SURESH G. RAMNANIversusAURELIA ANA DE PIEDADE MIRANDA @ ARIYA ALVARES (DEAD THR. LRS) & ORS.
2022 INSC 119610 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant sought a review of a High Court order and filed a miscellaneous application requesting that the review be heard by Justice G.S. Patel, who had earlier decided the matter. The respondent opposed, arguing that under Chapter XXX Rule 3(1) of the Bombay High Court Rules, the review should be placed before the…
BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.versusVCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD.
2022 INSC 119310 November 2022Dismissed
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (now part of ICICI Bank) granted a term loan and overdraft facility to VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., which defaulted. The bank sought recovery of the debt before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act). …
CHIEF ENGINEER OF B.P.D.P./R.E.O., RANCHIversusM/S. SCOOT WILSON KIRPATRICK INDIA PVT. LTD.
2006 INSC 82510 November 2006Disposed off
The Chief Engineer of B.P.D.P./R.E.O., Ranchi appealed against a High Court order that dismissed its arbitration appeal as non‑maintainable. The appeal concerned whether an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award falls within Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Hig…
STATE OF A.P.versusV. SARMA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
2006 INSC 82710 November 2006Dismissed
The State of Andhra Pradesh alleged a large‑scale fraud in the award of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and sought a criminal inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC. A District Judge conducted the inquiry, but the High Court held that the Subordinate Judge appointed under the Act was not subordinate to the D…
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusM.P. MOHLA
2006 INSC 83210 November 2006Dismissed
M.P. Mohla, a veterinary surgeon employed by the State of Haryana, claimed entitlement to a higher promotional pay scale under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 and the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Rules, 1998. The High Court allowed his writ petition, granting the higher pay, but the State’s Spe…
HARBANSversusOM PRAKASH AND ORS.
2005 INSC 56010 November 2005Dismissed
Harbans (plaintiff) and co‑defendants claimed ownership of a suit land on the basis that a usufructuary mortgage created over a century ago had become extinguished because the statutory limitation period for redemption (60 years) had expired. The defendant, Om Prakash, asserted that he had redeemed the mortgage by payi…
UDAY SHANKAR TRIYARversusRAM KALEWAR PRASAD SINGH AND ANR.
2005 INSC 55810 November 2005Dismissed
The landlord filed an eviction suit against A.N. Singh and the District Congress Committee (DCC). Both appealed the eviction decree, but the appeal memorandum was signed only by A.N. Singh and was accompanied by a vakalatnama executed solely by him, with no separate vakalatnama for DCC. After A.N. Singh's death, the DC…
VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.versusM. V. KAPITAN KUD AND ORS.
1995 INSC 71610 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed
Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. sued the foreign vessel M.V. Kapitan Kud for damage to an international submarine cable, alleging the ship’s anchor caused a break. The Bombay High Court arrested the vessel and later ordered its release on security, a decision appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the appe…
DEV KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSMT. SWARAN LATA AND ORS.
1995 INSC 71710 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed
The landlady, Smt. Swaran Lata, sought eviction of her tenant Dev Kumar under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 alleging sub‑letting of the premises to three respondents. The Rent Controller, relying on a local commissioner’s report, concluded sub‑letting and ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority rev…
SUSHIL KUMAR METHAversusGOBIND RAM BOHRA
1989 INSC 34210 November 1989Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord Gobind Ram Bohra sued tenant Sushil Kumar Mehta for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages, and obtained an ex‑parte decree from a civil court. Mehta contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the Haryana Urban Rent Control Act, 1973 vests exclusive authority to order eviction in the Contro…
M/S MAHALAXMI MOTORS LTD.versusMANDAL REVENUE OFFICER AND ORS.
2007 INSC 103410 October 2007Dismissed
Mis Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. purchased land that had vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh after the 1955 Abolition of Inams Act and constructed a workshop, but the High Court held the land belonged to the State and dismissed its writ petitions. The State, through the Mandal Revenue Officer, initiated proceedings under th…
INDER SINGH AND ANR.versusTHE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ORS.
1996 INSC 117810 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, tenants of agricultural land, applied under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 in 1960 but were rejected for not having twelve years' continuous possession. A second application in 1965 was allowed, and the Financial Commissioner confirmed the order. The Punjab and Haryana …
GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD)versusK. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.
2025 INSC 113410 September 2025Disposed off
The heirs of cultivating tenant Govindappa Gounder sued the landowners K. Vijayakumar and others, who sought eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 alleging that the tenants had cut trees, dug pits and caused damage to the land. The Revenue Court, relying on a commissi…
KHURSHEED & ANR.versusSHAQOOR
2024 INSC 76410 September 2024Dismissed
The dispute concerned agricultural land in Haridwar where the mother of Petitioner No.1 allegedly fraudulently claimed inheritance and executed a sale deed on 09‑08‑2016 by impersonation, a deed the Respondent sought to cancel. The Respondent filed a civil suit for cancellation, but the defendant filed an application i…
MADHYA PRADESH STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITYversusPRATEEK JAIN & ANR.
2014 INSC 62110 September 2014Disposed off
The dispute arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act between Prateek Jain (complainant) and Rakesh Kumar Jain (accused). While a criminal appeal was pending, the parties settled and filed a joint application under Section 147 seeking compounding and requested that the matter be taken before a Lok Adala…
LAFARGE AGGREGATES & CONCRETE INDIA P. LTDversusSUKARSH AZAD & ANR
2013 INSC 60210 September 2013Dismissed
Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India Ltd. (appellant) lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a cheque of Rs.2.5 lakh issued by the managing director of the respondents was stopped, leading to its dishonour. The respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC offering to p…
THIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS AND ANR.versusTHALLAPPAKA ANANTHACHARYULU AND ORS.
2003 INSC 46510 September 2003Disposed off
The Devasthanam of Tirumala (plaintiff) filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership of 28.58 acres and also appealed a patta grant to the Tallapaka inamdars under the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. The Tallapaka respondents obtained two writs of prohibition from the Hig…
BHAVSINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusKESHAR SINGH AND ORS.
2003 INSC 46910 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, the estate of the deceased Bhavsingh, claimed that a 1960 sale deed of agricultural land was a mortgage transaction for a loan and sought declaration of nullity under the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi‑Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Ta…
S. PITCHAI GANAPATHY AND ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS.
2001 INSC 43410 September 2001Dismissed
The appellants claimed that two ancient shrines in Madurai were private family temples, asserting continuous possession as hereditary pujaris and trustees, while the respondents contended that the shrines were public temples forming part of the Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple. The dispute was examined under the Tamil Na…
ALLAHABAD BANK, CALCUTTAversusRADHA KRISHNA MAITY AND ORS.
1999 INSC 38910 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed
Allahabad Bank filed a suit under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, seeking recovery of Rs 46.54 lakhs from three respondents and applied for a temporary injunction restraining them from drawing money from Mis. Braitewaite & Co. The respondents refused to accept notice of the inte…
BASAVANTAPPAversusGANGADHAR NARAYAN DHARWADKAR & ANR.
1986 INSC 18610 September 1986Dismissed
The auction of a judgment-debtor's property was held on 26 July 1985 and the highest bid was accepted. The judgment-debtor deposited the bid amount on 29 August 1985 and filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 to set aside the sale, followed by another application under Rule 89 on 6 September 1985 with the balance…
RATUL MAHANTAversusNIRMALENDU SAHA
2021 INSC 39010 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed
Ratul Mahanta filed a title suit seeking a declaration that a common public drain forming the western boundary of his and adjoining properties could be used by him and that the respondent could not obstruct it, also seeking a permanent injunction. The respondent contended that the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 19…
M/S. GOEL GANGA DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS & ORS.
2018 INSC 69610 August 2018Disposed off
The original applicant, Goel Ganga Developers, alleged that the project proponent had constructed beyond the limits of the Environmental Clearance (EC) and municipal regulations, prompting the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to order payment of environmental compensation. The proponent filed a review application which wa…
THE CORPORATION OF MADRAS & ANR.versusM. PARTHASARATHY & ORS.
2018 INSC 68910 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents filed four suits for permanent injunction over a 3600 sq. ft. land parcel, which the trial court dismissed. In their first appeals they sought and were granted permission under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence, which the appellate court admitted and relied upon to set aside the trial c…
VED PAL (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.versusPREM DEVI (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
2018 INSC 69210 August 2018Case Partly allowed
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of a second appeal in a civil suit on the basis of an alleged compromise, subsequently decreeing the suit. The appellants filed a review petition challenging this disposal, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not properly examined th…
J. VASANTHI & ORS.versusN. RAMAN! KANTHAMMAL (D) REP. BY LRS. & ORS.
2017 INSC 73110 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The original plaintiff, J. Vasanti & Ors., filed a suit seeking a declaration that several sale deeds relating to her inherited property were null and void and also sought a permanent injunction. The defendants argued that the plaintiff, being a party to the sale deeds, was effectively seeking cancellation of those dee…
STATE BANK OF INDIAversusR.B. SHARMA
2004 INSC 43210 August 2004Leave Granted & Allowed
The employee R.B. Sharma, a manager of State Bank of India, was suspended and faced both a departmental inquiry under the SBI Officers Service Rules and a criminal prosecution under the IPC for alleged fraud involving large sums. The employee obtained a stay of the departmental proceedings from the Delhi High Court, wh…
SANTAKUMARI AND ORS.versusLAKSHMI AMMA JANAKI AMMA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2000 INSC 39410 August 2000Dismissed
The suit concerned a property originally belonging to Krishnan Nair, which was attached in execution. To raise funds, Nair executed a sale deed (Exhibit A‑5) in favour of Kesavan Channar, simultaneously executing an agreement (Exhibit A‑6) to sell the same property to his relative Kochu Kunja Nair after ten years, and …
MARWARI KUMHAR AND ORS.versusBHAGWANPURI GURU GANESHPURI AND ANR.
2000 INSC 39610 August 2000Disposed off
The Marwari Kumhar community, which used a dharamshala for religious functions, sued the heirs of a former pujaris (the respondents) for a declaration of title to the property in 1945. The trial court and later the High Court affirmed the community's title, holding the respondents were merely pujaris. After the decree …
BIJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusMAYANK SRIVASTAVAAND ORS.
1994 INSC 31110 August 1994
The parties to a family arbitration agreement divided joint family property among six branches, with a retired district judge acting as arbitrator. After the award was registered, objections were filed, and later amended to include new allegations of arbitrator misconduct. The High Court set aside the award on grounds …
OM PRAKASHversusAMARJIT SINGH & ANR.
1988 INSC 21710 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Om Prakash, was placed ex parte in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a small piece of land. He filed several applications to set aside the ex parte order, but they were dismissed as unsigned or time‑barred. The trial court decreed specific performance based on the plaintiff’s witnes…
SHAH BABULAL KHIMJIversusJAYABEN D. KANIA AND ANR.
1981 INSC 13810 August 1981Appeal(s) allowed
In a suit for specific performance filed in the original side of the Bombay High Court, the plaintiff sought the appointment of a receiver and an interim injunction. The single Judge dismissed the application, and the plaintiff appealed to a Division Bench, which held the appeal was not maintainable because the order w…
UNIWORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.versusINDEV LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.
2024 INSC 51510 July 2024Dismissed
The appellant and respondent entered into a leave‑and‑license agreement for a warehouse, which the respondent later terminated for non‑payment of storage charges. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction and vacant possession, expressly reserving the right to claim arrears of rent and damages, and was grant…
YOGESH GOYANKAversusGOVIND & ORS.
2024 INSC 51010 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant purchased farming land from a seller during the pendency of a suit challenging earlier release deeds, and obtained a registered sale deed while fully aware of the litigation. He applied to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, but the Additional District Judge dismissed the applica…
THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusUNION OF INDIA
2024 INSC 50210 July 2024Directions issued
The State of West Bengal filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Union of India’s registration of cases by the CBI after the State withdrew its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act is unconstitutional, and asked for an injunctio…
EASWARIversusPARVATHI & ORS.
2014 INSC 48310 July 2014Dismissed
The plaintiffs, as legal heirs of the deceased Ponnangatti Gounder and his predeceased wife, sued for declaration and injunction over two properties (Schedule A – ancestral, Schedule B – self‑acquired). The trial court decreed in their favour for both properties. The first appellate court reversed the decree concerning…
NITIN GUNWANT SHAHversusINDIAN BANK & ORS.
2012 INSC 27510 July 2012Dismissed
The petitioner, Nitin Gunwant Shah, claimed to be a monthly tenant of a flat in Mumbai based on a 1989 "Leave and Licence" agreement and sought a declaration to that effect. The Indian Bank, holding a mortgage over the same property, obtained a decree for recovery of dues and sought to sell the flat, also asking the co…
M/S PURBANCHAL CABLES & CONDUCTORS PVT. LTDversusASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER
2012 INSC 28010 July 2012Dismissed
The Supreme Court considered two appeals by suppliers of aluminium conductors against the Assam State Electricity Board concerning claims for interest on delayed payments under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. The Court held that a suit seeking only intere…
ADHUNIK STEELS LTD.versusORISSA MANGANESE AND MINERALS PVT. LTD.
2007 INSC 74210 July 2007Disposed off
O.M.M. Private Limited, holder of a mining lease, terminated its contract with Adhunik Steels Ltd., alleging violation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Adhunik filed a Section 9 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an interim injunction to restrain termination and dispos…
M/S R.N. JADI & BROTHERS AND ORS.versusSUBHASHCHANDRA
2007 INSC 74010 July 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants were served summons but filed their written statement two days after the 90‑day deadline prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The trial court nevertheless accepted the statement, a decision challenged before the Karnataka High Court on the ground that the provision was ma…
MRUGENDRA INDRAVADAN MEHTA AND OTHERSversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
2024 INSC 40110 May 2024Dismissed
The plaintiffs sued the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation seeking either compensation for the loss of 974 square metres of land or, alternatively, an allotment of land of that size in any town planning scheme. The trial court granted the alternative relief of land allotment but rejected the compensation claim, prompting …
BHASKER & ANR.versusAYODHYA JEWELLERS
2023 INSC 73010 May 2023Matter referred to larger bench
The appeal concerned the appropriate starting point of limitation for filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after a property was sold in execution. The sale was confirmed on 16 July 2009, a sale certificate was issued on 5 February 2010, and the purchaser filed a Rule‑95…
VEENA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRversusTHE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (F/R) AND ANOTHER
2022 INSC 54410 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Veena Singh, alleged that she was forced to sign a sale deed for land and that the deed was fraudulent, undervalued and included her residential house. The Sub‑Registrar refused registration under Section 35(3)(a) of the Registration Act because the appellant denied execution of the deed, although she ad…
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS.versusINTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
2019 INSC 67310 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, a group of 44 buyers, had booked office and shop spaces in the Intellicity project and the builder failed to deliver possession within the agreed four‑year period. They filed a class action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund, interest and compensation, but the Nat…
PRAMOD KUMAR & ANR.versusZALAK SINGH & ORS.
2019 INSC 66610 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, Pramod Kumar and another, challenged two separate alienations of ancestral land by their father Tikaram. They filed a suit in 1963 to set aside the first sale deed (21‑01‑1959) and later, in 1971, a second suit to set aside the second sale deed (11‑02‑1959). Both suits were dismissed by the trial court …
KIRODI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRversusRAM PARKASH & ORS.
2019 INSC 67410 May 2019Dismissed
The appellant filed a regular second appeal alleging that the appeal was decided without framing a substantial question of law, relying on decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the 1976 Amendment Act…
VOHRA SADIKBHAI RAJAKBHAI & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
2016 INSC 39810 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, owners of agricultural land adjacent to the Mazum dam, claimed compensation for loss of fruit‑bearing trees after the State of Gujarat released 60,000 cusecs of water from the dam during heavy monsoon rains. The respondents argued that the release was necessitated by an act of God and was in the public …
PREMAversusNANJE GOWDA AND OTHERS
2011 INSC 37210 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, an unmarried daughter, sought to increase her share in a joint Hindu family property after the Karnataka legislature inserted Section 6A into the Hindu Succession Act, granting daughters equal coparcenary rights. A preliminary decree in the partition suit had already fixed her share at 1/28th, but the fi…
MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE & OTHERSversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA
2011 INSC 37510 May 2011Disposed off
The landowners, who were caveators, appealed the award of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and filed cross‑objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC, but delayed filing them by 404 days. The High Court dismissed both the State's appeal and the cross‑objections, holding that the one‑month limitation perio…
UBS AGversusSTATE BANK OF PATIALA
2006 INSC 31210 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed
USB AG issued an irrevocable Letter of Credit in favour of a beneficiary for the import of tin ingots. The beneficiary presented documents and USB AG paid the amount on 6 April 1998. Later, State Bank of Patiala (the issuing bank) learned that the beneficiary and its associated firms were involved in fraud and, on 3 Fe…
RAMDEO CHAUHAN@ RAJ NATHversusSTATE OF ASSAM
2001 INSC 27210 May 2001Dismissed
The Supreme Court considered a review petition filed by R.D. Chauhan, who claimed he was a juvenile at the time of committing murder under Section 302 IPC and therefore could not be sentenced to death. The petition argued that the trial and appellate courts failed to apply the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and that the c…
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusSLBARAM BARAL (SIMARAM BARAI)
1996 INSC 68010 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Orissa filed a suit for Rs.1,46,820 against S. Baram Baral, which was decreed ex parte. The appellant sought relief under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the trial court set aside the ex parte decree subject to a payment of Rs.50. On revision, the Orissa High Court set aside the t…
SUKHBIR SINGH AND ORS.versusBRIJ PAL SINGH AND ORS.
1996 INSC 68710 May 1996Dismissed
The first petitioner purchased land from the respondent under a 1975 sale deed that included a reconveyance agreement. The respondent sued for specific performance, alleging the petitioner refused to execute the sale deed despite the respondent’s readiness and attendance at the Sub‑Registrar’s office on 9 March 1977, w…
TEJ KAUR AND ANR.versusKIRPAL SINGH AND ANR.
1995 INSC 36810 May 1995Dismissed
The appellant challenged a decree confirming a lower court's finding that a 1967 will was not validly executed. The Punjab & Haryana High Court Division Bench was split, with one judge holding the will proved and the other holding it not proved; no majority opinion existed. The Supreme Court examined whether, under Sec…
F.A. SAPA ETC. ETC.versusSINGORA AND ORS. ETC.
1991 INSC 13810 May 1991Case Partly allowed
In the 1989 Mizoram Assembly elections, fifteen unsuccessful MNF candidates filed election petitions alleging corrupt practices by the elected Congress(I) candidates. The High Court rejected preliminary objections, allowed certain amendments, and struck out vague paragraphs, prompting the returned candidates to appeal …
ANANDILAL & ANRversusRAM NARAIN & ORS.
1984 INSC 10810 May 1984Dismissed
Anandilal and others, the original decree‑holders, had obtained a decree against the respondents which was affirmed by the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court stayed execution of the decree under Order XLI, r.5 of the CPC, but only the sale of the attached properties was stayed, not the attach…
MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA & ORS.versusSHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI & ORS.
2024 INSC 29310 April 2024Dismissed
The appellants (the Gala family) claimed a right of way over a 20‑ft road (the disputed rasta) situated on the respondents' land, asserting that the easement was acquired by prescription, necessity, or a 1994 sale deed. The trial court initially decreed in their favour, but the appellate courts set aside that decree, h…
CHHOTANBEN AND ANR.versusKIRITBHAI JALKRUSHNABHAI THAKKAR AND ORS.
2018 INSC 31910 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, sisters and co‑owners of ancestral land, alleged that their brothers fraudulently executed a registered sale deed in 1996, forging their signatures and thumb impressions, and transferred the property without their knowledge. Upon discovering the fraud in late 2012, they filed a suit for declaration and …
MRS. HEMA KHATTAR & ANR.versusSHIV KHERA
2017 INSC 32410 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The parties entered into a written construction contract on 06‑06‑2009 containing an arbitration clause. Disputes over construction quality led to a meeting where the contract was terminated by mutual consent and an oral agreement was made with the husband of the original contractor to supervise the work, under which h…
S. KESARI HANUMAN GOUDversusANJUM JEHAN & ORS.
2013 INSC 23310 April 2013Disposed off
The appellant, S. Kesari Hanuman Goud, filed a suit for specific performance of a 1977 agreement to sell land, asserting that he was always ready and willing to fulfil his part of the contract. The respondent, Anjum Jehan, contended that the appellant lacked the financial capacity and therefore was not ready, subsequen…
VENKATARAJA & ORS.versusVIDYANE DOURERADJAPERUMAL (D) THR.LRS. & ORS.
2013 INSC 23610 April 2013Dismissed
The appellants sought a declaration of title to a property in Pondicherry, alleging that a prior sale by a Hindu widow who held only a life estate was void. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of a claim for possession, a decision upheld by the High Court, which also held that the widow had acquired absolute ti…
H. SESHADRIversusK.R. NATARAJAN AND ANR.
2003 INSC 22710 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, H. Seshadri, was a shop tenant in a residential building whose residential tenant (respondent No.2) was evicted by a decree. During the execution of that decree, Seshadri was also evicted. He filed an application under Order XXI Rules 99 and 100 of the CPC claiming an independent right to the shop. The S…
ALLAHABAD BANKversusCANARA BANK AND ANR.
2000 INSC 20710 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed
Allahabad Bank obtained a decree against M.S.Shoes (East) Co. Ltd. before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the Recovery Officer sold the company's assets. Canara Bank, whose claim was pending before the same DRT, sought to be impleaded i…
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JODHPURversusGOKUL NARAIN AND ANR.
1996 INSC 50210 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The Urban Improvement Trust (Jodhpur) acquired land of Gokul Narain under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 and paid compensation. The High Court later enhanced the compensation and, applying the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended), awarded solatium, interest and additional amount, whi…
JETHABHAI KHATAU & CO.versusLUXMI NARAYAN COTTON MILLS LTD. & ORS.
1981 INSC 8910 April 1981Appeal(s) allowed
Jethabhai Khatau & Co. sued Luxmi Narayan Cotton Mills Ltd. for a decree of Rs. 2.85 lakh. The decree amount was to be paid from a fixed deposit of Rs. 8.40 lakh held by Grindlays Bank on behalf of a receiver. The High Court issued several interim orders directing the bank to pay the amount, but the bank failed to comp…
SULTAN AHMD. OWASIversusMOHD. OSMAN SHAHEED AND ORS.
1980 INSC 7210 April 1980Appeal(s) allowed
Two election petitions were filed by defeated candidates alleging that the elected candidate, Sultan Ahmad Owasi, indulged in corrupt practice by delivering speeches that promoted religious hatred. The appellant denied making any such speeches and sought to prove an alibi, claiming he was in Adoni at the relevant times…
PARASRAM HARNAND RAOversusSHANTI PRASAD NARINDER KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
1980 INSC 7310 April 1980Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord (appellant) had a lease with Laxmi Bank, which was declared the real tenant in a 1948 suit. After the bank was wound up, the Official Liquidator sold the tenancy rights to respondent No.1, who took possession in February 1961. The landlord obtained a decree for eviction of the bank on 31 July 1961, and res…
HARDIAL SINGHversusBALBIR KAUR & ANR.
2022 INSC 29110 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of title and injunction based on a will dated 19 April 1998 of the deceased Sucha Singh. The trial court upheld the will, but the first appellate court reversed, finding the will forged and upholding a later will executed by the mother. The plaintiffs then filed a second …
MAHANT RAM KHILAWAN DASversusSTATE OF M.P.
2008 INSC 32910 March 2008Case Allowed
Mahant Ram Khilawan Das, a temple manager, claimed title to a temple and adjoining agricultural lands bequeathed by his guru and filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the State of Madhya Pradesh. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge allowed it; the State…
MAHABOOBversusMAKTUMSAB
2008 INSC 33310 March 2008Case Allowed
Mahaboob filed a suit seeking a declaration that he owned 7 acres and 10 guntas of land inherited by his father in a 1973 partition. The defendant argued that Mahaboob had overstated the area, claiming only 7 acres. The trial court, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, decreed in Mahaboob's favour for 7.10 a…
P.R. MURLIDHARAN AND ORS.versusSWAMI DHARAMANDA THEERTHA PADAR & ORS.
2006 INSC 15110 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant sought to set aside a Kerala High Court order that granted police protection to the first respondent, who claimed to be the head of a religious trust. The High Court had determined the respondent's entitlement to the office, a question that was already pending before a civil court. The Supreme Court held …
MOHAMED MASTHANversusSOCIETY, CONGREGATION, BROS. S. HEART AND ANR.
2006 INSC 15010 March 2006Disposed off
The Society obtained a 1987 compromise decree granting it possession of a parcel of land. The second respondent later challenged that decree and sold the land to the appellant, who obtained a decree for specific performance in 2003 and was handed possession by a senior bailiff under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC. The Society co…
UNION OF INDIAversusKARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BRS. (COAL SALES) LTD. AND ORS.
2004 INSC 15710 March 2004Dismissed
The Union of India, as successor to the Coal Board, was statutorily obligated under Section 9 of the Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act, 1974 to provide stowing assistance to the coal company, while the coal company owed royalty for sand extracted for stowing under a mining lease. The Government sought to re…
BANK OF INDIAversusLEKHIMONI DASS AND ORS.
2000 INSC 13310 March 2000Dismissed
The plaintiffs, decree‑holders of a godown, obtained a decree for possession in Title Suit No. 77/59 and, after execution, were prevented from removing oil‑seed bags by injunctions obtained by the Bank of India and a partnership firm claiming pledgee rights under Order XXI Rules 100 and 101 CPC. The plaintiffs sued for…
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.versusCHANDER SHEKHAR AND ANR.
1997 INSC 23910 March 1997Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined a recruitment process for Junior Engineer where the advertisement specified a fixed last date for applications and a minimum qualification. Thirty‑three candidates who did not possess the qualification on that date but obtained it before the interview were allowed to appear and were appointed…
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.versusBRIJESH KUMAR AWASTHI AND ORS.
1997 INSC 24710 March 1997Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Madhya Pradesh acquired forest land under Section 16 of the Indian Forest Act and, in lieu of compensation, transferred the land to the respondents. The respondents later sued for a declaration of title and compensation, and the Conservator of Forest colluded with them to obtain a compromise decree that se…
DEV RAJ DOGRA AND ORS.versusGYAN CHAND JAIN AND ORS.
1981 INSC 5910 March 1981
The case involved a mortgaged bungalow that, after a compromise decree allowing sale on default, was leased to three tenants. When the mortgagor failed to pay, the bank sold the property at a court auction and the highest bidder, Gyan Chand Jain, obtained a sale certificate. Jain applied under Order XXI Rules 95 and 96…
GAS POINT PETROLEUM INDIA LTD.versusRAJENDRA MAROTHI & ORS.
2023 INSC 11910 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The decree holder obtained a judgment against National Ginni Enterprises for non‑performance of an LPG gas agreement and initiated execution proceedings. The judgment debtor's property was auctioned on 18‑Oct‑2011 and sold to respondent No.1, who deposited 25% of the price on 3‑Nov‑2011 and the balance on 4‑Nov‑2011. T…
RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ETC.
2020 INSC 16010 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, brothers residing in the UK, sought recovery of Rs.1.20 crore from their maternal uncle (appellant No.3) after the uncle advanced the sum for a land sale and later demanded repayment. The uncle issued four cheques, two of which were dishonoured; a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable I…
ATMA RAMversusCHARANJIT SINGH
2020 INSC 16210 February 2020Dismissed
The petitioner entered into a 1994 agreement to purchase land for Rs.4,38,000 and paid earnest money, with performance due on 7 Oct 1996. After the seller cited pending litigation, the petitioner issued a notice on 12 Nov 1996 and filed a suit on 13 Oct 1999 seeking a mandatory injunction to compel execution of the tra…
M/S CHAKRESHWARI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusMANOHAR LAL
2017 INSC 126310 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed
M/s Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd., the owner of a shop leased to Manohar Lal, filed an eviction petition under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 alleging subletting and lack of alternative accommodation. After the trial evidence was closed, the appellant sought to amend the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC t…
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST VIRUDHUNAGARversusCHANDRAN & ORS.
2017 INSC 12510 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff claimed to have purchased 2.73 acres of land that he said formed part of Survey No. 188 and sought a declaration of title and a mandatory injunction to have his name entered in the revenue records. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the plaintiff had not correctly described the suit p…
KAMLESH AGGARWALversusNARAIN SINGH DABBAS &ANR.
2015 INSC 96210 February 2015Case Partly allowed
PRATIMA CHOWDHURYversusKALPANA MUKHERJEE & ANR.
2014 INSC 8710 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed
Pratima Chowdhury, a member of a West Bengal cooperative housing society, sought to transfer her flat and membership to Kalpana Mukherjee, claiming the transfer was a gift without consideration. The arbitrator found the transfer invalid, noting that the letters effecting the transfer were likely drafted by Partha Mukhe…
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORIX AUTO FINANCE (INDIA) LTD.versusSHRI JAGMANDER SINGH AND ANR
2006 INSC 7810 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Orix Auto Finance, repossessed a truck from the respondent hirer after the latter defaulted on instalment payments under a hire‑purchase agreement containing a clause allowing repossession on default. The hirer filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, and an interim order directi…
NAZIM ALI AND ORS.versusANJUMAN ISLAMIA CHHATARPUR AND ORS.
1999 INSC 5210 February 1999Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants' ancestors obtained a decree in 1960 declaring them owners of the land known as 'Badi Takia' and that the mosque on it was wakf property. The High Court later held the entire property was wakf, relying on a 1953 agreement, and reversed the earlier decree. In a subsequent suit, the respondents sought a de…
DWARAKA DASversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
1999 INSC 5310 February 1999Case Partly allowed
The appellant, a contractor, entered into a contract with the State of Madhya Pradesh to construct a hostel, but the contract was rescinded by the State alleging insufficient progress. The appellant sued for the contract price of Rs 32,000 and claimed Rs 20,000 as damages for loss of profit. The trial court decreed the…
M/S. INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE NOW CALLED I.C.D.S. LTD.versusSMT. SMITHABEN H. PATEL AND OTHERS
1999 INSC 5510 February 1999Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a financial institution, obtained a decree against the respondents for a sum of Rs 5,25,451.07 plus interest, costs and future interest, payable in monthly instalments. The respondents paid instalments but claimed the payments were to be applied only to the principal, not to interest or costs. The execut…
R.M. INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.versusBOEING CO. AND ANR.
1994 INSC 6210 February 1994Dismissed
R.M. Investment & Trading Co. (RMI) entered into a consultancy agreement with Boeing to promote sales of aircraft in India and later claimed a commission of US$17.5 million after Boeing sold two aircraft to Air India. The agreement contained an arbitration clause, and Boeing invoked Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Rec…
THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusGAR RE-ROLLING MILLS AND ANR.
1994 INSC 6410 February 1994
The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (the appellant) had advanced loans to Gar Re‑rolling Mills (the respondent) which defaulted, leading the corporation to first obtain an order under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act and later to invoke Section 29 to sell the mortgaged concern. The High Cou…
TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCILversusRAJAPPA & ANR.
2008 INSC 3810 January 2008Case Allowed
The plaintiff, Rajappa, filed a suit claiming 3 acres 22 guntas of land as ancestral property. The municipal council defended that the land was designated as "Sega Local Fund" under the Karnataka Municipalities Act and that a mandatory notice under Section 284(1) had not been issued. The trial court dismissed the suit …
K.C. SKARIAversusTHE GOVT. OF STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
2006 INSC 1710 January 2006Case Partly allowed
The appellant, an independent contractor, entered into an item‑rate construction contract with the State of Kerala and claimed Rs. 2,00,000 for work done, paying court‑fee on that amount. The trial court decreed the suit for the claimed sum, finding the State had breached the contract by delaying material supply, level…
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET, INDIA AND ANR.versusNETAJI CRICKET CLUB AND ORS.
2005 INSC 1810 January 2005Disposed off
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, was accused of acting arbitrarily in its election of office‑bearers and in disqualifying a candidate on residence grounds. The High Court admitted a review petition alleging breach of an undertaking g…
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.versusSHIV K. SHARMA AND ORS.
2005 INSC 1910 January 2005Dismissed
The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board purchased land that, according to the sale deed, provided Shiv K. Sharma and others a right of access through a passage. After the State Government acquired the land for a sub‑station, it fenced the passage, blocking the respondents' access. The respondents sued for an injun…
KEDARNATHversusMOHAN LAL KESAWARI AND ORS.
2002 INSC 1610 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord filed a suit in the Allahabad Court of Small Causes under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act for arrears of rent and eviction, which was decreed ex‑parte and executed. The tenants applied under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree but neither deposited the decretal amount nor filed a prior applicat…
E.S. RAJARAM AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2001 INSC 1410 January 2001Dismissed
The case concerned Traffic Apprentices recruited by Indian Railways before 15‑May‑1987 who claimed entitlement to the higher pay scale (Rs 1600‑2660) introduced for post‑cut‑off recruits. The Supreme Court had earlier, in Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, upheld the Railway Board's memorandum limiting the higher scale to p…
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DHENKANAL MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, ORISSA, ETC. ETC.versusN.C. BUDHARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC.
2001 INSC 1610 January 2001Dismissed
The case concerned whether an arbitrator appointed, with or without court intervention, could award interest on sums due for the period before the arbitration reference (pre‑reference period) in disputes that arose before the Interest Act, 1978. The contractor’s award included interest from the due date to the date of …
THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusTHE TELUGU CHURCH COUNCIL
1996 INSC 4610 January 1996Dismissed
The Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA) claimed that the Telugu Church Council (TCC) had merged into the Church of South India in 1947 and therefore the properties transferred to CSITA were held in trust. TCC contested the merger and sought declaration of its continued existence. Earlier suits decided by th…
JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR.versusTARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 6469 December 2024Disposed off
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 1 September 2019. The defendants, while admitting the existence of the agreement, denied its validity, calling it a sham, and denied other material facts. The plaintiffs sought an order under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the CPC that the defendants…
M/S ALCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.versusCELEM S.A. OF FOS 34320 ROUJAN, FRANCE & ANR.
2016 INSC 11209 December 2016Dismissed
The appellant, Alcon Electronics, challenged the execution in India of an English Court order that dismissed its jurisdictional plea and ordered it to pay costs of £12,229.75. The central question was whether such an interlocutory order is a conclusive foreign judgment under Section 13 of the CPC and whether it qualifi…
MIS. DISHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GOA AND ANR.
2011 INSC 8419 December 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, Disha Constructions and others, entered into a contract to construct a school auditorium and were partially paid, leaving a balance due from September 2006. They served a notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the first defendant on 19 February 2009, which was received on 27 February 2009, and filed a su…
KARSONDAS VIRJI THAKKAR AND ANR.versusJAGANNATH SOWAR VAITY AND ORS.
1994 INSC 5949 December 1994Disposed off
In Suit No. 252/80 filed by K.V. Thakkar and others, the High Court appointed a Court Receiver to take custody of the disputed property. In a separate Suit No. 983/90 filed by Jagannath Sowar Vaity and others for declaration of title, three successive judges ordered that the same Court Receiver continue to hold the pro…
AUNDAL AMMALversusSADASIVAN PILLAI
1986 INSC 2619 December 1986Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord filed an eviction suit under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 claiming bona‑fide personal need. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition, the Subordinate Judge (appellate authority) confirmed the dismissal, and a revision before the District Judge was also rejected. The landlord t…
M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRSversusV. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS
2019 INSC 12319 November 2019Disposed off
The instant appeals arose from five suits between 1950 and 1989 over a 1500 sq yard land in Ayodhya, claimed by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram (Ram Janmabhumi) and by Muslims as the site of the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court had directed a three-way partition of the disputed site, which the Supreme Court …
MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
2010 INSC 7619 November 2010Case Partly allowed
Malayalam Plantations Ltd., a private plantation company, owned five estates in Kerala and sought exemption of 2,588 hectares of land from the vesting provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, on the grounds that the land was planted with eucalyptus before vesting and used for firewoo…
JAGANNATH AMINversusSEETHARAMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2006 INSC 8139 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed
Jagannath Amin's mother filed a suit for partition of scheduled agricultural land, claiming she was a co‑owner and therefore in constructive possession of the property. The plaintiff argued that court fees should be computed under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958, i.e., on the deeme…
RUKMANI AMMAL AND ANR.versusJAGDEESA GOUNDER
2005 INSC 5559 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved a usufructuary mortgage where the mortgagee, Rukmani Ammal, purchased the mortgaged property in a court‑sanctioned auction in 1966. The plaintiff, Jagdesa Gounder, who had bought a portion of the property from the original owner in 1964, sued for declaration of title and possession. The Supreme Court …
MAHENDRA AND MAHENDRA PAPER MILLS LTD.versusMAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD.
2001 INSC 5689 November 2001Dismissed
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., a long‑standing user of the registered trademark "Mahindra", sued Mahendra & Mahindra Paper Mills Ltd. for passing‑off and trademark infringement, seeking permanent and interim injunctions to stop the defendant from using the name "Mahendra & Mahendra". The Bombay High Court granted an interim…
RAJENDRA TIWARYversusBASUDEO PRASAD AND ANR.
2001 INSC 5699 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, alleging default in rent, personal requirement and damage, and claimed title to the premises through three sale deeds. The defendant denied being a tenant of the plaintiffs, asserting an earl…
MADANLALversusSHYAMLAL
2001 INSC 5709 November 2001Dismissed
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement. After the plaintiff's evidence was closed, the defendant (appellant) applied under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC for production of a land acquisition award, electricity bills, and a registered sale deed. The trial court rejected the application…
MUNI LALversusTHE ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.
1995 INSC 7099 November 1995Dismissed
Muni Lal insured his truck with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company and lost it in October 1983 due to the driver’s misfeasance. He filed a suit in 1986 seeking only a declaration that he was entitled to the insured amount, omitting any claim for monetary compensation. The trial court dismissed the suit for lac…
SANTHINIversusVIJAYA VENKETESH
2017 INSC 10239 October 2017Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined whether video conferencing could be used in matrimonial disputes under the Family Courts Act, 1984, particularly in transfer petitions. It held that Section 11 of the Act obliges the court to hold proceedings in camera if either party desires, and that allowing video conferencing on the conse…
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERSversusPRATAP KARAN AND OTHERS
2015 INSC 7619 October 2015Dismissed
The plaintiffs, heirs of the late Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur, filed a suit to correct the revenue record and have their names entered as owners of Survey No.613 (373.22 guntas) in Nadergul village. The State argued that the land was Jagir land that had vested in the Government under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Ja…
RAZIAAMIRALI SHROFF AND OTHERSversusM/S NISHUVI CORPORATION AND OTHERS
2015 INSC 7629 October 2015Disposed off
The petitioners filed a Notice of Motion (No.3616 of 2010) in the Bombay High Court seeking interim reliefs during the pendency of a suit. The Single Judge declined to grant any ad‑interim order, directing the parties to file affidavits and setting a hearing date. The petitioners appealed, but the Division Bench upheld…
SRI GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ANR.versusMEENAKSHI AMMAL & ORS.
2014 INSC 6939 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved three interconnected suits concerning a lease of property owned by a private trust: O.S.5/78 filed by the tenants challenging the trust's ownership, and O.S.6/78 and O.S.7/78 filed by the trust for arrears of rent. All three suits were tried together, resulting in a common judgment but separate decree…
REVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERSversusNARAYANASWAMY & SONS & OTHERS
2009 INSC 11799 October 2009Dismissed
The appellant, RevaJetu Builders & Developers, filed a suit for recovery of sale consideration and possession of a property, later seeking to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to declare the respondents as trespassers and obtain injunctions. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the Karnataka High…
RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.versusVITHU HIRA MAHAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
2009 INSC 11789 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, heirs of a Watandar, sued the respondents for a permanent injunction, asserting their right to the watan lands based on a 1941 declaration. The respondents claimed they were the adopted son of the deceased Watandar, relying on a 1931 order of the Mamlatdar, and sought re‑grant of the land. The trial cou…
N.R. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.versusSRI RAM BADAN SINGH AND ORS.
2007 INSC 10179 October 2007Dismissed
The appellant, a partner in a construction firm, entered into arbitration with the respondents over a partnership dispute, resulting in two awards dated 19 April 1997 and 25 November 2000. The appellant sought adjustment of the cross‑award under Order XXI Rules 18 and 19 of the CPC, arguing that the awards could be tre…
T. VIJENDRADAS AND ANR.versusM. SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS.
2007 INSC 10239 October 2007Disposed off
The vendor (RV) sold a municipal property to Sakunthala without notifying the Coimbatore Municipality, which continued to claim property tax arrears. The Municipality sued RV, obtained a decree, and the property was later auctioned; RV's wife bought it and subsequently sold it to a third party, who sold it to the appel…
SMT. ISABELLA JOHNSONversusM.A. SUSAI
1990 INSC 3129 October 1990Dismissed
The landlord (respondent) filed an eviction suit under the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act, seeking possession and mesne profits. The tenant (appellant) contended that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under Section 3 of the…
SAVITRI W/O SHRI GOVIND SINGH RAWATversusSHRI GOVIND SINGH RAWAT
1985 INSC 2279 October 1985Disposed off
The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance from her husband, and subsequently applied for an interim maintenance order pending the final disposal of the main application. The Metropolitan Magistrate refused the interim order, stating that the Code …
RAMJI DAYAWALA & SONS (P) LTD.versusINVEST IMPORT
1980 INSC 1979 October 1980Appeal(s) allowed
Ramji Dayawala & Sons entered into a sub‑contract with Yugoslavian firm Invest Import that contained a clause referring all disputes to arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. After completing the work, the Indian contractor sued for unpaid sums, and Invest Import moved to stay the suit on th…
K. N. NAGARAJAPPA & ORS.versusH. NARASIMHA REDDY
2021 INSC 4619 September 2021Dismissed
The appellants challenged two second appeals decided by the Karnataka High Court, which had reversed a trial court's decree in favour of the respondent concerning ownership of certain parcels of land. The High Court, invoking its power under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, re‑examined documentary evidence (…
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
2011 INSC 6679 September 2011Dismissed
The appellants, Khatri Hotels Private Ltd. and another, claimed title and sought an injunction over land they alleged to have purchased. The land had been urbanised under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and transferred to the Delhi Development Authority (DOA) by notification under the Delhi Development Act, 1…
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusSTEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.
2010 INSC 5879 September 2010Case Partly allowed
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) received a complaint that Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) had abused its dominant position by entering an exclusive supply agreement with Indian Railways. The CCI formed a prima facie view and directed the Director General to investigate under s.26(1) of the Competition Act…
BALAJI COKE INDUSTRY PVT. LTD.versusM/S MM BHAGWATI COKE (GUJ) PVT. LTD.
2009 INSC 11209 September 2009Case Allowed
SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES & ANR.versusPRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK & ORS.
2008 INSC 10269 September 2008Dismissed
In a suit for dissolution of a partnership, the defendants filed a written statement on 17 June 1987 with a counter‑claim of Rs.52 lakhs. Thirteen and a half years later, in 2000, they sought to amend the written statement and increase the claim to Rs.8.53 crore, alleging daily losses of Rs.20,000 since the original fi…
DRAUPADI DEVI AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2004 INSC 5079 September 2004Dismissed
The plaintiff claimed title to a Delhi property, alleging it was his private property purchased from the Maharaja of Kapurthala, while the Union of India and others contended it was State property of Kapurthala. The Court examined the 1947 Instrument of Accession, the 1948 covenant, and subsequent correspondence, findi…
KRISHNA MOHAN KUL @ NANI CHARAN KUL AND ANR.versusPRATIMA MAITY AND ORS.
2003 INSC 4619 September 2003Dismissed
The appellants claimed possession of a property based on a registered deed of settlement allegedly executed by an elderly, paralytic executor on 11 July 1970. The respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alleging the executor was over 100 years old, physically and mentally unfit, and that the …
SMT. SHANTI DEVI .versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
1997 INSC 6469 September 1997Disposed off
Shanti Devi mortgaged her agricultural land and, upon default, the land was sold at a revenue auction. The purchaser submitted an affidavit that his total holding would remain below the 12.50‑acre ceiling prescribed by Section 154(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, but the appellant argued t…
BLOOM DEKOR LTD. ETC. ETC.versusSUBHASH HIMATLAL DESAI AND ORS. ETC.
1994 INSC 3729 September 1994Disposed off
Bloom Dekor Ltd., a public company, issued a public share offering that was oversubscribed. A group of investors, seeking to avoid losses from speculative out‑of‑the‑ring transactions, filed a series of suits and applications in various courts (Morvi, Prantij, Baroda, Ahmedabad) alleging that the company had not obtain…
RICHPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.versusDALIP
1987 INSC 2459 September 1987Dismissed
The appellants, landlords, obtained an ejectment decree against the respondent under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for non‑payment of rent, and the decree was executed without any appeal. The respondent then filed a civil suit claiming he was a mortgagee in possession, not a tenant, and contended that t…
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ANR.versusJOSEPH AND OTHERS
2023 INSC 6939 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute concerned a 30-cent parcel of government "puramboke" land in Kudayathoor village, which the claimants alleged they had possessed since 1940 and sought title by adverse possession. The High Court, in a second appeal, held that the claimants were entitled to ownership based on long possession, overturning the…
SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALAversusHEMANT VITHAL KAMAT & ORS.
2021 INSC 3879 August 2021Leave Granted & Dismissed
The suit property, originally owned by the mother of the first respondent, was inherited by him and his brother, mortgaged to Karnataka State Finance Corporation (KSFC), and later auctioned to the third respondent, who obtained a sale deed and a decree for possession. The first respondent subsequently filed a suit chal…
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.versusB. RANGA REDDY (D) BY LRS & ORS.
2019 INSC 8869 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed
Three civil suits involving the State of Andhra Pradesh were tried together, two of which (suits No. 274/1983 and 276/1983) were dismissed while the third (suit No. 141/1984) was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The State appealed the decree in the third suit, arguing that the findings on the title issue in the fir…
SANTHINIversusVJJAYA VENKETESH
2017 INSC 7309 August 2017Matter referred to larger bench
The petitioner sought transfer of a divorce and child‑custody petition from the Family Court in Alappuzha, Kerala to the Family Court in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The respondent argued that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishna Veni Nagam, the matters could be dealt with via video‑conferencing instead of transf…
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINESversusGANESH NARAIN SABOO
2011 INSC 5569 August 2011Disposed off
The respondent filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission alleging delay and damage to a consignment shipped by Ethiopian Airlines. The State Commission dismissed the complaint; the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside that order and remitted the case for f…
G. MAHALINGAPPAversusG.M. SAVITHA
2005 INSC 3489 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The father purchased a house in 1970 in the name of his minor daughter and later the daughter filed a suit in 1984 for declaration of title and possession. The father pleaded that the purchase was a benami transaction and that he was the real owner, a defence taken in his written statement before the Benami Transaction…
INDIAN BANKversusM/S. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
1996 INSC 8619 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant Indian Bank forwarded Bills of Exchange to a French bank on behalf of the respondent M/s. Satyam Fibres, which later went into liquidation. The respondent claimed the bank was negligent for not securing co‑acceptance of the bills, relying on a covering letter (letter No. 2776) that allegedly instructed th…
G.S. DHARA SINGHversusE.K. THOMAS & ORS.
1988 INSC 2109 August 1988Dismissed
The case concerned 85 workers who had resigned from the Cochin Port Thozhilali Union and sought a refund of amounts that the union, through its president‑treasurer G.S. Dhara Singh, had collected from the employer on their behalf for gratuity and accident benefit funds. The workers filed civil suits demanding an accoun…
SMT. RAJBIR KAUR & ANR.versusS. CHOKESIRI & CO.
1988 INSC 2149 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed
The landlords (Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr.) leased commercial premises to S. Chokesiri & Co., who later allowed two sub‑tenants – a tailor and an ice‑cream vendor – to operate within the premises. The landlords sought eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging unauthorised sub‑l…
G.M. SHAHUL HAMEEDversusJAYANTHI R. HEGDE
2024 INSC 4939 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a civil suit challenging a sale deed, while the respondent filed a counter suit. During the respondent's suit, a General Power of Attorney (GPA) that was insufficiently stamped was tendered as evidence; the trial court admitted it and marked it as an exhibit without any objection or judicial determi…
M/S AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD.versusPRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS.
2024 INSC 5009 July 2024Case Partly allowed
The case concerned an auction of land owned by Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., which was mortgaged to a bank and later assigned to ARCIL. The Tahsildar conducted the auction without observing the mandatory 30‑day notice period and issued the sale certificate and possession to the appellant, Al‑Can Export Pvt. Ltd., …
DAHIBENversusARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS & ORS.
2020 INSC 4509 July 2020Dismissed
The plaintiffs sold agricultural land to respondent No.1 in 2009 and alleged that only a small part of the sale consideration was paid, seeking cancellation of the sale deed. They filed the suit in December 2014, more than five years after the deed, claiming the cause of action arose only when they discovered alleged f…
SAYEED AHMED & CO.versusSTATE OF UP & ORS.
2009 INSC 8969 July 2009Case Partly allowed
The appellant, a contractor, completed a construction project for the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1996, after which disputes over payment led to arbitration in 1997. The arbitrator awarded the respondents to pay the contractor Rs.24,18,586 with interest at 18% per annum from April 1996, and also specified interest rates …
FCS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD.versusLA MEDICAL DEVICES LTD. & ORS.
2008 INSC 7879 July 2008Case Partly allowed
The appellant, FCS Software Solutions Ltd., won the highest bid of Rs 1.47 crore for the immovable and movable assets of the liquidated company but the Official Liquidator failed to hand over possession despite the appellant’s full payment. The Official Liquidator later claimed a higher offer of Rs 1.55 crore and obtai…
RAMCHANDRA SAKHARAM MAHAJANversusDAMODAR TRIMBAK TANKSALE (D) AND ORS.
2007 INSC 7329 July 2007Disposed off
Ramchandra Sakharm Mahajan filed a suit for declaration of joint title with defendants 10‑13 and for recovery of possession of a portion of land against defendants 1‑9, relying on a lease deed dated 21‑July‑1875. The trial court dismissed the suit, refusing to allow a belated amendment of the plaint to give better part…
KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA AND ORS.versusLILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST AND ORS.
2007 INSC 7369 July 2007Disposed off
The Supreme Court considered appeals arising from a suit concerning the administration of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The trial court had struck out portions of the written statements of defendants 11‑13 and parts of the plaintiff's affidavit, and had refused an am…
MUTHU GOUNDERversusAMMAYEE AMMAL
2002 INSC 2929 July 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a decree of a subordinate court. The Madras High Court disposed of the appeal without framing any substantial question of law, despite the statutory requirement that the High Court must be satisfied that such a quest…
KANSHI RAM AND ANR.versusLACHHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
2001 INSC 2849 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, successors to a landowner who mortgaged his property in 1946, sought restitution under the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976. After a collector dismissed their 1979 application as time‑barred, they filed a suit for possession of the mortgaged land in 1981 under sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The t…
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION JAIPURversusSMT. POONAM PAHWA AND ORS.
1997 INSC 5589 July 1997Dismissed
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) deposited the award amount from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the executing court but failed to give notice to the decree holders. The decree holders claimed interest from the date of deposit (June 27, 1986) until they were informed (April 19, 1989). The corp…
SAMSUDDIN RAHMAN AND ORS.versusBIHARI DAS AND ORS.
1996 INSC 7119 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, owners of a parcel of land covered by a patta, claimed that land had gradually accreted to their estate as the Barak river receded over 15‑16 years. They sought a declaration of title over the accreted land, which was also claimed by the respondents under an annual patta granted by the Deputy Commission…
SMT. MITHLESH KUMARI AND ANR.versusTHAKUR SHEO SARAN SINGH AND ORS.
1996 INSC 7159 July 1996Dismissed
The dispute concerned the succession to the Partapner Raj estate, an ancient impartible zamindari governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. After the death of the minor adopted heir Raja Maha, competing claims arose: Kalka Singh of the senior branch asserted his right to the impartible estate (Lists A and C) while …
PATTAM KHADER KHANversusPATTAM SARDAR KHAN AND ANR.
1996 INSC 7189 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed
In a partition suit, a house was auctioned and the sale was confirmed by the court on 7 August 1984. The auction purchaser obtained a sale certificate only on 9 November 1989 and filed an application for delivery of possession on the same day. The appellant contended that the application was barred by the one‑year limi…
Y. NARASIMHA RAO AND ORS.versusY. VENKATA LAKSHMI AND ANR.
1991 INSC 1429 July 1991Dismissed
The first appellant, married under Hindu law, obtained a divorce decree from a Missouri court on the ground of "irretrievable breakdown" after claiming a 90‑day residence in Missouri, while the parties had actually last lived together in Louisiana. The respondent contested the decree, arguing lack of jurisdiction and t…
IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA ETC.versusUJAGAR SINGH & ORS. ETC.
2010 INSC 3429 June 2010Disposed off
The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, acquired land and was awarded compensation which it failed to pay, leading to the attachment and auction of the property in 1992. The auction purchaser, Jagan Singh & Co., paid Rs.22.65 lakh, but the Trust later filed objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, which were dismissed in defaul…
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC.versusANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
2025 INSC 6569 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The Wikimedia Foundation, as a defendant in a defamation suit filed by ANI Media, appealed a High Court order directing it to delete Wikipedia pages and discussion threads that commented on the court's proceedings, alleging that the order violated its freedom of speech and the sub judice principle. The High Court had h…
V. PRAKASH @ G.N.V. PRAKASHversusM/S. P.S. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU & SONS’ CHARITIES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE & ORS.
2022 INSC 5339 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a male descendant of the original founder trustee, sought declaration that he was entitled to the office of founder trustee of M/s. P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons’ Charities, asserting that he satisfied the residence requirement under the Scheme of Administration. The respondents contended that his U.S. …
KARUNA KANSALversusHEMANT KANSAL & ANR.
2019 INSC 6629 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The husband, Hemant Kansal, had two wives: his first wife, who obtained an ex parte decree of dissolution, and his second wife, Karuna Kansal, the appellant. The first wife appealed the Family Court's refusal to condone the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, seeking to set aside the ex parte decr…
BEEMANENI MAHA LAKSHMIversusGANGUMALLA APPA RAO (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS.
2019 INSC 6569 May 2019Dismissed
The appellant, a vendor, entered into an agreement to sell land to the respondent, the vendee, on 30‑12‑1985, with part payment of Rs.55,000 and the balance to be paid within three months, subject to the vendor measuring the land and delivering the original sale deed and land‑ceiling clearance documents. The vendee pai…
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITEDversusADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED & OTHERS
2019 INSC 6639 May 2019Disposed off
Birla Corporation filed a criminal complaint alleging that respondents had stolen or misappropriated 54 confidential company documents and sought prosecution under IPC sections 379, 403, 411 read with 120B. The trial magistrate, relying on vague statements of the company representative and an employee, issued summons a…
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.versusKINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS.
2017 INSC 4629 May 2017Hearing Adjourned
The consortium of banks sought recovery of large debts from respondents, including guarantor Respondent No.3, who received US$40 million and was ordered by the Supreme Court on 7 April 2016 to disclose all assets. Respondent No.3 failed to disclose the overseas account used for the transfer and subsequently transferred…
VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHIversusNANASAHEB GOPAL JOSHI
2017 INSC 4599 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The father‑in‑law filed a suit in the Judge, Small Causes Court seeking possession of a flat, claiming he was the licensor and the daughter‑in‑law a gratuitous licensee. The daughter‑in‑law filed a counter‑claim for a residence order under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The issu…
SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHREE RAM MILLS LTD.versusTHE COURT RECEIVER, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
2014 INSC 3889 May 2014Dismissed
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd., a tenant of the immovable property "Dev Ashish" in Bombay, challenged an eviction suit filed by the Court Receiver appointed by the High Court. The appellant argued that the Receiver had no authority to sue without prior leave of the court, that the notice under Section 106 of the T…
COFFEE BOARDversusM/S. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
2014 INSC 3919 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The Coffee Board, a statutory body, failed to provide International Coffee Organization (ICO) export stamps to Ramesh Exports, causing loss of shipment and recall costs. The exporter filed two suits: O.S. No.3150 of 1985 for loss due to delayed shipment and O.S. No.4763 of 1986 for costs arising from the recall. The tr…
SINNAMANI & ANR.versusG. VETTIVEL AND ORS.
2012 INSC 2199 May 2012Disposed off
LAXMIKANT CHHOTELAL GUPTA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
2007 INSC 5399 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The partners of Somras Distillers (respondents 5‑7) were in arrears of sales‑tax and their properties were attached. A writ petition sought that the tax dues be recovered from the other partners (appellants) and not from them. The High Court ordered the properties to be auctioned; the auction was held but the High Cour…
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SPECIFIED UNDERTAKING OF THE UNIT TRUST OF INDIAversusGARWARE POLYSTER LTD.
2005 INSC 2709 May 2005Dismissed
Garware Polyester Ltd., after incurring massive losses, sought a restructuring scheme under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, which was approved by the majority of its debenture holders. The Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) challenged the scheme, arguing that clause 7.5 …
S.M. DYECHEM LTD.versusCADBURY (INDIA) LTD.
2000 INSC 3129 May 2000Dismissed
S.M. Dyachem Ltd. (plaintiff) claimed that its registered trademark “PIKNIK” for food products was infringed by Cadbury (India) Ltd.’s use of “PICNIC” on chocolates and sought a temporary injunction. The High Court set aside the trial court’s injunction, holding that the marks differed in essential features and there w…
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TTD, TIRUPATIversusA.S. NARAYAN DEEKSHITULU AND ORS.
1997 INSC 5109 May 1997Disposed off
The Executive Officer of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) filed an application seeking recovery of excess payments made to archakas, gamekars, jeeyamgars and other mirasidars under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The TTD alleged that payments totalling ap…
SUPREME CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETYversusM/S. H.S. NAG AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.
1996 INSC 6559 May 1996Dismissed
The Supreme Co‑operative Group Housing Society entered into a construction contract with H.S. Nag & Associates that contained an arbitration clause (clause 32). After additional towers were awarded, a dispute arose and the respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to refer the matter…
HIRACHAND KOTHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
1985 INSC 1369 May 1985Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant entered into a 1951 deed of exchange with the State of Rajasthan for a plot swap, but the State failed to deliver the exchanged plot. The appellant sued for possession and compensation; interrogatories revealed the exchanged plot had been transferred to a third party and his original plot was in the Mahar…
MAURICE W. INNISversusLILY KAZROONI @ LILY ARIF SHAIKH
2026 INSC 3409 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed
The appeal concerned the execution of a compromise decree dated 14 July 2017 that divided a 51‑R plot of land between the parties. The defendant, as decree holder, obtained an order from the executing court that altered the portions of land allotted to each party, citing impracticalities such as non‑conforming construc…
R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHERversusRAJMANI AND OTHERS
2025 INSC 4789 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants challenged a High Court order that remanded a suit to the trial court for a fresh trial on the issue of limitation, despite both the trial court and the first appellate court having held the suit hopelessly barred by limitation. The dispute arose from a family property that had been sold and subsequently…
SHAILNDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERSversusMAYA PRAKASH JAIN AND OTHERS
2019 INSC 5019 April 2019Disposed off
In 1966 a son filed a suit for partition of his parents' joint family property, which was decreed by compromise among the parents and three brothers. After the decree, in 2006 one of the brothers (Maya Prakash Jain) filed a suit claiming exclusive ownership of certain properties, asserting a later family settlement. Sr…
JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHERversusSHIVNATH & OTHERS
2019 INSC 4939 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of several khasra lands, alleging that their fathers were lessees under a patta-lease. The appellants-defendants contended that the land had been auctioned in 1929 to their grandfather Gaya Din, who obtained a valid patta-lease (Ex.D‑20) an…
UMA PANDEY & ANR.versusMUNNA PANDEY & ORS.
2018 INSC 3149 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, members of a family, filed a partition suit for agricultural land which was decreed in their favour by the trial court. The defendants appealed and the first appellate court reversed the decree, relying on a document labelled Ex‑A. The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal, which the Patna High Court di…
M.R. SATWAJI RAO (D) BY L.RS.versusB. SHAMA RAO (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.
2008 INSC 4729 April 2008Dismissed
The appellant mortgagee had taken a usufructuary mortgage on a property in 1948, allowing the mortgagor to remain in possession as a tenant. When the mortgagor defaulted on rent, the mortgagee obtained a money decree for arrears of rent and, in execution, purchased the property at a public auction without instituting a…
R.C. TIWARIversusM.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. AND ORS.
1997 INSC 3989 April 1997Dismissed
R.C. Tiwari, an employee of M.P. State Co‑operative Marketing Federation Ltd., was dismissed for misconduct. He obtained a reference under the Madhya Pradesh Societies Act, which confirmed the dismissal and became final. He then approached the Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which set a…
THE SREE NARAYANA DHARMASANGHOM TRUSTversusSWAMI PRAKASANANDA AND ORS.
1997 INSC 3999 April 1997Leave Granted & Dismissed
The dispute concerned the validity of elections to the Committee of the Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust. After a series of orders by the Kerala High Court, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Supreme Court and dismissed. The appellant argued that the dismissal of the SLP was not a final order and that the…
DR. H. MUKHERJEEversusS.K. BHARGAWA
1996 INSC 4989 April 1996Dismissed
Dr. H. Mukherjee, a Central Government employee, filed a civil suit seeking Rs. 2 lakh in damages against his superior, S.K. Bhargava, alleging that the latter deliberately issued vindictive orders and tampered with official records to harass him and block his appointment as Chief Controller. The defendant contended th…
GOBIND SINGH AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2026 INSC 2119 March 2026Dismissed
The appellants, Gobind Singh and others, sued the Union of India and others for a declaration of title and permanent injunction over land in Gwalior. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the respondents appealed; during the appeal the appellants filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce certif…
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANRversusKURIEN E. KALATHIL AND ANR.
2018 INSC 2249 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) contracted with Kurien E. Kalathil to construct a dam, after which a government notification raised minimum wages, leading the contractor to claim labour‑escalation charges with interest (Ex.P‑20) and additional work charges (Ex.P‑59). The High Court ordered KSEB to pay amounts…
DR. K. S. PALANISAMI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusHINDU COMMUNITY IN GENERAL AND CITIZENS OF GOBICHETTIPALAYAM AND OTHERS
2017 INSC 2219 March 2017Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from a 1968 joint and mutual will executed by a husband and wife, which earmarked their properties for charitable purposes and granted the surviving spouse absolute rights to deal with the property. The Court held that the suit was not barred by Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu…
KRISHNA VENI NAGAMversusHARISH NAGAM
2017 INSC 2249 March 2017Disposed off
The wife, residing in Hyderabad with her minor daughter, sought transfer of a divorce proceeding filed by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court of Jabalpur, citing hardship in traveling to the forum. The petition raised whether a transfer under Section 25 of the CPC was appropriate …
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATIONversusRAGHABENDRA SINGH AND ORS.
2007 INSC 2709 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The All Bengal Excise Licensees Association obtained an interim injunction from the Calcutta High Court prohibiting the State Excise authorities from holding any lottery for the final selection of excise shop licences without the Court's leave. Despite being fully aware of the order, the respondents – senior government…
K. VENKATACHALA BHAT AND ANR.versusKRISHNA NAYAK (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2005 INSC 1269 March 2005Disposed off
The appellants challenged a writ petition that had been disposed of by a single High Court judge on the basis of a purported compromise memo signed only by the respondents. The appellants asserted that they never signed the memo and that the disposal was therefore erroneous. The Division Bench of the High Court refused…
VASANTIBEN PRAHLADJI NAYAK AND ORS.versusSOMNATH JUIJIBHAI NAYAK AND ORS.
2004 INSC 1519 March 2004Dismissed
The appellants, Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak and others, sued the respondents, S.J. Nayak and others, for declaration of title, possession and injunction over ancestral land. The respondents claimed ownership by adverse possession, arguing the suit was barred by limitation. The lower courts held in favour of the responde…
B. R. PATILversusTULSA Y. SAWKAR & ORS.
2022 INSC 1659 February 2022Dismissed
The appeal concerned a partition suit filed by the sisters of the deceased R.M. Patil seeking one‑fifth shares in five properties alleged to be self‑acquired by him. The appellant argued that the suit should fail for non‑joinder of his uncle, for omission of certain properties, and on the ground of ouster, claiming he …
M/S. SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERSversusN. SAILESH PRASAD AND ORS.
2022 INSC 1679 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute arose from a property gifted to the plaintiff during minority, later revoked, and a development agreement executed with the developer. The plaintiff's father obtained a compromise decree in 2015 granting the plaintiff rights over the property. After attaining majority, the plaintiff filed a suit in 2018 see…
M/S NAHAR ENTERPRISESversusM/S HYDERABAD ALLWYN LTD. AND ANR.
2007 INSC 1249 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent sued the appellant for recovery of money and issued a summons for appearance on 10‑Oct‑1988, which was served on 14‑Oct‑1988 without attaching a copy of the plaint. The trial court, without issuing a fresh summons, proceeded to an ex‑parte hearing and decreed on 13‑Dec‑1988. The appellant learned of the …
DAMJIBHAI BIJIBHAI VASAVAversusRANCHHODBHAI ZINABHAI AND ORS.
2000 INSC 599 February 2000Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents filed a partition suit involving land assessed for revenue. The trial court, invoking Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, referred the partition to the Collector, who issued an order. The Collector's order was challenged before the Deputy Secretary under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Cod…
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARTHANARESWARAR TEMPLEversusR. SATHYAMOORTHY AND ORS.
1999 INSC 499 February 1999Appeal(s) allowed
The hereditary trustees of six Hindu temples filed a petition under the Indian Trusts Act seeking permission to sell temple properties, which was rejected by the District Court and initially dismissed by the High Court. The High Court later allowed a review and permitted the sale, but the Commissioner under the Tamil N…
SREE JAIN SETAMBAR TERAPANTHI VID (S)versusPHUNDAN SINGH AND ORS.
1999 INSC 509 February 1999
The Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Society, which runs several schools, terminated the services of its headmaster, Phundan Singh, and expelled several members. It sued for a declaration that the headmaster had ceased to hold office and for a temporary injunction restraining the expelled members from interfering with the sch…
THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY (LAND ACQUISITION) AND ANR.versusSHAH MANILAL CHANDULAL ETC.
1996 INSC 2179 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The Government acquired land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) made an award under Section 11 on 28‑02‑1989. The respondents, who were present at the award, filed an application for reference under Section 18 on 10‑06‑1989, exceeding the six‑week period prescribed …
RAVI S. NAIK AND SANJAY BANDEKAR AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
1994 INSC 579 February 1994Dismissed
The case concerned disqualification of members of the Goa Legislative Assembly under Article 191(2) read with the Tenth Schedule. Bandekar and Chopdekar were disqualified for allegedly having voluntarily given up their MGP membership, while Naik was disqualified on similar grounds after claiming a split in the party th…
GURJOGINDER SINGHversusSMT. JASWANT KAUR AND ANR.
1994 INSC 589 February 1994
The appellant, a tenant, was evicted by the landlord (respondent No.1) under an ex‑parte order, which was later set aside, and the tenant obtained a restoration order under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the warrant could be executed, respondent No.2 claimed to be a bona‑fide transferee in possessio…
SMT. KALLOO & ORS.versusDHAKADEVI & ORS .
1982 INSC 169 February 1982Dismissed
The decree‑holder obtained a decree for eviction of the judgment‑debtor’s shop in 1960. During execution proceedings a compromise was entered in 1968 whereby the debtor, having already vacated half the shop, was given time until 31‑Dec‑1972 to vacate the remaining half and to pay Rs 110 per month as damages; failure to…
M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – II, NEW DELHI
2026 INSC 469 January 2026Disposed off
The appellants, investment companies of the Jindal Group, held shares of Jindal Ferro Alloys Ltd (JFAL) as stock-in-trade and, following a court‑sanctioned scheme of amalgamation, were allotted shares of Jindal Strips Ltd (JSL) in exchange. The Assessing Officer treated the JSL shares as taxable business income under s…
RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENAversusDINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER
2025 INSC 559 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The husband, Dinesh Kumar Mahto, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Reena, in 2022, yet she continued to live apart, alleging mental cruelty, dowry demands, and a miscarriage. Reena filed a maintenance suit under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2019 and was awarded ₹10,000 per month. The …