPPA & ORS.versusA. PRABHAKAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12129 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed, while the defendants sold portions of the disputed land to Respondents No.1 and No.2 during the pendency of the suit, violating a temporary injunction and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents sought to be impleaded under Order I

YAGWATI @ POONAMversusGHANSHYAM

2024 INSC 110029 January 2024

The appellant, a wife, sought maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act after separating from her husband, who later obtained an ex‑parte divorce decree and remarried. The Family Court granted modest maintenance, which the High Court later enhanced, but the appellant argued that the respond

M/S NEERJA REALTORS PVT LTDversusJANGLU (DEAD) THR. LR.

2018 INSC 6729 January 2018Dismissed

M/s Neerja Realtors Pvt Ltd sued the deceased Janglu for specific performance of a land sale agreement. The trial court issued summons, but the bailiff reported that the defendant had vacated the premises and the summons were returned unserved. An application for substituted service under Order V Rule 20 was filed and

LAXMIBAI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusBHAGWANTBUVA (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2013 INSC 6429 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the adoption of an eight‑year‑old boy by Smt. Laxmibai, a female Hindu, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The adoption deed was executed and registered on the same day as the ceremony, and the trial court held the adoption valid. The respondents claimed a special family custom proh

NOOR MOHAMMEDversusJETHANAND AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 6229 January 2013Disposed off

The respondent filed a suit for injunction which was dismissed, appealed and eventually filed a second appeal in 2001. The High Court allowed the appeal after a ten‑year saga marked by repeated adjournments, non‑appearance of counsel and a dismissal for non‑prosecution in 2003, later restored in 2006 and finally admitt

M/S. GODREJ SARA LEE LIMITEDversusRECKITT BENCKISER AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. AND ANR.

2010 INSC 6629 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s order that it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the cancellation of its registered designs by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000. The Controller had cancelled two desig

M/S DEEP INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.

2019 INSC 129928 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Deep Industries Ltd, was contractually terminated by ONGC for allegedly supplying second‑hand equipment and was subsequently black‑listed for two years. The dispute was referred to arbitration, where the arbitrator stayed the blacklist order conditionally, and the first appeal under Section 37 was dismis

SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA (D) BY LRS.versusSAGI SUBBA RAJU & OTHERS ETC.

2018 INSC 111328 November 2018Dismissed

The appellants, Sunkara Lakshminarasamma (deceased) by legal representatives, challenged three lower court decisions that upheld two wills (Exhibit B4 and B106) making Veeraswamy the absolute owner of Schedule A and B properties and ordered specific performance of a sale agreement. The trial, appellate and High Court c

UNION OF INDIAversusNARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.

2018 INSC 111428 November 2018Disposed off

The original lease of a 99‑year term on a plot in Mumbai, used for a cotton mill, later vested in a charitable trust. After the lease expired, Podar Mills occupied the premises as a protected tenant under the Bombay Rents Act. The Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 vested the statutory tenancy rights in t

K.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENONversusC.D. SHAJI

2011 INSC 82428 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the magistrate referred to a Lok Adalat for settlement. The parties reached a compromise and the Lok Adalat passed an award, but the respondent failed to honour the payment schedule, leading the appellant to file an exec

RASHID WALI BEGversusFARID PINDARI & ORS.

2021 INSC 68528 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit in a civil court seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions to protect his possession of a piece of land that was admitted to be a waqf property. The defendant, who also admitted the waqf status, moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that under the Waqf Act, 1995, such disputes must be dec

SUKUMAR DEversusBIMALA AUDDY & ORS.

2013 INSC 72528 October 2013Dismissed

A decree for Rs.6,600 was passed in 1967 and the judgment debtors' property was auctioned in 1990, where the petitioners purchased it for Rs.1.5 lakh. The judgment debtor (Respondent No.4) sought to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 89 of the CPC, leading to a series of revisions and recalculations of the amount d

NAGARPALIKA THAKURDWARAversusKHALIL AHMED & ORS.

2016 INSC 92528 September 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, claiming to reside outside the limits of Nagar Palika Thakurdwara, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, a declaration that they were not liable to pay house tax, and recovery of a modest tax amount of about Rs 11,006.07. The trial court dismissed the suit; the first appellate court allowed the

CHINTAMAN NAMDEV PATIL (DEAD)versusSUKHDEV NAMDEV PATIL & ANR.

2015 INSC 70228 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Chintaman Patil, filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and an injunction over a parcel of land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed that decision and decreed in the plaintiff's favour. The respondents appealed to the High Court, which admitted two substantia

CHLORO CONTROLS (I) P. LTD.versusSEVERN TRENT WATER PURIFICATION INC. AND ORS.

2012 INSC 43628 September 2012Dismissed

Chloro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction against Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and related entities over a joint‑venture arrangement involving multiple agreements, some of which contained arbitration clauses. The respondents moved under Section 45 of the Arbitration and C

MOHD. YUNUS KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 65228 September 2010Disposed off

Mohd. Yunus Khan, a Guard Commander in the Uttar Pradesh Police, left his post for 25 minutes to take tea and medicine, an absence later deemed permissible under the Guard and Escort Rules. The Commandant imposed a 10‑day punishment drill, which Khan protested; the punishment was then enhanced to 10 days of confinement

MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC.versusM. PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC.

2018 INSC 75028 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, the Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese and a Vicar appointed by him, sued the parishioners of St. Mary's Church, Kattachira, seeking a declaration that they alone have the right to conduct religious services and manage the church and its cemetery, based on an assignment‑cum‑gift deed (Ext‑A3). The trial cou

STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD & ORS.

2015 INSC 61828 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) bought 17% NPCL bonds from Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd (ABFSL) and later discovered that the bonds had been misappropriated by broker Hiten P. Dalal and Canara Bank Mutual Fund (CMF). SCB filed a suit for conversion and amended it to implead Dalal and CMF, but the Special Court held

SUNIL SIKRIversusGURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.

2022 INSC 76428 July 2022Dismissed

The appeal concerned Sunil Sikri, a former teacher of Guru Harkrishan Public School, who challenged a Tribunal order directing his reinstatement with 50% back wages. The key issues were whether Sections 8 and 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 empower the Tribunal to award back wages, whether Rule 121 of the De

RAMDAS WAYDHAN GADLINGE (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS. VATSALABAI RAMDAS GADLINGE & ORS.versusGYANCHAND NANURAM KRIPLANI (DEAD) THR LRS. DHRUPADABAI & ORS.

2021 INSC 36328 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages, claiming purchase of the property by a registered sale deed dated 1 October 1992. The defendant contended that the deed was a security for a loan and that he had repaid part of the consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the deed was

UMERKHANversusBISMILLABI @ BABULAL SHAIKH & ORS.

2011 INSC 52128 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Umerkhan appealed to the Supreme Court against a judgment of the Bombay High Court that had set aside the first appellate court's decree in a partition suit and restored the trial court's decree. The High Court had entertained the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but did not formula

SAMEER KUMAR PAL & ANOTHERversusSHEIKH AKBAR & OTHERS

2010 INSC 45128 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of Shop No.1214 in Jabalpur, filed an eviction suit under sections 12(1)(c), (f) and (g) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The respondents contended that the suit property was a Wakf property and, later, claimed it was a joint family property, though no such plea was raised i

T. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANRversusRANBIR CHAUDHARY

2023 INSC 46228 April 2023Disposed off

The appellants entered into a sale agreement to sell a plot of land for Rs. 17,61,700, with Rs. 2 lakh paid as earnest money. Clause 2 of the agreement stipulated that if the seller failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, the buyer would be entitled to double the advance amount. The trial court refu

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusM/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR.

2023 INSC 44628 April 2023Disposed off

The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the High Court's declaration that section 16‑B of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 was ultra‑vires the Constitution and the Banking Companies Act. The High Court had made this declaration while hearing writ petitions that later became infructuous because the bank

RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR.versusNASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS.

2023 INSC 45828 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

In 2014 the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of title, a permanent injunction and cancellation of several documents concerning land in Survey Nos. 700/A7B and 706/A9, alleging an error in a partition deed dated 11 March 1953. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC to reject th

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusC. L. VIMLA & ORS.

2015 INSC 36328 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bank of India had mortgaged a residential property to recover a loan taken by the borrowers and obtained a settlement award from a Lok Adalat, which was signed by the borrowers and one of the guarantor's sons but not by the guarantor herself, C.L. Vimla. Vimla filed multiple writ petitions challenging the a

KARAM KAURversusJALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ORS.

2014 INSC 34928 April 2014Dismissed

The original plaintiff, Ramesh Chander, sued Jalandhar Improvement Trust for vacant possession of a plot allotted to him after his father's land was acquired. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, leading Ramesh to file a second appeal. Ramesh died during the penden

VINISHA JITESH TOLANI @ MANMEET LAGHMANIversusJITESH KISHORE TOLANI

2010 INSC 25228 April 2010Disposed off

The wife and husband were married in Goa under Hindu rites and the marriage was registered there. The husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Goa seeking annulment. The wife, who had been residing in the United Kingdom and later in Delhi, filed a petition under Section 25 of the Cod

SARANPAL KAUR ANANDversusPRADUMAN SINGH CHANDHOK AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 34728 March 2022Directions issued

Saranpal Kaur Anand filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that a 1969 sale deed and a 1995 deed were void, and an injunction against the defendants. The defendants moved to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d). The Delhi High Court Single Judge framed a preliminary issue under O

CHAND KAUR (D) THR. LRS.versusMEHAR KAUR (D) THR. LRS.

2019 INSC 41328 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined six civil appeals arising from a batch of second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had allowed the second appeals and altered the findings of the first appellate court without first framing any substantial question of law, as requi

HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusANIL GARG AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 27728 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation (HPFC) sought recovery of two defaulted loans from Anil Garg and others. HPFC had earlier filed a money suit which was withdrawn in order to pursue faster recovery under the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973. The respondent filed multiple writ petitio

USHA BHARTIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2014 INSC 22428 March 2014Dismissed

Usha Bharti, elected as Adhyaksh of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur, challenged a motion of no confidence moved by 37 members under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961. The High Court dismissed her writ petition and later her review petition, prompting a Special Leave Petition befo

SHAH NEWAZ KHAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF NAGALAND & ORS

2023 INSC 17628 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit in the District Court of Dimapur, Nagaland and later applied under Section 24 of the CPC for its transfer to the District Court of Guwahati, Assam, invoking the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court, which is a common High Court for Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The Gauhat

RAJBIRversusSURAJ BHAN & ANR

2022 INSC 24728 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rajbir, entered into a sale agreement which later resulted in a suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed that the respondents, Suraj Bhan and others, must execute a sale deed in favour of the appellant and deposit the balance consideration. The respondents filed an execution petition and su

CANARA BANKversusP. SELATHAL AND ORS. ETC.ETC.

2020 INSC 23428 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Canara Bank had granted a term loan secured by mortgage of property belonging to a partnership firm and a guarantor. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed an ex‑parte decree against the guarantor and the firm, which the guarantor unsuccessfully tried to set aside. Fifteen years later the guarantor’s successors filed

IVAN RATHINAMversusMILAN JOSEPH

2025 INSC 11528 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ivan Rathinam, was alleged by the respondent and his mother to be the biological father of the respondent, who was born during the respondent's mother's marriage to Mr. Raju Kurian. The parties litigated in a Munsiff Court, a Sub‑Judge Court and a Family Court over a declaration of paternity, a DNA test,

AMAR NATH (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.versusGIAN CHAND AND ORS.

2022 INSC 10628 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Amar Nath, executed a special power of attorney (PoA) on 28‑01‑1987 in favour of the second defendant to sell his land for Rs.55,000. When the first defendant could not pay, the second defendant allegedly returned the PoA on 02‑02‑1987 and the plaintiff claimed it was cancelled, yet no formal notice or r

MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH)versusGOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD.

2022 INSC 11328 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Messer Griesheim GmbH (now Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) obtained a money decree of the English High Court, a superior court of a reciprocating territory, for US $5.8 million. The decree, exceeding Rs 20 lakhs, was filed for execution before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench held that only a District Court could

SUKHWINDER SINGHversusJAGROOP SINGH & ANR.

2020 INSC 10028 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 03‑01‑2004 with defendant No.1 for a plot of land at Rs 1,40,000, paying Rs 69,500 as earnest money. The plaintiff sued for specific performance and to set aside a later sale deed dated 11‑06‑2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 (the appellant).

VIJAY A. MITTAL & ORS.versusKULWANT RAI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2019 INSC 9628 January 2019Disposed off

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a 1979 agreement to purchase a property from defendant Amar Nath, alleging they had paid earnest money and were ready to perform, but Amar Nath sold the property to other defendants at a higher price. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that Amar Nath

SHRI WESTARLY DKHAR & ORS.versusSHRI SEHEKAYA L YNGDOH

2015 INSC 7128 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

In a suit concerning land, the Subordinate District Council Court of the United Khasi‑Jaintia Hills Autonomous District granted an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction on 30 September 2009. The aggrieved party appealed to the District Council Court within 30 days, which stayed and later set aside the injunction. The High Cou

MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL & ANR.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE & ANR. ETC.

2014 INSC 5528 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Catholic society Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel filed a claim before the Mizoram Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after one of its members, a "Brother" who had renounced his family ties, died in a road accident. The Tribunal allowed the claim, but the insu

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.DIA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 128927 November 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of writ petitions filed by Hindustan Construction Company Ltd seeking to strike down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the deletion of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment, arguing that they revived an automatic‑stay of arbitral awards and removed th

VURIMI PULLARAO S/O SATYANARAYANAversusVEMARI VYANKATA RADHARANI W/O DHANKOTESHWARRAO & ANR

2019 INSC 129127 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing possession of agricultural land, and six months later filed a suit for specific performance of the same agreement to sell. The trial court dismissed the specific performance suit, holding that the appellant had omitted to claim that rel

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHERversusK. VARALAKSHMIAND OTHERS

2014 INSC 81327 November 2014Dismissed

The case concerned a 5‑acre parcel of land originally assigned to a landless poor woman, Sagiraju Bangaramma, who sold it in 1970 to another landless poor person, Durga Ramalingeswara Rao, before the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 came into force. After Rao’s death, his heirs sold th

ASHOK RANGNTH NAGARversusSHRIKANT GOVINDRAO SANGVIKAR

2015 INSC 80627 October 2015Matter referred to larger bench

The respondents filed a suit for perpetual injunction which was dismissed by the trial court; the first appeal to the District Judge also dismissed the suit. The respondents then filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court reversed both the trial court and the first appellate court judgments with

AMINA BEEVIversusTHACHI & ORS.

2010 INSC 74427 October 2010Dismissed

The petitioners challenged a leasehold assignment deed (Exhibit A3) executed by the tenant Kunjali in favour of Abdul Kadar, arguing it was a valid assignment and that their remedy lay only in an application to the Land Tribunal under Section 13A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Supreme Court held that the deed was

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS.versusMAHANT SURESH DAS AND OTHERS ETC.

2019 INSC 123127 September 2018Directions issued

The appeals arise from civil suits concerning title to the disputed Ayodhya structure and challenge the validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The petitioners sought to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench, arguing that the observations in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) –

FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.versusTHE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

2018 INSC 90427 September 2018Dismissed

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) entered into a development agreement with Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia (respondent No.3), who later terminated the agreement and sought certified copies of the development plans, layouts and related documents filed with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under the Right to Inform

ABDUL REHMAN & ANR.versusMOHD. RULDU & ORS.

2012 INSC 43227 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who had purchased land from the predecessor-in-interest, filed a suit for a permanent injunction against respondents who claimed title based on later sale deeds. They later sought to amend the plaint to include a declaration of title and cancellation of those sale deeds. The trial court and the High Cou

ALKA GUPTAversusNARENDER KUMAR GUPTA

2010 INSC 65127 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Alka Gupta filed a second suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership, after having earlier obtained a decree for the balance price under a sale agreement with Narender Kumar Gupta. The Delhi High Court dismissed the second suit, holding it barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, by constructive res judicata, and on the

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusS. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2021 INSC 42527 August 2021Disposed off

The legal heirs of the late S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu claimed that Union of India had illegally grabbed 7,128.5 sq. yards of land that their father had purchased, relying on a prior suit where the plaintiffs were declared owners of 4,971.5 sq. yards. The Union appealed the Tribunal's order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Gr

NAZIR MOHAMEDversusJ. KAMALA AND ORS.

2020 INSC 51127 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two second appeals filed under Section 100 of the CPC concerning a suit for declaration of title and possession of a property. The High Court had entertained the appeals despite the absence of a substantial question of law, and had allowed the respondent's claim to possession while dismissing

CHENNADI JALAPATHI REDDYversusBADDAM PRATAPA REDDY (DEAD) THR LRS. & ANR.

2019 INSC 95927 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a 1993 agreement of sale, alleging that the first defendant had signed the agreement but later sold his share to a third party and refused to execute the sale deed. The defendants contended that the signature on the agreement was forged, relying on a handwriting ex

SURJIT SINGH & ORS.versusGURWANT KAUR & ORS.

2014 INSC 57027 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Surjit Singh filed a suit for specific performance of a land sale contract. The trial court dismissed the suit and rejected the plaintiff's application under Section 151 CPC to file bank statements as additional documents; the High Court affirmed this rejection. On appeal, the plaintiff sought to introduce the same ban

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusDILBAHAR SINGH

2014 INSC 99727 August 2014Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The issue was whether the High Court could re‑apprecia

SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LTD.versusSURENDRA OIL & DAL MILLS (REFINERIES) & ORS.

2010 INSC 55227 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., the owner of the registered trade mark "Shalimar", sued Sureendra Oil & Dal Mills for infringement and sought a permanent injunction. The trial court admitted only xerox copies of the trade mark registration certificates as exhibits, marked them subject to objection, and dismissed the suit

GAYATHRIversusM. GIRISH

2016 INSC 118927 July 2016Dismissed

The plaintiff, a septuagenarian, filed a suit in 2007 for possession and damages. The trial proceeded with a prolonged examination-in-chief and the defendant repeatedly sought adjournments under Order XVII Rules 1 and 2, filing more than a dozen interlocutory applications on flimsy grounds, many of which were granted w

BHAGMAL & ORSversusKUNWAR LAL & ORS

2010 INSC 43327 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, and an ex‑parte decree was passed against the appellants. The appellants only learned of the decree when execution proceedings began and filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on 8 July 1988, claiming it was with

ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYAversusSIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.

2024 INSC 45727 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya, was injured in a road accident and claimed Rs 10 lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded her Rs 2,41,745 with interest. She filed a Miscellaneous Application in the Gujarat High Court seeking permission to appeal the award as an indigent person, arguing

GURNAM SINGH (D) THR. LRS.versusGURBACHAN KAUR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 40527 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a second appeal in which the original appellant and two respondents had died during its pendency. No application under Order XXII Rules 3(2) and 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed to substitute their legal representatives within the prescribed 90‑day period. The Court held th

P.A. MOHAMMED RIYASversusM.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.

2012 INSC 19227 April 2012Dismissed

The appellant, P.A. Mohammed Riyas, contested the 2009 Lok Sabha election from Kozhikode and filed an election petition alleging that the respondent, M.K. Raghavan, committed corrupt practice by publishing false statements, invoking Sections 81, 100, 101 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petiti

KARUNANIDHIversusSEETHARAMA NAIDU & ORS.

2017 INSC 27227 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a suit filed in 1988 by the great‑grandson and great‑granddaughter of Perumal Naidu (plaintiffs) seeking declaration and possession of properties that had been bequeathed by their great‑grandmother Alamelu Ammal to her sister Ramanujatha Ammal (defendant). The plaintiffs claimed that Alamelu held

P. R. YELUMALAIversusN.M. RAVI

2015 INSC 27127 March 2015Disposed off

The plaintiff‑buyer entered into a sale agreement and obtained a decree for specific performance, which required him to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.33,60,000 within one month of the decree and in the form of a demand draft. The trial court extended the time by two months, making the final deadline 26‑May‑20

PAPPAMMAL (DIED) THROUGH LR R. KRSNA MURTIIversusJOTHI & ANR.

2025 INSC 27727 February 2025Dismissed

The mother, Pappammal, filed a suit for recovery of possession which was being prosecuted by her son as her power of attorney. After the mother died, the son applied to be substituted as the legal representative based on a registered will, and the Supreme Court later allowed his substitution. The daughter, another lega

SIRAJUDHEENversusZEENATH & ORS

2023 INSC 17327 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff‑respondent (Zeenath) appealed a High Court order that remanded her suit for cancellation of a sale deed and a prohibitory injunction back to the trial court for a fresh trial. The High Court had held that the evidence on record was insufficient and that material witnesses were not examined, thereby direct

JAGDISH CHANDERversusSATISH CHANDER AND ORS.

2019 INSC 28327 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Satish Chander, claimed that his mother Vidya Devi had been fraudulently induced to execute a gift deed in favour of Jagdish Chander, alleging that the deed was supported by a consideration of Rs 5,000 and therefore invalid under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court and the first

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IversusM/S RASHTRADOOT (HUF)

2019 INSC 28527 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) appealed an ITAT order that had allowed the assessee, M/s Rashtadrood (HUF), under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court dismissed the appeal after hearing both parties but neither framed any substantial question of law nor provided reasons for its conclusion.

M/S. SHERALI KHAN MOHAMED MANEKIAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 17727 February 2015Dismissed

The appellant purchased an evacuee property and filed a suit in 1980 seeking specific performance of the sale, possession and the appointment of a court receiver. The trial court denied the receiver, but the High Court on appeal appointed one to take possession, collect rent and account for profits. The suit was finall

SURYA VADANANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2015 INSC 17827 February 2015Disposed off

Surya and Mayura Vadanan, both British citizens, married in India and had two daughters in the UK. In August 2012 Mayura brought the children to India and filed for divorce. Surya obtained an interim order from the High Court of Justice in England making the children wards of that court and directing the mother to retu

K. ARUMUGA VELAIAHversusP.R. RAMASAMY AND ANR.

2022 INSC 10327 January 2022Dismissed

The appellant‑plaintiff, K. Arumuga Velaiyah, claimed a one‑fourth share in ancestral joint family property based on a 1994 will of his grandfather, Periyaiya Servai, and sought partition and separate possession. The lower courts dismissed the suit, holding that a partition had already been effected in 1964 by a pancha

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusHARKISHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 7627 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority acquired land of several owners in 1990‑1992 using the urgency provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The owners challenged the acquisition in the High Court, which dismissed their writ petitions, and the Supreme Court upheld the acquisition while allow

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.versusORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P. LTD.

2017 INSC 7727 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) conducted an auction of a 9.527‑acre commercial tower in Gurgaon, where Orchid Infrastructure Developers (formerly Bhudeep Builders) submitted the highest bid of Rs 111.75 crore and deposited 10% on the spot. HUDA, through its Administrator, rejected the bid on the ground

INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANYversusM/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.

2016 INSC 9427 January 2016

The appellant Indian Machinery Co. filed a second complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 after its first complaint was dismissed for default. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the second complaint non‑maintainable, invoking a rule analogous to Order IX Rule 9(

ZARIF AHMAD (D} THROUGH LRS. & ANOTHERversusMOHD. FAROOQ

2015 INSC 6627 January 2015Dismissed

The plaintiff, Mohd. Farooq, filed a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants, Zarif Ahmad and another, from interfering with his possession of plot No. 358, describing the land by its boundaries and municipal number. The trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiff, but the first appell

HARI RAMversusJYOTI PRASAD & ANR.

2011 INSC 7427 January 2011Dismissed

Hariram appealed against judgments that upheld a permanent injunction ordering the removal of his alleged encroachment on a 10‑foot public street. He argued that the suit was barred by limitation, violated Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, and lacked proof that the land was a public street. The Supreme Court held that encroac

ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 92026 November 2024Dismissed

Rohit Kochhar filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking specific performance and a permanent injunction for a commercial property situated in Gurgaon. The defendants contested the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the relief required execution and registration of a sale deed in Gurgaon, which would forc

ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITEDversusUV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 79426 November 2021Dismissed

Electrosteel Castings Ltd., a guarantor, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that an assignment deed executed by the financial creditor in favour of UV Asset Reconstruction Co. was fraudulent and that the assignee was not a secured creditor. The suit was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that Section 34 of

AHMED ABDULLA AHMED AL GHURAIR (THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. BARTHOLOMEW KAMYA) & ANR.versusSTAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2018 INSC 110026 November 2018Dismissed

The plaintiffs, Dubai nationals and shareholders of a Dubai‑incorporated company (Defendant No.2), filed a derivative suit in the Madras High Court seeking a declaration that Defendant No.2 held the beneficial interest in 6.16% of the shares of an Indian company (Defendant No.1) that were registered in the names of oth

SUGHAR SINGHversusHARI SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2021 INSC 67226 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Sughar Singh sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell land executed in 1976, where part consideration had been paid and extensions of time were granted. The trial court and first appellate court found the agreement valid and held that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part, granting

DR. AMIT KUMARversusDR. SONILA & ORS.

2018 INSC 100726 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

Dr. Amit Kumar and Dr. Sonila, both doctors posted with the CRPF, obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in 2016 which stipulated that custody of their two minor children would vest with the father, with each parent bearing the expenses of one child. After the father was transferred to Jammu, the children were

NARENDRA & ORS.versusAJABRAO S/O NARAYAN KATARE (D) THROUGH LRS.

2017 INSC 105526 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs purchased a house in 1985 and sued the original defendant, who had been living in two rooms of the house even before the purchase, for a declaration of title and possession of the entire house. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession; the first a

NAVJOT SINGH SIDHUversusOM PARKASH SONI & ORS.

2016 INSC 99026 October 2016Case Partly allowed

The 2009 Lok Sabha election for Amritsar was challenged in an election petition alleging three categories of corrupt practice: excess election expenditure on newspaper advertisements, excessive spending on public meetings, and assistance from a gazetted officer, along with a grievance about the Returning Officer's hand

RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERSversusASHIYAL BEEVI

2023 INSC 86126 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff Ashiyal Beevi sued for exclusive ownership of a property, claiming a one‑sixth share based on a sale deed, while the defendants contested the validity of a prior gift deed. The trial court decreed only a one‑sixth share to the plaintiff and rejected her review application seeking a full decree. The plaint

K. MADAN MOHAN RAOversusBHEEMRAO BASWANTHRAO PATIL & ORS.

2022 INSC 102526 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

K. Madan Mohan Rao filed an election petition (No.34/2019) in the Telangana High Court and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking exemption from filing the impugned order. After a prolonged hearing, the High Court pronounced an order on 15 June 2022 allowing the application and rejecting the el

SYEDA NAZIRA KHATOON (D) BY LR.versusSYED ZAHIRUDDIN AHMED BAGHDADI & ORS.

2019 INSC 108626 September 2019Disposed off

A wakf deed executed in 1913 appointed the original mutawalli and stipulated that the office would devolve to "putro poutradi krome" of the original mutawalli. After the last male mutawalli died without a son, he had executed a trust deed appointing his wife, Nazira Khatoon, as his successor. The Commissioner of Wakfs

SWAPNIL TRIPATHIversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2018 INSC 88626 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional and national importance be live‑streamed and that a regulatory framework be established. The Court examined whether live‑streaming is compatible with the constitutional mandate of open courts, the rights

HIYA ASSOCIATES & ORS.versusNAKSHATRA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.

2018 INSC 89326 September 2018Case Partly allowed

The dispute arose from an eviction suit where the parties compromised, obligating the defendants to vacate the premises by a specified date and pay mesne profits for delay. The defendants failed to vacate, prompting the plaintiff to file an execution application which the executing court dismissed the defendants' objec

P. RADHA BAI AND ORS.versusP. ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR.

2018 INSC 89626 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The parties, heirs of a deceased businessman, disputed the division of his properties and resolved the matter by arbitration, which resulted in an award on 18 February 2010 that was received on 21 February 2010. The respondents filed an application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to se

UTTARADI MUTTversusRAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT

2018 INSC 88526 September 2018Disposed off

The appellant Uttaradi Mutt filed a suit for injunction against the respondent Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the respondent sought to produce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC; the First Appellate Court rejected these applications while allowing the appe

PATEL AHMED MOHAMMADversusBALWANT SINGH RAJPUT & ORS.

2018 INSC 88726 September 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

Patel Ahmed Mohammad, a Rajya Sabha member, was challenged by Balwant Singh Rajput in an election petition alleging corrupt practices and vote irregularities. The appellant filed three applications for dismissal of the petition: (i) on the basis that office objections under Gujarat High Court Rules were not removed (Ap

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND OTHERSversusB.D. KAUSHIK

2011 INSC 71426 September 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) amended its Rule 18 to introduce a "One Bar One Vote" principle, restricting voting rights to advocates who regularly practice before the Supreme Court. Two SCBA members, B.D. Kaushik and A.K. Manchanda, challenged the amendment and obtained an interim injunction restraining its

DOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ANR.versusPILLA DURGA PRASAD & ORS.

2025 INSC 104626 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants owned a property that was leased to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship of Pilla Durga Prasad. After the lease expired, the appellants filed an eviction suit against the lessee and its assignees. The suit was later amended to substitute the proprietor, Pilla Durga Prasad, in place of the firm. The defen

NARASAMMA & ORS.versusA. KRISHNAPPA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

2020 INSC 50926 August 2020Dismissed

The plaintiff, A. Krishnappa, sued the defendant’s wife, Smt. Narasamma, for possession of a schedule property, claiming full ownership and seeking removal of a temporary structure. The defendant relied on an unregistered sale agreement dated 10‑10‑1976 and a General Power of Attorney dated 08‑08‑1988 to assert title,

L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA (SINCE DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.versusH. B. SHIVAKUMAR

2015 INSC 61226 August 2015Dismissed

L.C. Hanumanthappa filed a suit for permanent injunction against H.B. Shivakumar on 9 March 1990. The defendant’s written statement dated 16 May 1990 denied the plaintiff’s title to the suit property, thereby putting the plaintiff on notice that a right to sue for declaration of title had arisen. On 1 April 2002 the pl

SURESH KUMAR DAGLAversusSARWAN & ANR.

2014 INSC 99526 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The first respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant on 30 November 1992 and later filed a criminal complaint alleging cheating, which was dismissed on 30 November 1993. After a delay of fourteen years, on 28 June 2006, the first respondent instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title

NEK PAL & ORS.versusNAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD & ORS.

2024 INSC 57426 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellants challenged a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court admitted the appeal without formulating any substantial question of law at the time of admission and later, during the hearing, confined itself to three questions.

AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANR.versusCHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CQ. (P) LTD. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 43126 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a suit where the plaintiff sought recovery and the trial court, after an application under Section 89 of the CPC, formulated issues and referred the matter to arbitration despite the defendants' refusal. The Court held that Section 89 requires a preliminary hearing after pleadings, a summary

MOHD. INAMversusSANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.

2020 INSC 44526 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohd. Inam, challenged a vacancy declaration made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 12(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, alleging that only his family members occupied the premises and therefore the vacancy provision was

DINESH KUMARversusYUSUF ALI

2010 INSC 33226 May 2010Disposed off

The respondent landlord, owner of a 152 sq.ft. shop, leased it to the appellant tenant from 1978 and periodically raised the rent, later filing an eviction suit under M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 s.12(1)(f) claiming a bona‑fide need to use the premises for his own business, which he was conducting in a tiny 3 f

MRITUNJOY SETT (D) BY LRS.versusJADUNATH BASAK (D) BY LRS

2011 INSC 33426 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord served a notice on the tenant on 28‑08‑1991, seeking vacancy of two rooms by the end of October 1991, claiming the tenancy was governed by the English calendar. The tenant contested, arguing that the tenancy followed the Bengali calendar and that the notice therefore failed to give a clear one‑month period

STATEOFU.PversusCHARAN SINGH

2015 INSC 26826 March 2015Disposed off

Charan Singh, a tube‑well operator in the Uttar Pradesh Fisheries Department, was terminated in August 1975 on the ground that he was a temporary employee and was given one month's wages in lieu of notice. He contended that he was a permanent workman and that the termination violated the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disput

ASHA JOHN DIVIANATHANversusVIKRAM MALHOTRA & ORS.

2021 INSC 12126 February 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Mrs. F.L. Raitt, a foreign national, sold a portion of her Indian immovable property to the predecessor of the appellant after obtaining prior RBI permission, but gifted another portion to respondent No.1 without such permission. The appellant and respondent No.4 sued to declare the gift deeds void; the trial court dis

NASIK MUNICIPAL CORP.versusM/S. R.M. BHANDARI & ANR.

2016 INSC 21426 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Nasik Municipal Corporation sought restoration of an execution petition (Special Darkhast No.49 of 2002) on the condition that it deposit a cost of Rs.25,000, as ordered by the High Court. The executing court refused to accept the cost, holding that the time limit set by the High Court had expired and it lacked aut

NAGABHUSHANAMMAL (D) BY LRS.versusC. CHANDIKESWARAL!NGAM

2016 INSC 21326 February 2016Disposed off

Nagabhushanammal (deceased) filed a suit for partition of a family property in 1988. An earlier suit filed by her in 1962 for possession based on a settlement deed had been dismissed. The defendant argued that the 1988 suit was barred by res judicata and that his long possession amounted to adverse possession. The tria

RADHEY SHYAM & ANR.versusCHHABI NATH & ORS.

2015 INSC 16026 February 2015Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant challenged a writ order of the Allahabad High Court that had vacated an interim injunction granted by a civil court, arguing that a writ of certiorari under Article 226 could not be issued against orders of a civil court. The Supreme Court was asked to reconsider the view expressed in *Surya Dev Rai* that

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusDR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 89425 November 2024Disposed off

The case concerned several Government Orders (GoMs) issued by the Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) government that allotted public land at basic rates to a select class of persons – MPs, MLAs, All India Services officers, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and journalists – through cooperative societies. The pe

AKKAMMA & ORS.versusVEMAVATHI & ORS.

2021 INSC 78525 November 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellants (Akkamma & Ors.) filed a suit in 1987 seeking a declaration of ownership of land and a permanent injunction against the respondents (Vemavathi & Ors.) alleging interference with possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs could not establish possession and therefore c

STATE OF HARYANAversusHARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2021 INSC 78625 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana challenged a High Court order that had set aside the findings of the trial court and first appellate court which held that a will purportedly executed by Kishan Singh in favour of Harnam Singh was not genuine. The dispute centered on whether the will satisfied the requirements of Section 63 of the

M/S. HYDER CONSULTING (UK) LTD.versusGOVERNOR, STATE OF ORISSA THROUGH CHIEF ENGINEER

2014 INSC 80725 November 2014Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits an arbitral tribunal to include pre‑award interest in the "sum" for which an award is made and thereby allow interest on that interest for the post‑award period. The Court held that the word "sum" includes both princi

MANOHARANversusSIVARAJAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 78125 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Manoharan filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction and reconveyance of land after a loan transaction, but paid only one‑tenth of the court fee of Rs.28,797. The Sub‑Judge rejected his application for an extension of time to pay the balance fee, leading to dismissal of the suit. Manoharan appealed, also seeking condo

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search