Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3,093 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 2,801–3,000.

MARINGMEI ACHAMversusM MARINGMET KHURIPOU

2022 INSC 11603 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's father filed a declaratory suit in 2014 claiming hereditary chiefship of Lamdan Kabui village and sought a temporary injunction. He died during the pendency of a civil miscellaneous appeal against the trial court's refusal of the injunction. The appellant applied to be recognized as his father's legal r

SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusVINOD KUMAR RAWAT & ORS.

2020 INSC 6273 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shri Ram Sahu (deceased) through LRS, filed a suit seeking declaration that a 1995 sale deed was void and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit; the appellant appealed to the High Court, which also dismissed the appeal but observed that the appellant was in act

DASHRATH RAO KATEversusBRIJ MOHAN SRIVASTAVA

2009 INSC 12113 November 2009Appeal(s) allowed

In an eviction suit under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the appellant Dashrath Rao Kate sought to be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased owner Sukhiabai on the basis of a Will. The trial court, after a full inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, held the Will proved and allowed the

HOPE PLANTATIONS LTD.versusT ALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMADE AND ANR .

1998 INSC 4093 November 1998Case Partly allowed

Hope Plantations Ltd., which owned a large tea estate, claimed exemption from the ceiling area under the Kerala Land Reforms Act for land classified as fuel area, rested tea area, roads and buildings, and other agricultural land interspersed. The Taluk Land Board initially disallowed the fuel and rested tea claims, but

GULAM ABBAS & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1981 INSC 1883 November 1981Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed under Article 32 by the Shia community of Mohalla Doshipura, Varanasi, seeking enforcement of their customary rights to perform religious rites on nine specific plots and structures, rights previously affirmed by civil courts and Wakf registrations. The petition challeng

ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS.versusIL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

2023 INSC 8673 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, nine defendants in a commercial suit filed by IL and FS Financial Services Ltd, failed to file written statements within the 30‑day period (ending 8 March 2020) and the 120‑day outer limit (ending 6 June 2020). They sought an extension on 20 January 2021, invoking the Supreme Court's suo motu orders tha

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S TEJPARAS ASSOCIATES EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 11123 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Oriental Insurance filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Jaipur District Court to set aside an arbitral award, but the court returned the petition for presentation before the Jodhpur court, fixing 2 April 2008 as the date of re‑presentation. The appellant r

PANKAJBHAI RAMESHBHAI ZALAVADIYAversusJETHABHAI KALABHAI ZALAVADIYA (DECEASED)

2017 INSC 9893 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit in 2008 to cancel a 1995 sale deed of land that had been purchased by defendant No. 7, who had died before the suit was instituted. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s application to bring the deceased defendant’s legal representatives on record under Order 22 Rule 4, deeming it non‑mai

SYEDA RAHIMUNNISAversusMALAN BL (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ANR. ETC.

2016 INSC 9383 October 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Syeda Rahimunnisa and Syed Hyder Hussaini, sued the respondents (legal heirs of Haji Mian) for eviction and damages, asserting a landlord‑tenant relationship. The respondents counter‑claimed title to the land by adverse possession and filed three related suits. The trial court and the first appellate co

RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAMversusVANSHMANI PRASAD VERMA AND ANR.

2016 INSC 9423 October 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Rajendra Kumar Meshram was elected to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Deosar constituency. A petition was filed by the opposing candidate alleging that Meshram's nomination was improperly accepted because he failed to furnish the electoral roll of the constituency where he was a registered voter (Singr

VINOD KAPOORversusSTATE OF GOA & ORS.

2012 INSC 4443 October 2012Dismissed

Vinod Kapoor challenged the construction of a bungalow on C‑land in Goa, alleging violations of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and the Coastal Regulation Zone notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Bombay High Court dismissed his writ petition on the basis of a technical report and late

SOUTHERN SALES & SERVICES & ORS.versusSAUERMILCH DESIGN & HANDELS GMBH

2008 INSC 11213 October 2008Dismissed

The respondent filed a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of Euro 757,885.42. The defendant raised triable issues and admitted part of the claim; the trial court gave unconditional leave to defend. The Karnataka High Court modified this to conditional leave, allowing defence of Euro 3

RAM PRAKASH GUPTAversusRAJIV KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 10003 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Prakash Gupta, a handicapped plaintiff, filed a suit in 1990 seeking declaration of ownership of his house and nullity of two decrees obtained fraudulently by his brothers' sons in 1976. He discovered the fraudulent decree only in 1986 when an interpleader suit disclosed it. After 15 years of litigation, the respon

BASANT SINGH AND ANR.versusROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION

2002 INSC 4243 October 2002Leave granted

The landlord (respondent) sued the tenants Basant Singh and others (appellants). The trial court issued summons by ordinary process and by registered post, but receiving no service report it ordered fresh summons and substituted service by publishing notice in the newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar". The notice was actually pub

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC

1991 INSC 2503 October 1991Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the court‑assisted settlement of the Bhopal gas‑leak disaster claims, where Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) agreed to pay $470 million and all civil and criminal proceedings were to be terminated. The Court held that under Article 142 of the Constitution it had jurisdiction to withdraw the ma

C.P. FRANCISversusC.P. JOSEPH AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 10713 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the succession to the suit‑schedule property of the deceased parents, C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius, who had executed a joint will bequeathing the property to the appellant C.P. Francis. The respondents, other children of the deceased, challenged the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capa

ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS.versusBHIM SINGH & ANR.

2024 INSC 6513 September 2024Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a 2005 sale agreement, which was eventually decreed by the appellate court directing the appellants to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration. While the execution application was pending, the appellants sought rescission of the contract u

VAIBHAV JAINversusHINDUSTAN MOTORS PVT. LTD.

2024 INSC 6523 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Vaibhav Motors, was a dealer of Hindustan Motors and was sued for compensation after a Hindustan Motors employee died in a test‑drive accident involving a vehicle that had not been sold to the dealer. The key question was whether the dealer could be deemed the "owner" of the vehicle and thus jointly liab

CHOUDAPPA & ANR.versusCHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 6913 September 2024Dismissed

A suit filed in 1963 for possession and correction of mutation was decreed in 1973, directing an inquiry into mesne profits from the suit's filing date under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC. After execution, the respondents obtained possession in 2005 and, in 2014, filed an application under Section 141 CPC or Order XX Rul

GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ORS.versusMEENAKSHI AMMAL & ORS.

2009 INSC 11073 September 2009Matter referred to larger bench

The trustees of Gangai Vinayagar Temple leased a plot for a theatre; the lessee died and the trustees sold the land to third parties. The lessees sued for injunction, claiming the sale was void because the property was a public temple and required sanction under the Hindu Religious Institutions Act. Parallel suits for

TANZEEM-E-SUFIAversusBIBI HALIMAN AND ORS.

2002 INSC 3613 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Bibi Haliman obtained a decree for eviction of a property and filed an execution petition for possession. Judgment debtor No.7, claiming the premises belonged to the Sufi Ashram (Tanzeem‑e‑Sufia), resisted delivery. The Ashram filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC seeking to be heard as a third‑party in poss

LEELA SONI AND ORS.versusRAJESH GOYAL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4193 September 2001Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on grounds of rent default and unauthorised occupation of a portion of the premises. The trial court decreed eviction, but the first appellate court reversed, erroneously requiring the landlord to prove that

SMT. WINKY DILAWARI AND ANR.versusAMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, AMRITSAR

1996 INSC 9933 September 1996Dismissed

The Amritsar Improvement Trust framed a scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 to create a passage to Guru Nanak Stadium and, after statutory publication and government approval, began acquiring land for the scheme. The appellants, who purchased a vacant site after the scheme’s approval but before personal

SAKHARAM SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS & ANR.versusKISHANRAO

2022 INSC 13123 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Two sons of Tukaram filed a suit for declaration and possession of immovable property against two sons of Gangaram, with their mother as a proforma defendant. The suit was dismissed, but the first appeal reversed the decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a second appeal, during which the proforma de

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA

2012 INSC 3143 August 2012Dismissed

The Bar Council of India challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 22‑A to 22‑E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (as inserted by the 2002 Amendment), arguing that they were arbitrary, violated Articles 14 and 21, denied a right of appeal and encroached on the jurisdiction of special statutes. The Su

M/S. KAPIL COREPACKS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusSHRI HARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

2010 INSC 4673 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff sued Kapil Corepacks Pvt Ltd and others for recovery, alleging that the defendants had executed a sale agreement that was later claimed to be a forged document. The defendants filed a criminal complaint alleging forgery and denied signing the agreement. The trial court examined the managing director under

BHIARU RAM AND ORS.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

2010 INSC 4703 August 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, accused in a CBI case under the Prevention of Corruption Act for abetting the possession of disproportionate assets by a senior income‑tax officer, filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to move the trial from the Special Court, CBI, Greater Mumbai to a Sp

BIMLESH & ORS.versusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

2010 INSC 4723 August 2010Case Partly allowed

The owner of a Jeep, who also drove the vehicle, died in a road accident and his dependants filed a claim for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurer contended that the petition was not maintainable because the deceased was not a third party and the policy covered only third‑party

H.V. VEDAVYASACHARversusSHIVASHANKARA & ANR.

2009 INSC 9963 August 2009Disposed off

The plaintiff, H.V. Vedavyasachar, sued Shivashankara and others for a permanent injunction and a mandatory injunction directing possession of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the respondents filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence, which was allowed,

BALDEV SINGH AND ORS. ETC.versusMANOHAR SINGH AND ANR. ETC.

2006 INSC 4893 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a declaratory suit claiming ownership of certain land, alleging that sale deeds in his parents' names were benami transactions. The defendants denied the claim and later sought to amend their written statement to raise a limitation defence, assert that the parents had sufficient income to pay the pr

THE STATE OF KERALA ETC. ETC.versusM/S. ARYA REFRIGERATION & A/C CO. ETC. ETC.

2004 INSC 4143 August 2004Disposed off

The State of Kerala entered into a contract with Mis Arya Refrigeration & A/C Co. for supplying and erecting a cold‑storage plant, which could not be installed because the State failed to construct the requisite building. The dispute was referred to arbitration; the arbitrator awarded a sum to the claimant. The State c

CHADAT SINGHversusBAHADUR RAMA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 4153 August 2004Leave Granted & Disposed off

Bahadur Rama filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed by the trial court and later reversed by the High Court on a second appeal. The appellant challenged the High Court's disposal of the second appeal, arguing that the Court had not formulated any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 o

FARGO FREIGHT LTD.versusTHE COMMODITIES EXCHANGE CORPORATION AND ORS.

2004 INSC 4173 August 2004Disposed off

Fargo Freight Ltd., the owner of a vessel, chartered it to the first respondent and claimed freight and demurrage. Because RBI permission was required, the first respondent issued an irrevocable standby Letter of Credit (L/C) through the third respondent (the issuing bank). A dispute arose over demurrage, leading to ar

N. KAMALAM (DEAD) AND ANR.versusAYYASAMY AND ANR.

2001 INSC 3413 August 2001Dismissed

The appellants filed a partition suit claiming title to a half of a property based on a will executed by Masane Gowder in favour of two sisters. The respondents contested the will, arguing that the property was joint family property and that the will was not properly attested. The trial court held the will unproved; th

SRI RAJ RAJESHWARI PRASAD SINGHversusSH. SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGH AND.ORS.

1993 INSC 2523 August 1993Dismissed

The appellant, a grandson, sought to reopen a preliminary ex‑parte decree in a title suit concerning a Hindu joint family property, claiming that his grandmother's life estate under a 1942 compromise decree had become an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that his mother could be

ABHAY SINGH SURANAversusINDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD.

1988 INSC 2013 August 1988Disposed off

Abhay Singh Surana, the landlord of a godown, sued Jayshree Textiles (later amalgamated with Indian Rayon) for eviction and faced a title suit for injunction. He applied under Clause 13 of the 1865 Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court to have both suits transferred to the High Court, citing the respondent's dilato

MANGE RAMversusBRIJ MOHAN AND OTHERS

1983 INSC 873 August 1983Appeal(s) allowed

Mange Ram, the petitioner, challenged the election of Brij Mohan to the Haryana Legislative Assembly by filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. During the trial he sought to examine a large number of witnesses he had kept present in court, but whose names were not included in the l

SOPANRAO & ANR.versusSYED MEHMOOD & ORS.

2019 INSC 7193 July 2019Dismissed

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit in 1987 seeking declaration that certain lands were Inam lands of Niyamatullah Shah Dargah and also seeking possession of those lands from the defendants (appellants). The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and non‑joinder of parties. The District Judge

JASPAL KAUR CHEEMA AND ANR.versusM/S INDUSTRIAL TRADE LINKS AND ORS. ETC.

2017 INSC 5843 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, claiming personal necessity for premises they alleged they owned and had leased to the respondents. During the trial the respondents sought to amend their written statement to deny the appellants' ownership, assert

NITHYA ANAND RAGHAVANversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2017 INSC 12953 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The mother, Nithya Anand Raghavan, removed her seven‑year‑old daughter Nethra from the United Kingdom to India and the father filed a writ of habeas corpus in Delhi seeking the child's production and compliance with a UK court order directing her return. The Delhi High Court ordered the mother to produce the child and

D. N. JOSHI (D) THR. LRS. & OTHERSversusD. C. HARRIS & ANOTHER

2017 INSC 5783 July 2017Dismissed

The appeal concerned a suit for eviction filed by D.C. Harris (respondent) against tenants D.N. Joshi and others (appellants) who challenged the respondents' title to the premises. The title derived from a 1949 gift deed by Akhtari Begum to her brother Zamir Ahmad, followed by a 1965 sale deed to the respondents. The l

K. S. VARGHESE & ORS.versusST. PETERS & PAULS SYRIAN ORTH. & ORS.

2017 INSC 5803 July 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals concerning the administration of Parish Churches within the Malankara Church, which has been divided between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction. The core dispute was whether the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church or individual Udampady agreements (such as those f

SATTI PARADESI SAMADHI & PHILLIAR TEMPLEversusM. SANKUNTALA (D) TR. LRS. & ORS.

2014 INSC 4673 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Pillayar Temple, filed a suit in 1997 seeking a declaration that three settlement deeds dated 27 March 1978, executed by a former trustee in favour of his daughters and granddaughter, were void, and also sought possession of the trust land. The defendant contended that the suit w

M/S. SWASTIK GASES P. LTD.versusINDIAN OIL CORP. LTD.

2013 INSC 4223 July 2013Dismissed

Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. entered into a consignment agency agreement with Indian Oil Corp. that contained a clause stating the agreement was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata. When a dispute arose, Swastik filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Rajas

SHAMBHU PRASAD SHARMAversusSHRI CHARANDAS MAHANT & ORS.

2012 INSC 2623 July 2012Dismissed

The appellant, an independent candidate, filed an election petition challenging the acceptance of nomination papers of the other candidates on the ground that their affidavits were not in the prescribed format required under the Representation of People Act and Election Commission directions. The High Court dismissed t

A. NAWAB JOHN & ORS.versusV.N. SUBRAMANIYAM

2012 INSC 2633 July 2012Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for specific performance but initially paid only a deficient court fee. After multiple representations and condonation of delay, the trial court allowed the deficit fee to be paid well beyond the limitation period. The second defendant, a pendente‑lite purchaser, was impleaded and challenged

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CHARITABLE TRUST & EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANversusM/S PONNIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON/ MANAGING TRUSTEE

2012 INSC 2643 July 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society (appellant) challenged the Madras High Court Division Bench’s reversal of a single judge’s order rejecting the plaint against it in a suit for specific performance filed by M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust (respondent). The Supreme Court examined wh

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHALversusMAMTA BISHT AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3363 June 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttaranchal Public Service Commission advertised 35 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) with both vertical (SC/ST/OBC) and horizontal (women, physically handicapped) reservations. Ms. Mamta Bisht, a resident woman of Uttaranchal, applied for the horizontal women’s reservation but was not selected. She filed a wr

KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSUKHI RAM & ORS.

2024 INSC 3743 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of a predecessor in interest, were decreed in a pre-emption suit to deposit a balance amount of Rs. 9,214 minus a fifth already paid, by 10 October 1988. Due to a clerical miscalculation, they deposited Rs. 7,600 instead of the correct Rs. 7,614, leaving a shortfall of Rs. 14, which they sought to

GANESAN REP BY ITS POWER AGENT G. RUKMANI GANESANversusTHE COMMISSIONER, THE TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BOARD & ORS.

2019 INSC 6233 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ganesan challenged the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board Commissioner's order condoning a 266‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 69 of the Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959. The central issue was whether the Commissioner, a statutory authority, is a "court" f

M.B. RAMESH (D) BY LRS.versusK.M. VEERAJE URS (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2013 INSC 3083 May 2013Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit claiming title to ancestral land based on a will dated 24‑10‑1943 executed by the testatrix, Smt. Nagammanni, and registered the next day. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the will was not proved because it did not satisfy Section 63(c) of the S

ISHWARDAS ROHANIversusALOK MISHRA & ORS.

2012 INSC 1983 May 2012Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, a returned candidate, challenged an election petition filed by the respondent alleging corrupt practices under Sections 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court, despite noting deficiencies in the petition, directed the respondent to amend the pleadings and verify them, rather th

M/S M.R.F. LTD. ETC.versusMANOHAR PARRIKAR AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2623 May 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of two Goa Government notifications (15‑May‑1996 and 1‑Aug‑1996) granting a 25% electricity tariff rebate to industrial consumers. The appellants argued that the notifications were lawful government decisions, while the State contended they were issued by the Power Minister witho

CHURCH OF NORTH OF INDIAversusLAVAJIBHAI RATANJIBHAI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 2483 May 2005Dismissed

The Church of North India (CNI) sought a declaration that the earlier Brethren Church had ceased to exist, that CNI was its legal successor with rights over its properties, and a perpetual injunction restraining dissenting members from obstructing its functioning. The plaintiffs filed the suit in a civil court before C

GLOBAL ENERGY LTD . .AND ANR.versusM/S. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 2513 May 2005Dismissed

The West Bengal State Electricity Board issued a notice inviting tenders (NIT) for the sale of surplus power, requiring a Rs 30 lakh earnest money deposit from all bidders except Central/State Government organisations and public sector undertakings (PSUs). Global Energy Ltd., lacking the requisite Category F licence (i

P. KLRAN KUMARversusA.S. KHADAR AND ORS.

2002 INSC 2583 May 2002Appeal(s) allowed

P. Kiran Kumar, a minor, claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act after a road accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a partial sum ex parte because the respondents withdrew their defence. The respondents appealed the award, but the High Court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. They th

K. RAJAMOULIversusA.V.K.N. SWAMY

2001 INSC 2533 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from an arbitration award where the decree did not include pendente lite interest. The decree holder sought such interest in execution, which was rejected, leading to a series of revision, interlocutory, and review petitions in the High Court. While a review petition was pending, the appellant filed a

M/S. ESSAR CONSTRUCTIONSversusN.P. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY

2000 INSC 2783 May 2000Dismissed

Essar Constructions appealed a Supreme Court order dismissing its appeal against a High Court decision that had condoned delay in filing an application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The dispute arose from three arbitrators where two awards favored Essar and one favored the respondent, who sought to set

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. ETC.versusKRISHNA KANT ETC. ETC.

1995 INSC 3353 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The employees of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation were dismissed after disciplinary inquiries conducted under certified Standing Orders. They filed civil suits seeking declaration that the dismissals were illegal and that they be reinstated with benefits. The corporation contended that the Civil Court lacked

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusJAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR

2024 INSC 2623 April 2024Dismissed

The Union of India filed a civil appeal seeking restoration of a writ petition that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution in 2006, but the application for restoration was filed after a delay of 12 years and 158 days. The High Court declined to condone this delay, prompting the Union to challenge the order before the S

BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THR. LRS.versusPURUSHOTTAM & ORS.

2020 INSC 3273 April 2020Dismissed

The appellant, Bhagwat Sharan, a grandson of Umrao Lal, filed a partition suit claiming six houses and several agricultural lands as joint Hindu family (HUF) property of his ancestors Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal. The defendants denied the existence of an HUF, asserting the properties were self‑acquired and that a will

HAMMAD AHMEDversusABDUL MAJEED & ORS.

2019 INSC 4603 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a dispute over who should serve as Chief Mutawalli of Hamdard Laboratories (India) after the death of the previous Chief Mutawalli, Abdul Mueed. The appellant, Hammad Ahmed, claimed that the senior-most male descendant of the Wakif Mutawalli, as stipulated in the 1948 Deed as amended in 1973, was ent

M/S CONSOLIDATED ENGG. ENTERPRISESversusPRINCIPAL SECY. IRRIGATION DEPTT. & ORS.

2008 INSC 4473 April 2008Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which excludes time spent prosecuting a proceeding in a wrong court, applies to an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award. It held that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act

B. JANAKIRAMAIAH CHETTYversusA.K. PARTHASARTHI AND ORS.

2003 INSC 2143 April 2003Dismissed

The appellant filed a suit for damages alleging police torture, and the respondents failed to appear at the final hearing where a decree was passed ex parte. The respondents sought relief under Order IX Rule 13, arguing that the decree was an ex parte adjudication, while the appellant contended that the Explanation to

S. SIVAPRAKASAMversusB.V. MUNIRAJ AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3613 April 1997Dismissed

The Catholic Syrian Bank, as mortgagee, obtained a preliminary decree (1951) and a final decree (1952) against mortgagor Manickam Mudaliar. While objections to the final decree were pending, a money creditor obtained a separate money decree, and the mortgaged property was sold in execution to Kandaswamy, who later tran

S. VANATHAN MUTHURAJAversusRAMALINGAM ALIAS KRISHNAMURTHY GURUKKAL AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3653 April 1997Dismissed

The appellant purchased a one‑third share in a property and filed suits for declaration of title and partition. While the suit was pending, the Tehsildar, under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, conducted a suo motu inquiry and granted a Ryotwari patta to an institution. The

DR. SMT. SHIPRAversusSHANTI LAL KHOIWAL

1996 INSC 4773 April 1996Dismissed

Dr. SMT. Shipra filed an election petition challenging the election of S.L. Khotwal on grounds of corrupt practices. The petition and its supporting affidavit were served on the returned candidate, but the copy of the affidavit omitted the notarized verification required by Form 25 under Rule 94‑A of the Conduct of Ele

SUBODH KUMARversusSHAMIM AHMED

2021 INSC 1463 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

In 1994 the landlord filed a suit for possession, rent and mesne profits against the tenant, who failed to file a written statement, leading to an ex‑parte decree in 1998. The tenant later filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC (and Section 5 of the Limitation Act) on 25 August 1998 to set aside the decr

MANGAYARKARASIversusM. YUVARAJ

2020 INSC 2593 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of his marriage on the ground of the wife's intemperate behaviour, while the wife filed a petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court dismissed the husband's petition for lack of evidence, a deci

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.versusM/S SITALAXMI SAHUWALA MEDICAL TRUST AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 2553 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Ashok Kumar Gupta and his wife, trustees of a public charitable medical trust, filed a suit under Section 92 of the CPC seeking a scheme for the trust’s administration, removal of certain trustees and appointment of qualified medical trustees, alleging that the trust had been turned into a private family trust and its

SASI (D) THROUGH LRS. ·versusARAVINDAKSHAN NARI AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 2013 March 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by SASI (D) through LRS against orders of the Kerala High Court that dismissed a second appeal (9 March 2012) and a review petition (26 October 2016). The review petition, filed on 20 September 2012, was barred by limitation and remained pending for nearly four

V. LAXMINARASAMMAversusA. YADAIAH (DEAD) & ORS.

2009 INSC 2913 March 2009Disposed off

The Supreme Court was asked to resolve a conflict between two earlier decisions on whether the Special Tribunal or Special Court created under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 could decide questions of adverse possession. The Court examined the provisions of the Act, its non‑obstante clause, and

U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD.versusNATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 2923 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned whether the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) could have the arrears of salary revision for its employees, payable with retrospective effect from 1997, included in the tariff for its Korba and Dadri power stations for the years 1997-2000. NTPC filed tariff applications in 2001, later amend

KAUSAL YABAI & AKKABAI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusHARISHCHANDRA MUNNALAL GUPTA

2009 INSC 2973 March 2009Disposed off

The suit was filed by the brother, Harishchandra Gupta, seeking possession of a house on the basis that he held a permanent lease granted by the Naib Tehsildar on 30‑Nov‑1979. The sister, Kausalya Bai, contended that she was a licensee and later claimed title by adverse possession, while also arguing that the lease ord

KASHMIR SINGHversusHARNAM SINGH & ANR.

2008 INSC 2793 March 2008Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by Kashmir Singh against Harnam Singh & Anr. The High Court had allowed the appeal without formulating any substantial question of law, contrary to the statutory requirement. The Court clarified the meaning of a "su

REKHA MUKHERJEEversusASHIS KUMAR DAS AND ORS.

2005 INSC 1153 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Rekha Mukherjee, the owner of a property, filed a title suit for eviction against Ashis Kumar Das and others. The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of three sale agreements, which the appellant later cancelled; the trial court dismissed the specific‑performance suit. The respondents obtained a partial r

ROHINI PRASAD AND ORS.versusKASTURCHAND AND ANR.

2000 INSC 1193 March 2000Dismissed

The dispute concerned agricultural land in Madhya Pradesh where the original bhumiswami sold the land to the respondent but had earlier granted a one‑year lease to the appellant. The appellant claimed the lease was renewed for a second year, thereby acquiring bhumiswami rights under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code

G.P. SRIVASTAVAversusSHRI R.K. RAIZADA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 1203 March 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant, was subject to an ex‑parte decree for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages after failing to appear at the hearing on 10 March 1983. He filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that his absence was due to official duties, illness, and the death of his

P. SURESHversusD.KALAIVANI & ORS

2026 INSC 1213 February 2026Case Allowed

The appellant, P. Suresh, filed a suit for permanent injunction over disputed land before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. The defendants contested the title and alleged the plaintiff's documents were forged, seeking to have the plaint struck off. The High Court of Madras, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction unde

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA)versusYUNUS & ORS.

2022 INSC 1423 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a land acquisition notification where the original compensation award was Rs.24,033 per bigha. The respondents did not file an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but later a reference was made and a Lok Adalat, under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, p

N. RAJENDRANversusS. VALLI

2022 INSC 1403 February 2022Disposed off

The husband (appellant) filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty after his wife (respondent) left him and returned to her parental home. The Family Court granted the decree of dissolution, but the wife appealed to the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act; the appeal was filed on 09‑09‑2004. The appell

M/S. ROHINI TRADERSversusM/S. J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD.

2015 INSC 9593 February 2015Dismissed

M/s Rohini Traders sued J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. for unpaid dues and served a notice under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC seeking production of specific documents. The defendant produced some of the documents in court and its representative was cross‑examined, but the plaintiff failed to have those documents marked and en

VIDYAWATI GUPTA AND ORS.versusBHAKTI HARI NAY AK AND ORS.

2006 INSC 713 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a civil suit in the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court without attaching an affidavit, as required by the 2002 amendments to Section 26, Order IV and Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held the suit non‑est and set aside the interim

SHRI RAM PRAKASHversusSMT. CHARAN KAUR AND ANR.

1997 INSC 893 February 1997Dismissed

Both parties filed civil suits against each other for damages. The petitioner's suit was dismissed by the trial court, while the respondents' suit was also dismissed but later allowed on appeal, resulting in a decree for Rs. 24,875 in favour of the respondents. The petitioner filed a second appeal challenging the respo

HANAMANTHAPPA AND ANR.versusCHANDRASHEKHARAPPA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 913 February 1997Dismissed

The respondents originally filed suit O.S. No.158/94 in the District Munsiff Court, Navalagund, but the plaint was returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction. They amended the plaint and refiled it as O.S. No.10/91 in the Civil Court at Dharwad. The original plaintiffs filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of

VALIAMMALversusR. PALANICHAMI NADAR AND ORS.

1997 INSC 953 February 1997Dismissed

The petitioner sought to set aside the execution of a sale of two properties that had been ordered by the High Court after his mother’s earlier application under Order XXI, Rule 64 of the CPC was dismissed and became final. After his mother’s death, the petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC allegi

JAYWANTRAJ PUNAMIYA AND ORS.versusM/S. H. CHOKSI AND CO. PVT. LTD.

1997 INSC 973 February 1997Dismissed

The appeal arose from a Bombay High Court order refusing to record a compromise under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC. While the appeal was pending, the parties filed an application to record a compromise whereby they appointed Shri Mohanlal S. Mehta as a mediator to sell two flats and adjust the proceeds. The High Court h

RAMANKUTTY GUPTANversusAVARA

1994 INSC 423 February 1994

The appellant, a vendor, sought rescission of a contract of sale under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, alleging the respondent failed to pay the balance consideration within the time fixed by an appellate decree for specific performance. The decree, passed by the appellate court, was being executed in the

R.S.D.V. FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD.versusVALLABH GLASS WORKS LTD.

1993 INSC 333 February 1993Appeal(s) allowed

R.S.D.V. Finance Co. deposited Rs.10,00,000 with Vallabh Glass Works for 90 days at 19% interest. When the deposit matured, the defendant failed to pay and issued five post‑dated cheques that later bounced, prompting a summary suit. The defendant argued that the deposit receipt’s endorsement "Subject to Anand jurisdict

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusVIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 153 January 2024Dismissed

Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Bharti Hexacom Ltd. entered into spectrum trading agreements with Aircel Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd., which later led to disputes over bank guarantees and payments. When Aircel entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Airtel claimed a right to set‑off Rs. 112.87 crore agains

RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.

2024 INSC 123 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that a 2011 sale deed was void, claiming ownership of a parcel of land based on an alleged oral partition among four brothers and a will executed by one brother. The trial court and the subordinate appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the oral partition was

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIAversusM/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.

2022 INSC 33 January 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) communication dated 9 June 1997 to SIDBI was a binding directive under the RBI Act, 1934 and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and whether SIDBI was justified in withholding interest on bonds issued by CRB Capital. The Court held that RBI’s directions

THE STATE OF JHARKHANDversusSURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

2019 INSC 53 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand State Electricity Board sought to energise a fully constructed electricity sub‑station on land claimed by three respondents who alleged possession of the suit property. The respondents had earlier failed to establish a title to the land in a title suit and could not specify the

SHIVSHANKAR GURGARversusDILIP

2014 INSC 43 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Shivshankar Gurgar, a landlord, filed a suit under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of his tenant Dilip for arrears of rent. The parties entered into a compromise decree whereby the tenant would pay the arrears within six months, failing which the landlord could take p

PRAFUL MANOHAR RELEversusSMT. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN GHOSALKAR & ORS.

2014 INSC 33 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Praful Manohar Rele, sued the heirs of Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar for possession of a house, alleging that they occupied it as gratuitous licensees whose licence had been validly terminated. The defendants counter‑claimed that they were tenants and sought eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court

KANPUR JAL SANSTHAN & ANOTHERversusM/S. BAPU CONSTRUCTION

2014 INSC 9003 January 2014Disposed off

Kanpur Jal Sansthan appealed against a High Court order that, after rejecting its Section 34 objection to an arbitral award, directed it to deposit the entire award amount while allowing the claimant to withdraw half without security. The Supreme Court held that once a Section 34 objection is rejected, the award become

GHULAM NABI DAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF J&K & ORS.

2013 INSC 23 January 2013Disposed off

The appellants, long-time occupants of certain lands, challenged a 1980 notification under Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 that declared the lands evacuee property vested in the Custodian. They claimed to be protected tenants‑at‑will existing before the Act and

SARAT CHANDRA MISHRA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ORLSSA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 23 January 2006Dismissed

The appellants, government employees, challenged a 1990 corrected seniority list issued by the State of Orissa, which had been upheld by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in its order of 9 March 1992, confirming the 1984 list. Only one special leave petition was filed against that Tribunal order, and the Supreme Court

MAKHAN LAL BANGALversusMANAS BHUNIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 13 January 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a defeated candidate, filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on grounds of corrupt practices under Sections 123(2), (4) and (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Calcutta High Court found several persons guilty of suc

SOLOMON SELVARAJ & ORS.versusINDIRANI BHAGAWAN SINGH & ORS.

2022 INSC 12422 December 2022Disposed off

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and applied under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC to sue as indigent persons. The trial court rejected the application, and the High Court affirmed, holding that the suit was barred by res judicata and was an abuse of process. On appeal, the Sup

M/S. ADANI AGRI FRESH LTD.versusMAHABOOB SHARIF & ORS.

2015 INSC 8832 December 2015Disposed off

M/s Adani Agri Fresh Ltd. (appellant) supplied fruit to M/s RMS Fruits & Co. (respondent) and obtained three unconditional bank guarantees from State Bank of Mysore to secure payment. When the respondent failed to pay, the appellant invoked the guarantees, prompting the respondent to obtain a permanent injunction restr

M/S. JULIEN EDUCATIONAL TRUSTversusSOURENDRA KUMAR ROY & ORS.

2009 INSC 12702 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Julien Educational Trust, which runs a school, sought to purchase adjacent land owned by eight co‑sharers for expansion. An oral agreement was reached, draft deeds were prepared and approved by most sellers, but execution was delayed and the sellers later attempted to sell the land to third parties. The Trust filed a s

KASHI MATH SAMSTHAN & ANR.versusSHIMAO SUDHINDRA THIRTHA SWAMY & ANR.

2009 INSC 12752 December 2009Dismissed

The Kashi Math Samsthan and its successor appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration that the appellant was the 21st Mathadhipathi and an injunction restraining the incumbent Mathadhipathi from exercising his powers. The trial court granted a temporary status‑quo injunction during the suit, but later dismissed the su

S. SATNAM SINGH & ORS.versusSURENDER KAUR & ANR.

2008 INSC 13822 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a partition suit concerning a residential house and the business of Bombay Cycle Company. The trial court passed a preliminary decree granting each party a one‑third share in the house, but later the parties sought to include the business assets in the partition. The High Court set aside the decree, h

NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHIversusRAJAT VIDYARTHI

2008 INSC 13852 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a Will executed by Bishan Sahai Vidyarthi in 1965, which set aside Rs.30,000 for the benefit of his widowed daughter‑in‑law Chandramukhi and her son Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi. Within a month the testator purchased an immovable property with that amount. After the testator's death, the property was

MOHAMMED YUSUFversusFAIJ MOHAMMAD & ORS .

2008 INSC 13812 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for permanent and temporary injunction in 2002. The respondents, served with summons, repeatedly sought extensions to file their written statement under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC, but the trial court rejected their application and set a date for recording evidence. The respondents filed a re

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHANMUMBAI AND ANR.versusSTATE BANK OF INDIA

1998 INSC 4542 December 1998Dismissed

The respondent appealed a rateable value order under Section 217(1) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to the Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court. That order was challenged by the respondent in a second appeal to the High Court under Section 218D, where a single judge partially allowed it. The appella

MALKIAT SINGH AND ANR.versusJOGINDER SINGH AND ORS.

1997 INSC 7792 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, convicted of murder, were sued for damages of Rs 1,00,000 by the respondents for loss of income after the victim’s death. The appellants had engaged counsel who, on 18 Nov 1991, pleaded “no instructions,” after which the trial court proceeded ex‑parte and passed a decree on 8 Feb 1992 without giving any

SMT. MEHRUNNISA AND ORS.versusSMT. VISHAM KUMAR! AND ANR.

1997 INSC 7832 December 1997Dismissed

The respondent landlady served three notices to the tenant, first claiming the premises were needed for her husband's legal practice, then for a cloth business, and finally repeating the latter before filing an eviction suit. The trial court held that the landlady's requirement for the cloth business was bona fide and

M/S BIHAR STATE FOOD AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.versusM/S GODREJ SOAPS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14212 December 1996Disposed off

The petitioners, Bihar State Food and Supplies Corporation Ltd., sought to have suit No. 398/89, which had been transferred to the Subordinate Judge, Patna, re‑transferred back to that court for trial, arguing that the earlier order for a joint trial with suit No. 1028/78 had outlived its purpose. The respondents oppos

MANOJ BEHARI LAL MATHUR AND ANR.versusDR. SHANTI MATHUR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14252 December 1996Dismissed

The appellants' mother filed a suit for perpetual injunction against Dr. Shanti Mathur to prevent alienation of a family property, later filing suits for partition and for a declaration that Dr. Mathur was a benamidar and the property belonged to the joint family. An application was made to amend the plaint to allege t

SUKHVINDER PAL BIPAN KUMARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

1981 INSC 1962 December 1981Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the second proviso to clause 11(1) of the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978 (as amended 1980), which allows the licensing authority to suspend a foodgrains dealer’s licence for up to ninety days without giving the dealer a reasona

NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusSMT. SUJATHA

2018 INSC 10362 November 2018Disposed off

Mallikarjuna, a driver employed by the North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, died of a heart attack while on duty on 6 April 1999. His widow filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the Commissioner awarded Rs 3,79,120 with a direction that interest at 12% per annum would accrue only if t

GURCHARAN SINGHversusSURJIT SINGH AND ANR.

2012 INSC 5072 November 2012Disposed off

The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.7735 of 2010 against respondent Surjit Singh, who had actually died on 09‑06‑2009, a fact discovered only later. The petitioner then moved Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No.2 seeking substitution of the deceased respondent’s legal representatives and I.A. No.3 seek

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 11272 November 2007Case Partly allowed

The Lucknow Development Authority acquired a large tract of land for a housing scheme and the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed its market value at Rs.2.20 per sq. ft., later increased to Rs.6 per sq. ft. by the acquisition tribunal after considering sale deeds of small plots. The landowners appealed, claiming the

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.versusMUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ROPAR

2006 INSC 7852 November 2006Disposed off

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd had been paying octroi duty on commercial heavy chemicals under Entry 40(a) of the Punjab Municipal Committee Act for 13 years. The Municipal Council of Ropar sought to re‑classify the same chemicals under Entry 40(e), which carries a higher rate, without any change in circumstances and without

ROSHANDEENversusPREETILAL

2001 INSC 5502 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Roshan Deen, a workman injured while operating machinery at Preeti Lal's flour mill, claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. While the claim was pending, the Commissioner dismissed it on the basis of an alleged agreement between the parties that Deen would withdraw his claim, an agreement later

AJIT KUMAR RATHversusSTATE OF ORISSA

1999 INSC 5102 November 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an engineer promoted on an ad‑hoc basis in 1972 pending Public Service Commission approval, challenged the seniority list that placed direct recruits appointed the same year ahead of him. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal initially held the appellant senior, but on review reversed its decision, relying

AJIT CHOPRAversusSADHU RAM AND ORS.

1999 INSC 5142 November 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Ajit Chopra (through his legal representative), purchased a property in 1957 subject to pending rent‑control litigation between the vendor and the tenant, Sadhu Ram. The tenant denied any landlord‑tenant relationship and claimed title by adverse possession, leading to a fresh eviction petition in 1969 an

BAPU MAHADU. MALI & ORS.versusVITHALRAO BHAUSAHEB DESHMUKH AND ANR.

1995 INSC 6822 November 1995Dismissed

In a suit for possession filed by the rival reversioners, the appellants, who were the landlords, were defendants. The respondents had remained in possession for over twelve years, thereby acquiring title by adverse possession, and the appellants had also entered into a tenancy agreement with them, which under Section

GAUHATI UNIVERSITYversusSHRI NIHARLAL BHATTACHARJEE

1995 INSC 6842 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Gauhati University was served a summons on 28 May 1990 to appear on 29 May 1990 in a suit. The University sought an adjournment, the case was adjourned to 19 July 1990, but the new date was never communicated, leading to an ex parte decree. The University filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to se

KISHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1992 INSC 2972 November 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Kishan Singh was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the Allahabad High Court under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the High Court dismissed the appeal for default because neither he nor his counsel appeared,

M.S. JAGADAMBALversusSOUTHERN INDIAN EDUCATION TRUST & ORS.

1987 INSC 3042 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

M.S. Jagadambal, the widow of Nagappa Naicker, sued the Southern Indian Education Trust and others to recover a low‑lying, seasonally submerged parcel of land (described as a "pit" or "Pallam") that her husband had purchased in 1929. She claimed continuous possession by her husband and herself and alleged that the resp

ROOP LAL SINGHversusNACHHATTAR SINGH

1982 INSC 802 November 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Roop Lal challenged the election of Nachhattar Singh to the Punjab Legislative Assembly on the ground that the Election Commission’s re‑allocation of the party symbol ‘hand’ to the respondent violated the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 and the provisions of the Representation of th

M/S. JAGAN SINGH & CO.versusLUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS.

2022 INSC 8992 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Ludhiana Improvement Trust acquired land from several owners but failed to pay the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The owners filed execution proceedings, leading to the attachment and auction of the property to M/s. Jagan Singh & Co. for Rs. 22.65 lakhs in 1992. The Trust later sought to set

GOVT. OF KERALA & ORS.versusSUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

2013 INSC 5832 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit against the State of Kerala without serving the statutory notice required under Section 80(1) of the CPC and sought leave to proceed under Section 80(2). The State filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint, while the plaintiff’s Section 80(2) application remai

PIRTHIversusMOHAN SINGH & ORS.

2011 INSC 6382 September 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Pirthi, filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption as a co‑sharer of agricultural land, before the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 was amended. While the suit was pending, the Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995 substituted Section 15, restricting the right of pre‑emption to tenants and removing it from

BAIJ NATH SHARMAversusHONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR AND ANR.

1998 INSC 3392 September 1998Dismissed

B.N. Sharma, a retired member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service, sought promotion to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. After filing a writ petition that was withdrawn with liberty to re‑file, his representation was rejected by the High Court’s Full Court, prompting a second writ petition which the High Court dismi

T. LAKSHMIKUMARA THATHACHARIARversusCOMMISSIONER, H.R.C.E. AND ORS.

1998 INSC 3412 September 1998Dismissed

The case concerned a scheme for the administration of the Devarajaswamy Temple at Kancheepuram, originally settled in 1909 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and modified in 1941 under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927. In 1982 the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowme

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSMT. KAILASHWATI DEVI

1997 INSC 6312 September 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) was impleaded as a defendant in a suit filed by Kailashwati Devi challenging land acquisition and seeking a permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit ex parte, and on appeal JDA sought to introduce additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) of the CPC to demon

SHARAFAT HUSSAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusMOHD. SHAFIQ AND ORS.

1996 INSC 9792 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The sole appellant died while his appeal was pending before the High Court. The death was notified late, and the appellant's counsel could not locate the legal heirs to file a substitution application within the prescribed time, leading the High Court to declare the appeal abated and dismiss it. An application filed la

SH. SUVARAN RAJARAM BANDEKAR AND ORS.versusSH. NARAYAN R. BANDEKAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 9832 September 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court heard a civil appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that dealt with a consent decree between the parties concerning payment of amounts and the handover of registration certificates (R.C.) for certain vehicles. The appellants sought modification of the payment schedule under the consent decree w

INDIA METERS LTD., MADRASversusPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

1992 INSC 2292 September 1992Appeal(s) allowed

India Meters Ltd responded to a tender by offering to supply electricity meters on its own payment terms, including a request to waive a bank guarantee. The Punjab State Electricity Board issued a purchase order for 75,000 meters but retained its own payment conditions and required samples, also inserting an arbitratio

SHABBIR MOHAMMAD SAYEDversusMRS. NOOR JEHAN MUSHTER SHAIKH & ORS.

2022 INSC 7842 August 2022Dismissed

The plaintiff obtained a decree declaring her as tenant of a premises in Mumbai and ordered the landlord to hand over possession. The appellant, Shabbir Mohammad Sayed, claimed he had acquired leasehold rights from the alleged lawful tenant and also from the landlord on 24 January 2014, and sought execution of the decr

SUCHETAN EXPORTS P. LTD.versusGUPTA COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

2011 INSC 5322 August 2011Disposed off

The parties entered into a high‑seas sale agreement for 16,943 metric tonnes of South African coal. The seller delivered the whole consignment to a stevedore, who released 9,542.92 tonnes to the buyer, leaving 7,400.082 tonnes in its custody. The buyer failed to pay the balance price, prompting the seller to sue for br

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusS.S. AGGARWAL & ORS.

2011 INSC 5402 August 2011Disposed off

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sought compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the original landowners had filed claims for Rs.4,000 per square yard. During the proceedings the landowners executed assignment deeds transferring their compensation rights to assignees (S.S. Aggarwa

POTHULA RAMA RAOversusPENDYALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO AND ORS.

2007 INSC 8042 August 2007Dismissed

The appellant, a voter, filed an election petition seeking to declare the election of the first respondent, a legislator, void on four grounds: improper rejection of a dummy candidate’s nomination, acceptance of the respondent’s nomination despite a double entry in the electoral roll, acceptance of a Bahujan Samaj Part

ISHWAR DUTTversusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.

2005 INSC 3262 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the acquisition of land for a road project in Himachal Pradesh, where possession was taken in 1968 but formal acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was delayed. A 1985 public‑interest writ directed the State to complete acquisition and to pay the

SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, TAMIL NADUversusUNION OF INDIA

2005 INSC 3242 August 2005Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity and practical effect of numerous amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) made by the 1999 and 2002 Amendment Acts. It held that the requirement of filing an affidavit under Section 26(2) and Order VI Rule 15(4) imposes additional responsibility on deponents

RAJENDRA KUMARversusKALYAN (DEAD) BY LRS.

2000 INSC 3702 August 2000Dismissed

The appellant Rajendra Kumar claimed possession of property left by Mohanlal, asserting that he had been adopted by Radhabai, the widow of Mahadeo, who was allegedly an adopted son of Mohanlal. The lower courts held that the adoption of a child by a widow to her deceased husband under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions a

AJAIB SINGH AND ORS.versusSMT. TULSI DEVI

2000 INSC 3722 August 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an agreement whereby the plaintiff, Tulsi Devi, agreed to purchase part of a government‑allotted property (Block 67‑B) and, upon repayment of a loan, acquire the remaining part (Block 67‑A). The plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement to obtain Block 67‑A, asserting that she had made

SARVINDER SINGHversusDALIP SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8172 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Sarvinder Singh filed a suit for declaration of ownership of land based on a registered will of his mother dated 26 May 1952, also relying on an earlier decree granting him possession. He obtained an interim injunction against the defendants, which was later vacated. The defendants, heirs of Rajender Kaur, alienated th

SUNIL VASUDEVA & ORS.versusSUNDAR GUPTA & ORS.

2019 INSC 7162 July 2019Dismissed

The dispute concerned a Delhi property that had been sold at a public auction by the Income Tax Department in 1964 to V.N. Vasudeva. The respondents, grandchildren of the original owner, challenged the sale through a civil suit and a writ petition, while the appellants, heirs of the lawyer who bought the property, defe

PHAREZ JOHN ABRAHAM (DEAD) BY LRS.versusARUL JOTHI SIVASUBRAMANIAM K. & OTHERS

2019 INSC 7132 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the partition of the estate of John D. Abraham, who died intestate in 1964 leaving a wife, two sons and two daughters, one of whom (Triza Kalyani John, later A.S. Meenakshi) converted to Hinduism, married the plaintiff and was paid Rs 50,000 and gold ornaments allegedly to relinquish any claim to the

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITEDversusREG. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, JALPAIGURI

2014 INSC 4572 July 2014Dismissed

The case concerned a tea estate (Mathura Tea Estate) that defaulted on EPF contributions. After the estate was taken over by Eveready Industries (later McLeod Russel India Ltd.), the new management argued it was not the "employer" liable for damages under Section 148 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

VATHSALA MANICKAVASAGAM & ORS.versusN. GANESAN & ANR.

2013 INSC 4112 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

A family of five members disputed the ownership of three houses. The mother, two sons and a daughter filed a partition suit against the eldest son, claiming a 4/5 share in the properties. The trial court, relying on the mother’s testimony and a letter (Ex.A‑17) written by the eldest son, held that all three houses were

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.versusMAWASI & ORS. ETC.ETC.

2012 INSC 2572 July 2012Dismissed

The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) sought review of a Supreme Court judgment that fixed compensation for land acquired for an industrial township, alleging that the market value was based on a fraudulent sale deed (Exhibit P1) between two companies allegedly under common management and that th

MORINDA COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD.versusMORINDA COOP. SUGAR MILLS WORKERS UNION

2006 INSC 3782 July 2006Dismissed

The Morinda Co‑op. Sugar Mills Workers Union filed a suit seeking a declaration that its members were entitled to a variable dearness allowance (VOA) under para 317(ii) of the Third Wage Board Report and an injunction restraining the mill from withdrawing the allowance. The mill contended that the suit was not maintain

RASHTRIYA CHINI MILLS ADHIKARI PARISHAD, LUCKNOWversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

1995 INSC 3852 July 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, Rashtriya Chini Mills Adhikari Parishad, challenged a Uttar Pradesh Government order to sell six sugar factories by filing a writ petition under Article 226 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench held that the Lucknow Bench lacked jurisdiction because only one factory

NAND KISHORE MEHRAversusSUSHILA MEHRA

1995 INSC 3832 July 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Nand Kishore Mehra, filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking relief concerning properties he alleged were purchased benami in his wife Sushila Mehra's name. The wife moved to have the plaint rejected on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

DR. ALOYS WOBBEN & ANR.versusYOGESH MEHRA & ORS.

2014 INSC 4162 June 2014Disposed off

Dr. Aloys Wobben, holder of several wind‑turbine patents, sued Yogesh Mehra and others for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court. The respondents filed revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board under s.64(1) of the Patents Act and also raised counter‑claims in the infringement suits se

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM & ORS.versusBAGATHI KRISHNA RAO & ANR.

2010 INSC 3352 June 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit seeking declaration of title and possession of land, which the appellants contended was forest land vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State was a party in the trial court and the first appellate court but was not impleaded in the second appeal before the High Court. The High Court

DR. VIMAL SUKUMARversusD. LAWRENCE & ORS.

2025 INSC 6222 May 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals challenging two Madras High Court orders that declared the 7‑3‑2022 Special Synod meeting of the Church of South India (CSI) invalid, set aside the amendments to the CSI Constitution, and ordered re‑election of all office bearers. The Court held that the Special Synod meeting was duly

CHILAMKURTI BALA SUBRAHMANYAMversusSAMANTHAPUDI VIJAYA LAKSHMI & ANR.

2017 INSC 4272 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an auction purchaser, bought a schedule property attached in execution of a decree for a loan granted by State Bank of India to the judgment debtor, Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi. The property was proclaimed for sale on 5 October 1999, a 15‑day notice was issued, and the auction was held on 17 November 199

M.V. JANARDHAN REDDYversusVIJAYA BANK & ANR.

2008 INSC 5722 May 2008Case Partly allowed

The appellant, M.V. Janardhan Reddy, purchased a property of a company in liquidation at a public auction. The sale was to be confirmed by the Company Court, but the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal confirmed it without court approval. The Company Court later set aside the sale, a decision upheld by the H

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.versusS.N. GOYAL

2008 INSC 5762 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved S.N. Goyal, a Branch Manager of State Bank of India, who was found guilty of temporarily misappropriating customers' funds. The disciplinary authority first recommended a reduction in pay, which the appointing authority tentatively approved but did not communicate. After consulting the bank’s Chief Vi

M/S. PREM CHAND VIJAY KUMARversusYASH PAL SINGH AND ANR.

2005 INSC 2442 May 2005Dismissed

The appellant, a supplier, issued a cheque to the respondents for goods supplied, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. After the first dishonour, the appellant served a legal notice demanding payment; the cheque was presented again at the respondents' request and dishonoured a second time, followed by a sec

KIRAN BALAversusSURINDER KUMAR

1996 INSC 6132 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Kiran Bala sold her residential house to relatives to pay debts, but the sale was declared null and void as a fraudulent transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. The decree-holder sought to attach and sell the house in execution of a money decree, while the appellant claimed exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of th

PT. RISHIKESH AND ANR. ETC.versusSMT. SALMA BEGUM ETC. ETC.

1995 INSC 3252 May 1995

The petitioners, tenants, challenged the validity of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which had been inserted by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 and later amended by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that it was repugnant to the CPC Central (

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JULLUNDURversusAJANTA ELECTRICALS, PUNJAB

1995 INSC 3292 May 1995Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jullundur issued notices under Section 139(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Ajanta Electricals and its partners, requiring them to file returns within 30 days. The assessees filed their returns and applications for extension of time after the due dates, leading the Income Tax Officer to

KAMALA DEVI BUDHIA & ORS.versusRAM PRABHA GANGULI & ORS.

1989 INSC 1732 May 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of premises in Ranchi, leased the property to the respondents for 20 years, a lease that expired on 31 July 1971. The respondents gave a notice on 16 July 1971 claiming a month‑to‑month tenancy and the appellants filed an application under section 12 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Evicti

VISHNU AWATAR ETC.versusSHIV AUTAR AND ORS.

1980 INSC 1042 May 1980Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered three Special Leave Petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court's refusal to entertain revisions under Section 115 of the CPC on the ground that Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 1978 bars such revisions when the original suit is valued below Rs 20,000. The Court examined the

PURNI DEVI & ANR.versusBABU RAM & ANR.

2024 INSC 2592 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant obtained a decree for possession in 1986, which became final on 9 November 2000. Seeking to enforce the decree, the appellant filed an execution application before the Tehsildar on 18 December 2000, which was rejected on 29 January 2005 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then filed a fre

PAWAN KUMARversusBABULAL SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2019 INSC 4542 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Pawan Kumar filed a suit seeking declaration of title over a shop, alleging he paid the purchase price while the deed was placed in his father's name. The second defendant moved an Order VII Rule 11 application to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act

JEGANNATHANversusRAJU SIGAMANI & ANR.

2012 INSC 1572 April 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs obtained a decree for permanent injunction, which was set aside by a first appellate court that remanded the suit for fresh trial under Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs filed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) challenging the remand order, but the Madras

MARIRUDRAIAH & ORS.versusB. SAROJAMMA & ORS.

2009 INSC 4522 April 2009Case Partly allowed

The case arose from a partition suit where a preliminary decree was passed and an appeal was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, respondents 8 and 9 purchased one of the suit items (item No. 9) and were impleaded as respondents in the appeal. The parties later executed a compromise agreeing to partition the prope

M/S. MAHAKAL AUTOMOBILES & ANR.versusKISHAN SWAROOP SHARMA

2008 INSC 4432 April 2008Disposed off

The plaintiff sold a 7200 sq.ft. land to the appellants who paid only part of the consideration, leading to a suit for recovery of the balance. The trial court issued a preliminary decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC ordering payment and allowing execution by sale of the charged property. During execution, the appellants

SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS.versusGULBAHAR SHEIKH AND ORS.

2004 INSC 2262 April 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellants filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking recovery of possession of immovable property from which they claimed to have been dispossessed. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the respondents filed a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and t

ROOP KUMARversusMOHAN THEDANI

2003 INSC 2062 April 2003Dismissed

The father of the plaintiff entered into an agency‑cum‑licence deed with the defendant for the use of a shop as a showroom, with commission payable on tailoring and material sales. Possession of the shop remained with the plaintiffs, but the defendant later occupied it, stopped paying commission and destroyed evidence

SAIYAD MOHAMMAD BAKER EL-EDROOS (DEAD) BY LRS.versusABDULHABIB HASAN ARAB AND ORS.

1998 INSC 1702 April 1998Dismissed

The case concerned applications under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for settling the scheme of a public trust. One of the original applicants died and, after a long delay, his son sought substitution; another set of applicants also sought to be joined. The Charity Commissioner allowed both substitut

VANKAMAMIDL VENKATA SUBBA RAOversusCHATLAPALLI SEETHARAMARATNA RANGANAYAKAMMA

1997 INSC 3562 April 1997Appeal(s) allowed

V. Satyanarayana died leaving his widow Raghavamma, a minor son (the appellant) and a daughter (the respondent). A 1955 compromise decree partitioned the estate, granting the widow a life interest with reversion to the son. After the Andhra Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, the settlem

PAUL BROTHERS (TAILORING DIVISION) AND ORS. ETC.versusASHIM KUMAR MANDAL AND ORS. ETC.

1990 INSC 1192 April 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court dealt with the aftermath of the Sanchaita Investment Company case, where a Commissioner was appointed to attach and sell properties of the defunct firm. One such property, house No. 52/1/IB, was sold on an "as is where is" basis to Ashim Kumar Mandal and others, who then sought vacant possession. The

JOSEversusJOHNSON

2020 INSC 2422 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction claiming ownership and possession of a partitioned property, and the trial court decreed in his favour after answering issues of identity, ownership and possession. The defendant appealed, and the First Appellate Court set aside the decree, remanding the

D.B. BASNETT (D) THR. LRS.versusTHE COLLECTOR & ANR. EAST DISTRICT, GANGTOK, SIKKIM & ANR.

2020 INSC 2392 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, D.B. Basnett, claimed that the State of Sikkim had illegally occupied his 7.07‑acre land without complying with the procedural requirements of the Sikkim Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1977. The State contended that it had paid compensation of Rs.62,645 in 1980 and therefore possessed the land l

PAWAN KUMAR ARYA AND OTHERSversusRAVI KUMAR ARYA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 2522 March 2020Disposed off

The dispute arose from a family settlement (consent decree) concerning the allocation of 15 flats in a Worli development, where eight flats were to be allotted to the PA Group and seven to the RA Group. The RA Group refused to counter‑sign the developer's letter (Annexure E) for the eight flats, arguing that the supple

JITU PATNAIKversusSANATAN MOHAKUD & ORS.

2012 INSC 1232 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

In the 25‑Champua Assembly constituency, an independent candidate died after the withdrawal deadline but before polling, yet his name remained on the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) and he received 550 votes. The election petitioner alleged that, had the deceased candidate’s name been masked, those votes would have gon

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusLAXMI NARAIN DHUT

2007 INSC 2452 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered whether the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) apply to insurance claims other than third‑party risks, particularly own‑damage claims. It held that Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which imposes a duty on insurers to satisfy judgments for

HIGH COURT OF A.P.versusSPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) A.P. AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2402 March 2007Disposed off

The appeal challenged a Division Bench order that the Chief Justice's 2003 notice directing contempt matters to be listed before any judge with the roster to dispose of the main case violated the Contempt of Court Rules. The Supreme Court examined whether such a listing procedure was permissible under the Contempt of C

MUSHIR MOHAMMED KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSMT. SAJEDA BANO AND ORS.

2000 INSC 1162 March 2000Disposed off

The plaintiff, who had bought a house for Rs 3,000, sold it to the defendant for Rs 1,000 by a sale deed, and shortly thereafter executed an agreement to reconvey the property on repayment of Rs 1,000 within two years, also executing a rent note to pay rent to the defendant. The plaintiff sued for redemption, claiming

TIRUMALA TRIUPATI DEVASTHANAMSversusK.M. KRISHNALAH

1998 INSC 1212 March 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, K.M. Krishnah, sued Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) for a permanent injunction over 2.29 acres of land. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of title and possession; the plaintiff later amended the suit to seek possession after being dispossessed on 30 August 1969, filing the amendment on 25

SMT. PERIYAKKAL & OTHERSversusSMT. DAKSHYANI

1983 INSC 192 March 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent obtained a decree for recovery of money, which was executed by the sale of the appellant's property. The sale was later set aside on appeal, and during the second appeal the parties entered into a court‑sanctioned compromise whereby the appellants would deposit Rs 60,000 by a specified date, failing whic

SHYAM KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.versusSHUBHAM JAIN

2023 INSC 982 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, claiming ownership of a shop, sued the predecessor of the appellants for arrears of rent and eviction. The trial court passed an ex‑parte decree for Rs 8,000 arrears, Rs 3,212 costs and ordered mesne profits of Rs 2,000 per month until possession. The defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 1

BENGAL CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSN.versusKALYAN CHOWDHURY

2018 INSC 912 February 2018Dismissed

Bengal Chemists & Druggists Assn. appealed against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that dismissed its appeal as not maintainable because it was filed nine days after the initial 45‑day limitation period and after the additional 45‑day grace period had also expired. The appellant argued t

RICHARD LEEversusGIRISH SONI AND ANR.

2017 INSC 1002 February 2017Disposed off

The respondents filed an eviction petition before the Delhi Rent Controller seeking to evict the occupants of a shop. The appellant, Richard Lee, claimed to be a partner in the firm K.K. Lee, which he alleged was the actual tenant, and moved an application for impleadment as a necessary party under Order I Rule 10 of t

M. NAGABHUSHANAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

2011 INSC 922 February 2011Dismissed

The appellant, owner of two plots of land, challenged the acquisition of his land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, alleging that the land lay outside the Framework Agreement and that the acquisition was invalid because no award was made within two years as required by Section 11A of the Land

INDU BHUSHANversusMUNNU LAL AND ANR.

2007 INSC 1022 February 2007Dismissed

Munna Lal filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of land, which was dismissed by the trial court. The appeal against the dismissal was allowed ex‑parte by the first appellate court, and the appellant sought to set aside the ex‑parte decree under Order XLI Rule 21 of the CPC. The appellant contende

PREM LALA NAHATA AND ANR.versusCHANDI PRASAD SIKARIA

2007 INSC 1062 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The mother and daughter (appellants) sued the respondent for recovery of two separate loans of Rs 5 lakhs each, alleging the transactions were loans made through a third party. The respondent had earlier filed two suits against each of them, claiming the sums were part of business transactions, but those suits were wit

PHILOMINA JOSEversusFEDERAL BANK LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 572 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Philomina Jose and others, sought to exercise their right of redemption under Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) after sale decrees were passed in 1985 and 1989. The Kerala High Court dismissed their petitions, holding that the mortgage debt merged into the sale decree and that the ame

SABITRI DEI AND ORS.versusSARAT CHANDRA ROUT AND ORS.

1996 INSC 1672 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The decree-holder, a deceased intermediary, obtained a decree for possession of an estate in 1965, but the estate had been vested in the State of Orissa by a notification under Section 3(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act in 1963. The judgment debtor filed a Section 47 CPC objection, and the executing court dismisse

SURENDRA KUMARversusPHOOLCHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 1682 February 1996Dismissed

The appellant Surendra Kumar purchased 25.12 acres of land in 1961 in his name, with his grandfather acting as guardian, and the land was later acquired by the government for an industrial area. An award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 granted compensation to the appellant, but the respondents, membe

SMT. PUTTAHONNAMMAversusC. GANGADHARA MURTHY AND ORS.

1996 INSC 1722 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a family partition and subsequent land demarcation ordered by the Assistant Director of Land Records, which was challenged by the respondents. The respondents appealed the demarcation order under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1956, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the ori

SURINDER KUMAR AND ANR.versusISHWAR DAYAL AND ANR.

1996 INSC 1752 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants appealed against the execution of a perpetual injunction decree that barred their mother from opening a window in a joint wall. The trial court had held the wall to be a 1½‑ft joint wall and the decree became final. Subsequent admissions showed that the original joint wall had been replaced by a new 9‑in

DEEP CHAND AND ORS.versusLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.

1994 INSC 402 February 1994Dismissed

The State Government acquired 2 acres 46 cents of land belonging to Deep Chand, who objected under Section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, insisting that the whole property, including his factory and office, should be taken. The Collector referred the dispute to the Civil Court, which held that the land to be

SHAH PHOOLCHAND LALCHANDversusPARVATHI BAI

1989 INSC 382 February 1989Dismissed

The appellants, a partnership firm, were tenants of a shop in Madras and allegedly sublet the premises to another partnership firm, M/s. Adeshwar Glass Mart, without the landlord's consent. The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960

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