D. S. THIMMAPPAversusSIDDARAMAKKA
1996 INSC 46229 March 1996Dismissed
Thimmappa (appellant) had executed two sale deeds transferring a property to Siddaramakka (respondent) and a reconveyance agreement dated July 20, 1968, stipulating that if the respondent repaid Rs.5,000 within eight years, she could have the sale deed executed in her favour. The respondent offered payment in June 1976…
STATE OF GUJARATversusMEGHJI PETHRAJ SHAH CHARITABLE TRUST
1994 INSC 13029 March 1994Appeal(s) allowed
In 1954, Shri M.P. Shah donated Rs.15 lakh to the Government of Saurashtra for establishing a medical college, with the condition that he or his nominee could nominate 10% of the seats for admission. The Government of Gujarat later decided to discontinue the donor's 12-seat quota, invoking the Supreme Court's decision …
ROOP CHANDversusGOPI CHAND THALIA
1989 INSC 10729 March 1989Dismissed
The appellant, Roop Chand, leased a building from Gopi Chand Thalia with a covenant not to sublet. He allowed the Lokpriya Social Club to occupy part of the premises for recreational activities, claiming he retained exclusive possession and received no rent. The landlord sued for eviction on the ground of subletting an…
BASAVARAJversusINDIRA AND OTHERS
2024 INSC 15129 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents filed a suit for partition of ancestral property in 2005, acknowledging an earlier compromise decree dated 14 Oct 2004. At the final stage of trial, they sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer that the compromise decree be declared null and void, alleging oversight and mistake. The trial court r…
HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABADversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
2024 INSC 15029 February 2024Reference answered
The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, under its Article 142 powers, it could issue blanket directions that all interim stays granted by High Courts should automatically lapse after six months and that High Courts must dispose of such cases on a day‑to‑day basis. The Court examined the object of interim order…
RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS.versusRAJESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.
2008 INSC 27429 February 2008Disposed off
The appellants filed suit No. 445 of 1999 seeking a declaration that a sale deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3 was void and permanent injunctions to prevent dispossession, sale or letting of the disputed property. The trial court granted an ex‑parte injunction, which was affirmed by the Divis…
PURAN RAMversusBHAGURAM AND ANR.
2008 INSC 27729 February 2008Case Partly allowed
Puran Ram purchased agricultural land from Bhaguram but the sale deed was never executed. The agreement mistakenly described the land as Chak No. 3 SSM instead of Chak No. 3 SLM. In the suit for specific performance, the plaintiff sought to amend both the plaint and the agreement to correct this description. The trial …
H. ANJANAPPA & ORS.versusA. PRABHAKAR & ORS.
2025 INSC 12129 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed, while the defendants sold portions of the disputed land to Respondents No.1 and No.2 during the pendency of the suit, violating a temporary injunction and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents sought to be impleaded under Order I…
YAGWATI @ POONAMversusGHANSHYAM
2024 INSC 110029 January 2024
The appellant, a wife, sought maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act after separating from her husband, who later obtained an ex‑parte divorce decree and remarried. The Family Court granted modest maintenance, which the High Court later enhanced, but the appellant argued that the respond…
PYARELALversusSHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN (FATHER) SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR PILANIA & ORS.
2019 INSC 10429 January 2019Dismissed
The plaintiff, a minor represented by his father, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that a gift deed concerning agricultural land was void and an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the land. Simultaneously, the plaintiff had instituted a suit before the revenue court for a declaration of his k…
M/S NEERJA REALTORS PVT LTDversusJANGLU (DEAD) THR. LR.
2018 INSC 6729 January 2018Dismissed
M/s Neerja Realtors Pvt Ltd sued the deceased Janglu for specific performance of a land sale agreement. The trial court issued summons, but the bailiff reported that the defendant had vacated the premises and the summons were returned unserved. An application for substituted service under Order V Rule 20 was filed and …
LAXMIBAI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusBHAGWANTBUVA (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.
2013 INSC 6429 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned the adoption of an eight‑year‑old boy by Smt. Laxmibai, a female Hindu, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The adoption deed was executed and registered on the same day as the ceremony, and the trial court held the adoption valid. The respondents claimed a special family custom proh…
NOOR MOHAMMEDversusJETHANAND AND ANOTHER
2013 INSC 6229 January 2013Disposed off
The respondent filed a suit for injunction which was dismissed, appealed and eventually filed a second appeal in 2001. The High Court allowed the appeal after a ten‑year saga marked by repeated adjournments, non‑appearance of counsel and a dismissal for non‑prosecution in 2003, later restored in 2006 and finally admitt…
M/S. GODREJ SARA LEE LIMITEDversusRECKITT BENCKISER AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. AND ANR.
2010 INSC 6629 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed
M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s order that it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the cancellation of its registered designs by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000. The Controller had cancelled two desig…
HARI PRASAD BHUYANversusDURGA PRASAD BHUYAN AND ORS.
2008 INSC 11429 January 2008Case Allowed
The appellant sought to set aside an abatement and substitute the legal heirs of two deceased respondents in a decree, filing the application under Section 152 CPC after learning of the deaths on 26 June 2003. The High Court rejected the application, declaring the decree a nullity on the ground of the respondents' deat…
KONDA LAKSHMANA BAPUJIversusGOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
2002 INSC 5329 January 2002Dismissed
The appellant claimed title to a two‑acre parcel of land in Hyderabad based on an unregistered 1954 perpetual lease and a later registered lease, asserting that he had acquired ownership by adverse possession. The State of Andhra Pradesh, asserting that the land was Government property, invoked the Andhra Pradesh Land …
M/S. MARSHALL SONS AND CO. (I) LTD.versusM/S SAHI ORETANS (P) LTD. AND ANR.
1999 INSC 2929 January 1999Disposed off
Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd., the landlord, obtained a decree for eviction against four defendants for non‑payment of rent and unlawful sub‑letting. The decree was not executed, and the respondents continued to occupy the premises. The respondents later filed a declaratory suit claiming tenancy rights and the trial cou…
BABU LALversusHAZARI LAL KISHORI LAL & ORS.
1982 INSC 1129 January 1982Dismissed
Babu Lal purchased land from respondents 6‑9, which had earlier been agreed to be sold to respondents 1‑5. The latter sued for specific performance of their contract; the trial court dismissed, but the appellate courts decreed specific performance and ordered the sale deed to be executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Th…
M/S DEEP INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.
2019 INSC 129928 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Deep Industries Ltd, was contractually terminated by ONGC for allegedly supplying second‑hand equipment and was subsequently black‑listed for two years. The dispute was referred to arbitration, where the arbitrator stayed the blacklist order conditionally, and the first appeal under Section 37 was dismis…
SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA (D) BY LRS.versusSAGI SUBBA RAJU & OTHERS ETC.
2018 INSC 111328 November 2018Dismissed
The appellants, Sunkara Lakshminarasamma (deceased) by legal representatives, challenged three lower court decisions that upheld two wills (Exhibit B4 and B106) making Veeraswamy the absolute owner of Schedule A and B properties and ordered specific performance of a sale agreement. The trial, appellate and High Court c…
UNION OF INDIAversusNARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.
2018 INSC 111428 November 2018Disposed off
The original lease of a 99‑year term on a plot in Mumbai, used for a cotton mill, later vested in a charitable trust. After the lease expired, Podar Mills occupied the premises as a protected tenant under the Bombay Rents Act. The Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 vested the statutory tenancy rights in t…
K.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENONversusC.D. SHAJI
2011 INSC 82428 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the magistrate referred to a Lok Adalat for settlement. The parties reached a compromise and the Lok Adalat passed an award, but the respondent failed to honour the payment schedule, leading the appellant to file an exec…
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATANA (K.V.) MUMBAIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
2007 INSC 119928 November 2007
Century Industries Textiles Ltd., after offering a Voluntary Retirement Scheme that left only 275 workers, filed an application under s.25‑0(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission to close its mill. The company later withdrew this application to pursue an amicable settlement after a meeting was call…
SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD, ANDHRA CIRCLE,-SECUNDERABAD REP. BY EXECUTIVE OFFICERversusMOHAMMED MOHIUDDIN AND ORS.
2003 INSC 68328 November 2003Disposed off
The respondents applied to the Secunderabad Cantonment Board for sanction of a layout plan on land they claimed to own. The Board initially returned the plan for lack of an exemption certificate under the Urban Land (Ceiling) Act, but the High Court held that such a certificate was not required. The plan was later retu…
SHREE BHARAT LAXMI WOOL STORE, PANIPAT AND ORS.versusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.
1991 INSC 31928 November 1991Disposed off
Punjab National Bank sued Shree Bharat Laxmi Wool Store for Rs.81,137.39. The Sub‑Judge decreed interest at the contractual rate of 10½% from the date of suit to realization. On appeal, the district court reduced the future interest to 6% per annum, but the High Court restored the 10½% rate. The Supreme Court examined …
SHIV CHANDER KAPOORversusAMAR BOSE
1989 INSC 36428 November 1989Appeal(s) allowed
Shiv Chander Kapoor, the landlord, let the second floor of his building to Amar Bose for a three‑year limited tenancy under a permission obtained from the Rent Controller pursuant to Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground that the premises would be needed for his son’s marriage. After the tenancy…
RASHID WALI BEGversusFARID PINDARI & ORS.
2021 INSC 68528 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit in a civil court seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions to protect his possession of a piece of land that was admitted to be a waqf property. The defendant, who also admitted the waqf status, moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that under the Waqf Act, 1995, such disputes must be dec…
SUKUMAR DEversusBIMALA AUDDY & ORS.
2013 INSC 72528 October 2013Dismissed
A decree for Rs.6,600 was passed in 1967 and the judgment debtors' property was auctioned in 1990, where the petitioners purchased it for Rs.1.5 lakh. The judgment debtor (Respondent No.4) sought to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 89 of the CPC, leading to a series of revisions and recalculations of the amount d…
NINGE GOWDAversusLINGE GOWDA AND ORS.
1996 INSC 124028 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed
Ninge Gowda filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction, claiming that the land in dispute was ancestral property that had been partitioned among his father and his father's brothers before 1936, and subsequently partitioned again in 1936 between Ninge Gowda and his brothers, with a mutation in the revenue rec…
MAHANT DHANGIR AND ANOTHERversusMADAN MOHAN AND OTHERS
1987 INSC 30128 October 1987Appeal(s) allowed
The Math (Mahant Dhangir) challenged earlier alienations of its property made by a former Mahant, Lalgiri, which included a 99‑year lease and a sale to Madan Mohan. The trial court declared the lease void but denied possession; the High Court Single Judge declared the sale void but gave no possession decree, and upheld…
DR. P. NALLA THAMPY THERA.versusB.L. SHANKER & OTHERS
1983 INSC 16528 October 1983Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined an election petition that had been dismissed for the petitioner's failure to appear and produce evidence, despite statutory mandates for disposal within six months. The petitioner sought to delete a specific prayer, and the High Court allowed the deletion and later permitted withdrawal of a r…
NAGARPALIKA THAKURDWARAversusKHALIL AHMED & ORS.
2016 INSC 92528 September 2016Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents, claiming to reside outside the limits of Nagar Palika Thakurdwara, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, a declaration that they were not liable to pay house tax, and recovery of a modest tax amount of about Rs 11,006.07. The trial court dismissed the suit; the first appellate court allowed the …
CHINTAMAN NAMDEV PATIL (DEAD)versusSUKHDEV NAMDEV PATIL & ANR.
2015 INSC 70228 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Chintaman Patil, filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and an injunction over a parcel of land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed that decision and decreed in the plaintiff's favour. The respondents appealed to the High Court, which admitted two substantia…
CHLORO CONTROLS (I) P. LTD.versusSEVERN TRENT WATER PURIFICATION INC. AND ORS.
2012 INSC 43628 September 2012Dismissed
Chloro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction against Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and related entities over a joint‑venture arrangement involving multiple agreements, some of which contained arbitration clauses. The respondents moved under Section 45 of the Arbitration and C…
MOHD. YUNUS KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
2010 INSC 65228 September 2010Disposed off
Mohd. Yunus Khan, a Guard Commander in the Uttar Pradesh Police, left his post for 25 minutes to take tea and medicine, an absence later deemed permissible under the Guard and Escort Rules. The Commandant imposed a 10‑day punishment drill, which Khan protested; the punishment was then enhanced to 10 days of confinement…
LAGAN JUTE MACHINERIES COMP ANY LIMITEDversusCANDLEWOOD HOLDINGS LTD. AND ORS.
2007 INSC 99428 September 2007Dismissed
Lagan Jute Machineries Co. Ltd. (appellant) was the lessee of premises owned by Candlewood Holdings Ltd. (respondent). After the lease expired, an eviction suit led to a consent decree in which the lessee undertook to pay the municipal commercial surcharge on consolidated rates as determined by the Calcutta Municipal C…
DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKINGversusBASANTI DEVI AND ANR.
1999 INSC 44428 September 1999Disposed off
The Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) offered a Salary Savings Scheme under which Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) deducted insurance premiums from its employees' salaries and remitted them to LIC. DESU failed to remit premiums for two months, after which an employee died and his widow claimed the policy benefit…
KABIDI VENKU SAHversusSYED ABDUL HAI AND OTHERS
1983 INSC 13128 September 1983Dismissed
The appellant, a simple mortgagee who obtained a decree on a 1948 mortgage and later purchased the mortgaged property, sought to have an attachment made on 24‑September‑1964 (by the respondent creditor) raised under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court allowed the claim, holding that the ent…
MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC.versusM. PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC.
2018 INSC 75028 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, the Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese and a Vicar appointed by him, sued the parishioners of St. Mary's Church, Kattachira, seeking a declaration that they alone have the right to conduct religious services and manage the church and its cemetery, based on an assignment‑cum‑gift deed (Ext‑A3). The trial cou…
STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD & ORS.
2015 INSC 61828 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed
Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) bought 17% NPCL bonds from Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd (ABFSL) and later discovered that the bonds had been misappropriated by broker Hiten P. Dalal and Canara Bank Mutual Fund (CMF). SCB filed a suit for conversion and amended it to implead Dalal and CMF, but the Special Court held…
SRI T. PHUNZATHANGversusSRI HANGKHANILIAN AND ORS.
2001 INSC 40028 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Sri T. Phunzathang, filed an election petition challenging the election of Sri Hangkhanilian on the ground of alleged corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The respondent contended that the copies of affidavits served on him lacked the Oath Commissioner’s endorseme…
SADANANDAN BHADRANversusMADHAVAN SUNIL KUMAR
1998 INSC 32628 August 1998Dismissed
The appellant, Sadanandan Badran, received a Rs 30,000 cheque from the respondent, Madhavan Sunil Kumar, to settle a loan. The cheque was presented twice (January and May 1991) and was dishonoured both times for insufficient funds. After each dishonour the appellant issued a legal notice demanding payment; the responde…
BAKHTAWAR SINGH AND ANR.versusSADA KAUR AND ANR.
1996 INSC 95328 August 1996Dismissed
The plaintiffs, sons of Gulab Singh, claimed a two‑thirds share in ancestral land and filed a suit in 1962 which was later allowed on appeal. They filed another suit in 1964 for possession, which they withdrew in 1971 with liberty to file a fresh suit. In 1990 they instituted a fresh suit, but the trial court held it b…
UNION OF INDIAversusRANGJLA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS.
1995 INSC 50428 August 1995Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India acquired land for defence purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a compensation award was made and became final. After the 1984 Amendment Act (Act 68) introduced additional solatium and interest benefits, the landowners filed an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil P…
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
1992 INSC 22528 August 1992Appeal(s) allowed
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. entered into a bridge‑construction contract with the State of Jammu & Kashmir and, after disputes, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators awarded the contractor on several items, including full amounts on items 2 and 5 and interest on the total claim, but the Jammu & Kas…
S. HARCHARAN SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA
1990 INSC 25828 August 1990Disposed off
S. Harcharan Singh was contracted to perform hard‑rock cutting for a bridge project at a fixed rate of Rs 129 per 1,000 cft. The work required far more cutting than anticipated, and the contractor claimed a higher rate of Rs 200 per 1,000 cft for the additional work. The dispute over four claims was referred to arbitra…
SLTAL PRASAD SAXENA (DEAD) BY LRS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
1984 INSC 16128 August 1984Appeal(s) allowed
Sita Prasad Saxena sued the Union of India for salary arrears; his appeal was pending in the Madhya Pradesh High Court when he died. His son Mahendra Kumar Saxena filed applications for substitution of heirs, to set aside the abatement of the appeal, and for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. T…
SUNIL SIKRIversusGURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
2022 INSC 76428 July 2022Dismissed
The appeal concerned Sunil Sikri, a former teacher of Guru Harkrishan Public School, who challenged a Tribunal order directing his reinstatement with 50% back wages. The key issues were whether Sections 8 and 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 empower the Tribunal to award back wages, whether Rule 121 of the De…
RAMDAS WAYDHAN GADLINGE (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS. VATSALABAI RAMDAS GADLINGE & ORS.versusGYANCHAND NANURAM KRIPLANI (DEAD) THR LRS. DHRUPADABAI & ORS.
2021 INSC 36328 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages, claiming purchase of the property by a registered sale deed dated 1 October 1992. The defendant contended that the deed was a security for a loan and that he had repaid part of the consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the deed was …
UMERKHANversusBISMILLABI @ BABULAL SHAIKH & ORS.
2011 INSC 52128 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed
Umerkhan appealed to the Supreme Court against a judgment of the Bombay High Court that had set aside the first appellate court's decree in a partition suit and restored the trial court's decree. The High Court had entertained the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but did not formula…
SAMEER KUMAR PAL & ANOTHERversusSHEIKH AKBAR & OTHERS
2010 INSC 45128 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, owners of Shop No.1214 in Jabalpur, filed an eviction suit under sections 12(1)(c), (f) and (g) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The respondents contended that the suit property was a Wakf property and, later, claimed it was a joint family property, though no such plea was raised i…
A.K. JAINversusPREM KUMAR
2008 INSC 87228 July 2008Case Allowed
A.K. Jain, a landlord, filed an eviction suit against tenant Prem Kumar under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, claiming personal necessity for himself, his wife, son, daughter and later, his son’s wife, grandchildren and his own retirement. The Rent Controller dismissed…
FIRDOUS OMER (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusBANKIM CHANDRA DAW (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2006 INSC 47828 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of tenancy and injunction, but the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were added. After years of inactivity, the suit was posted before the trial judge under Rule 35 of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules and dismissed for non‑prosecution; the dismissal orde…
VINAYAKA DEV IDAGUNJI AND ORS.versusSHIVARAM AND ORS.
2005 INSC 31928 July 2005Dismissed
The plaintiffs, who claim to be hereditary archaks (priests) of the Vinayaka Dev temple, sued the temple trustees for a declaration of their hereditary right, a share of devotees' offerings, and to set aside a notice terminating their services. The trustees contended that the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Bom…
T.N. RAJASEKARversusN. KASIVISWANATHAN AND ORS.
2005 INSC 32128 July 2005Disposed off
The appellant, a Class II heir of an unmarried, issueless deceased, filed a partition suit seeking his one-fifth share of the estate valued at Rs. 2,98,79,569. The trial judge allotted a house (Item No.6) worth Rs. 1,50,00,000 to the appellant, exceeding his share of Rs. 59,75,914, and ordered the excess Rs. 90,24,086 …
P. D'SOUZAversusSHONDRILO NAIDU
2004 INSC 40828 July 2004Dismissed
The plaintiff, P. D'Souza, sued Shondrilo Naidu for specific performance of a sale agreement in which the parties were to exchange a building for a fixed price by 5‑Dec‑1978. The defendant had mortgaged the property, failed to produce original title documents and did not redeem the mortgage, thereby preventing executio…
YUNUS ALI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS.versusKHURSHEED AKRAM
2008 INSC 74228 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased landlord Yunus Ali, sued tenant Khursheed Akram for arrears of rent and sought a provisional rent determination under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. Both the trial court and the first appellate court fixed the prov…
T. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANRversusRANBIR CHAUDHARY
2023 INSC 46228 April 2023Disposed off
The appellants entered into a sale agreement to sell a plot of land for Rs. 17,61,700, with Rs. 2 lakh paid as earnest money. Clause 2 of the agreement stipulated that if the seller failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, the buyer would be entitled to double the advance amount. The trial court refu…
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusM/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR.
2023 INSC 44628 April 2023Disposed off
The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the High Court's declaration that section 16‑B of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 was ultra‑vires the Constitution and the Banking Companies Act. The High Court had made this declaration while hearing writ petitions that later became infructuous because the bank…
RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR.versusNASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS.
2023 INSC 45828 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed
In 2014 the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of title, a permanent injunction and cancellation of several documents concerning land in Survey Nos. 700/A7B and 706/A9, alleging an error in a partition deed dated 11 March 1953. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC to reject th…
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusC. L. VIMLA & ORS.
2015 INSC 36328 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The Central Bank of India had mortgaged a residential property to recover a loan taken by the borrowers and obtained a settlement award from a Lok Adalat, which was signed by the borrowers and one of the guarantor's sons but not by the guarantor herself, C.L. Vimla. Vimla filed multiple writ petitions challenging the a…
KARAM KAURversusJALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ORS.
2014 INSC 34928 April 2014Dismissed
The original plaintiff, Ramesh Chander, sued Jalandhar Improvement Trust for vacant possession of a plot allotted to him after his father's land was acquired. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, leading Ramesh to file a second appeal. Ramesh died during the penden…
VINISHA JITESH TOLANI @ MANMEET LAGHMANIversusJITESH KISHORE TOLANI
2010 INSC 25228 April 2010Disposed off
The wife and husband were married in Goa under Hindu rites and the marriage was registered there. The husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Goa seeking annulment. The wife, who had been residing in the United Kingdom and later in Delhi, filed a petition under Section 25 of the Cod…
HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHANversusRANJEET SINGH TALWANDI AND ORS.
2005 INSC 23528 April 2005Dismissed
The appellant challenged the election of Ranjit Singh Talwandi, alleging that religious leaders had appealed to voters to support him, which was claimed to be a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether such an appeal, made by religious leaders, …
M/S. KUSUM INGOTS AND ALLOYS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
2004 INSC 31928 April 2004Dismissed
Mis. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd., a Mumbai‑registered company, obtained a loan from the Bhopal branch of State Bank of India and was served a repayment notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The company challenged the constitutional validi…
LIAQ AHMED AND ORS.versusSHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN
2000 INSC 26728 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent, claiming ownership of a Delhi premises through a sale deed, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, invoking bona‑fide requirement. The appellants, tenants, contended that the property was vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India and therefore co…
CUSTODIAN OF BRANCHES OF BANCO NATIONAL ULTRAMARINO.versusNALINI BAI NAIQUE
1989 INSC 15328 April 1989Appeal(s) allowed
The Banco Nacional Ultramarino sued Vinaique Naique for a loan, but the defendant died during the trial. The bank applied under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC to substitute the widow, Nalini Bai Naique, as a legal representative within four days of learning of the death, and later sought to add the deceased’s children as…
M. G. BROTHERS LORRY SERVICEversusPRASAD TEXTILES
1983 INSC 5128 April 1983Dismissed
M.G. Brothers Lorry Service, a common carrier, failed to deliver a consignment of yarn entrusted by Prasad Textiles. The Way Bill governing the carriage contained Condition 15, which required any claim to be made in writing within 30 days of booking or arrival. Prasad Textiles gave notice of claim on June 20, 1969, aft…
HASMAT RAJ & ANR.versusRAGHUNATH PRASAD
1981 INSC 10428 April 1981Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord filed two eviction suits seeking possession of a non‑residential building, claiming he needed the premises to start a medicine shop and to carry out reconstruction, and that he had no other suitable accommodation. The tenant argued that the landlord already possessed a major portion of the building (vacate…
SARANPAL KAUR ANANDversusPRADUMAN SINGH CHANDHOK AND OTHERS
2022 INSC 34728 March 2022Directions issued
Saranpal Kaur Anand filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that a 1969 sale deed and a 1995 deed were void, and an injunction against the defendants. The defendants moved to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d). The Delhi High Court Single Judge framed a preliminary issue under O…
CHAND KAUR (D) THR. LRS.versusMEHAR KAUR (D) THR. LRS.
2019 INSC 41328 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined six civil appeals arising from a batch of second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had allowed the second appeals and altered the findings of the first appellate court without first framing any substantial question of law, as requi…
HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusANIL GARG AND OTHERS
2017 INSC 27728 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation (HPFC) sought recovery of two defaulted loans from Anil Garg and others. HPFC had earlier filed a money suit which was withdrawn in order to pursue faster recovery under the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973. The respondent filed multiple writ petitio…
USHA BHARTIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
2014 INSC 22428 March 2014Dismissed
Usha Bharti, elected as Adhyaksh of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur, challenged a motion of no confidence moved by 37 members under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961. The High Court dismissed her writ petition and later her review petition, prompting a Special Leave Petition befo…
SHARDAversusDHARMPAL
2003 INSC 18928 March 2003Dismissed
The husband filed for divorce under Sections 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a court order that his wife undergo a medical examination to determine unsoundness of mind. The District Judge ordered the examination, the High Court dismissed the revision, and the wife appealed to the Supreme Cour…
RAJNI KUMARversusSURESH KUMAR MALHOTRA AND ANR.
2003 INSC 19028 March 2003Dismissed
The landlord sued the tenant for unpaid water and electricity charges under a suit filed pursuant to Order 37 of the CPC. The trial court decreed the suit ex‑parte, deeming service of summons as effected by registered post. The tenant applied under Order 37 Rule 4 to set aside the decree, alleging special circumstances…
SAHEBGOUDA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusOGEPPA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 19228 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, who claim to be hereditary pujaris of the Amogsidda temple, filed a suit in the civil court seeking a declaration of their pujariki rights and an injunction against interference by the respondents. The respondents argued that the suit was barred by Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 because…
MONHINDER KAURversusKUSAM ANAND
2000 INSC 15728 March 2000Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Mohinder Kaur, sued the defendant, Kusamanand, for eviction and mesne profits of a ground‑floor residential premises, alleging the defendant was a trespasser. The defendant claimed she had been let in as a tenant by D.K. Chadha, who held a power of attorney for the plaintiff, and produced a receipt of ad…
ROOP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRSversusRAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
2000 INSC 15828 March 2000Appeal(s) allowed
Roop Singh, the plaintiff, owned 15.32 acres of agricultural land and sued Ram Singh for illegal possession. The defendant claimed he had purchased the land 14 years earlier, sought protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and alleged title by adverse possession. The trial court dismissed his plead…
NAGAR PALIKA, JINDversusJAGAT.SINGH, ADVOCATE
1995 INSC 22328 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed
The Municipal Committee of Jind appealed against a suit filed by Jagat Singh for a permanent injunction restraining the Committee from interfering with his claimed ownership and possession of five kanals of land. Jagat Singh relied solely on revenue records and a mutation entry, without producing a sale deed, to establ…
JAI SINGH JAIRAM TYAGI ETC.versusMAMANCHAND RATILAL AGARWAL AND ORS.
1980 INSC 5628 March 1980Dismissed
The landlords of a premises in Kirkee Cantonment sued the tenant for possession and rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was decreed, appealed, and a compromise decree was entered on 12 July 1967 giving the tenant time to vacate. After the Supreme Court’s decision in In…
SHAH NEWAZ KHAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF NAGALAND & ORS
2023 INSC 17628 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a suit in the District Court of Dimapur, Nagaland and later applied under Section 24 of the CPC for its transfer to the District Court of Guwahati, Assam, invoking the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court, which is a common High Court for Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The Gauhat…
RAJBIRversusSURAJ BHAN & ANR
2022 INSC 24728 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Rajbir, entered into a sale agreement which later resulted in a suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed that the respondents, Suraj Bhan and others, must execute a sale deed in favour of the appellant and deposit the balance consideration. The respondents filed an execution petition and su…
CANARA BANKversusP. SELATHAL AND ORS. ETC.ETC.
2020 INSC 23428 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed
Canara Bank had granted a term loan secured by mortgage of property belonging to a partnership firm and a guarantor. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed an ex‑parte decree against the guarantor and the firm, which the guarantor unsuccessfully tried to set aside. Fifteen years later the guarantor’s successors filed …
JET PLY WOOD PRIVATE LTD. AND ANR.versusMADHUKAR NOWLAKHA AND ORS.
2006 INSC 12828 February 2006Dismissed
Madhukar Nowlakha entered into a sale agreement for premises that was later purportedly cancelled. He filed a suit for specific performance and, after settlement talks, applied to withdraw the suit without seeking leave to file a fresh suit. The trial court allowed the withdrawal but refused to recall the order when No…
HARYANA STATE COOP. LAND DEVELOPMENT BANKversusNEELAM
2005 INSC 10928 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed
Neelam was appointed on an ad‑hoc basis as a typist with Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank from January 1985 until May 1986, after which she joined the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Following a successful industrial dispute by similarly situated employees, she filed a writ petition in the Punjab & …
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusLEHRU AND ORS.
2003 INSC 13328 February 2003Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined an appeal by United India Insurance Company Ltd, which sought to avoid liability for a motor accident on the ground that the driver’s licence was allegedly fake. The accident involved a vehicle driven by Janu, who presented a licence that appeared genuine; the insurer attempted to prove a dif…
HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANIversusBHUPENDRA N. PATEL AND ORS.
2002 INSC 11028 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Harshavardhan Chokkani, had a lease from the original landlady to occupy a shop and was permitted to run a partnership business. After the landlady sold the premises, she attorned the tenancy of the partnership firm, Brij Mohan Chokkani & Sons, to the purchasers, who thereafter received rent from the fir…
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTAversusVIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL
2002 INSC 11128 February 2002Dismissed
The appellant, a tenant, filed a suit for injunction against the respondent landlord. The landlord filed a counter‑claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of the CPC invoking Section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, seeking eviction on the ground of bona‑fide personal requirement. The trial court and th…
JAYALAKSHMI COELHOversusOSWALD JOSEPH COELHO
2001 INSC 12728 February 2001
Jayalakshmi Coelho and Oswald Joseph Coelho, married under the Special Marriage Act, executed a mutual‑consent divorce agreement on 26 July 1991 that also dealt with property and child‑custody matters. Their petition for divorce sought only a decree of divorce, and the Family Court granted it without incorporating the …
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusR. SRINIVASAN
2000 INSC 10728 February 2000Dismissed
R. Srinivasan filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking damages for loss to his insured vehicle. The complaint was dismissed for default and his application for restoration was also rejected. He then filed a fresh complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, w…
HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA AND ANR.versusANAND KUMAR DEEPAK KUMAR AND ANR
2000 INSC 10928 February 2000Dismissed
The plaintiffs, an unregistered partnership firm, sued the defendants for permanent injunction and damages alleging infringement of their registered trademark. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11, arguing that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 barred any action by an unregistered fir…
IVAN RATHINAMversusMILAN JOSEPH
2025 INSC 11528 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Ivan Rathinam, was alleged by the respondent and his mother to be the biological father of the respondent, who was born during the respondent's mother's marriage to Mr. Raju Kurian. The parties litigated in a Munsiff Court, a Sub‑Judge Court and a Family Court over a declaration of paternity, a DNA test,…
AMAR NATH (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.versusGIAN CHAND AND ORS.
2022 INSC 10628 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Amar Nath, executed a special power of attorney (PoA) on 28‑01‑1987 in favour of the second defendant to sell his land for Rs.55,000. When the first defendant could not pay, the second defendant allegedly returned the PoA on 02‑02‑1987 and the plaintiff claimed it was cancelled, yet no formal notice or r…
MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH)versusGOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD.
2022 INSC 11328 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed
Messer Griesheim GmbH (now Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) obtained a money decree of the English High Court, a superior court of a reciprocating territory, for US $5.8 million. The decree, exceeding Rs 20 lakhs, was filed for execution before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench held that only a District Court could…
SUKHWINDER SINGHversusJAGROOP SINGH & ANR.
2020 INSC 10028 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 03‑01‑2004 with defendant No.1 for a plot of land at Rs 1,40,000, paying Rs 69,500 as earnest money. The plaintiff sued for specific performance and to set aside a later sale deed dated 11‑06‑2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 (the appellant). …
VIJAY A. MITTAL & ORS.versusKULWANT RAI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.
2019 INSC 9628 January 2019Disposed off
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a 1979 agreement to purchase a property from defendant Amar Nath, alleging they had paid earnest money and were ready to perform, but Amar Nath sold the property to other defendants at a higher price. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that Amar Nath…
SHRI WESTARLY DKHAR & ORS.versusSHRI SEHEKAYA L YNGDOH
2015 INSC 7128 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed
In a suit concerning land, the Subordinate District Council Court of the United Khasi‑Jaintia Hills Autonomous District granted an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction on 30 September 2009. The aggrieved party appealed to the District Council Court within 30 days, which stayed and later set aside the injunction. The High Cou…
MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL & ANR.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE & ANR. ETC.
2014 INSC 5528 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The Catholic society Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel filed a claim before the Mizoram Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after one of its members, a "Brother" who had renounced his family ties, died in a road accident. The Tribunal allowed the claim, but the insu…
M. JANARDHANA RAOversusJOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
2005 INSC 5228 January 2005Disposed off
The appellants, former partners of a dissolved firm, challenged the taxability of proceeds from the sale of the firm's assets, arguing that the transaction did not constitute a slump sale and that no capital‑gain tax could be levied before the 1999 amendment. They filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,…
SAYYED ALI AND ORS.versusANDHRA PRADESH WAKF BOARD HYDERABAD AND ORS.
1998 INSC 4528 January 1998Dismissed
The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board claimed that a 358‑53 cent land parcel in Devada Mokhasa village, originally endowed by the Nizam for the support of the Syed Ali Ishaq Madina Vali Dargah, was a Wakf property. The Board sought cancellation of long‑term leases and sub‑leases executed by mutawallis, alleging the land was a …
BILLA JAGAN MOHAN REDDY AND ANR.versusBILLA SANJEEVA REDDY AND ORS.
1994 INSC 3428 January 1994Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, who were the first parties in a reference proceeding under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act concerning compensation for acquired land, sought to prove their pre‑existing title by producing revenue records and other public documents. Because the documents were not in their immediate possession, the…
UNION OF INDIAversusSHER SINGH AND ORS.
1993 INSC 2728 January 1993Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Haryana acquired land in Gurgaon for the National Security Guard at the request of the Union of India. Landowners filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking higher compensation. The Union of India applied to be impleaded as a respondent, arguing that it was a "pers…
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.DIA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA
2019 INSC 128927 November 2019Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a batch of writ petitions filed by Hindustan Construction Company Ltd seeking to strike down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the deletion of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment, arguing that they revived an automatic‑stay of arbitral awards and removed th…
VURIMI PULLARAO S/O SATYANARAYANAversusVEMARI VYANKATA RADHARANI W/O DHANKOTESHWARRAO & ANR
2019 INSC 129127 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a suit for injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing possession of agricultural land, and six months later filed a suit for specific performance of the same agreement to sell. The trial court dismissed the specific performance suit, holding that the appellant had omitted to claim that rel…
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHERversusK. VARALAKSHMIAND OTHERS
2014 INSC 81327 November 2014Dismissed
The case concerned a 5‑acre parcel of land originally assigned to a landless poor woman, Sagiraju Bangaramma, who sold it in 1970 to another landless poor person, Durga Ramalingeswara Rao, before the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 came into force. After Rao’s death, his heirs sold th…
KANNAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusV.S. PANDURANGAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2007 INSC 119227 November 2007Dismissed
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of a residential property, which the trial court decreed in his favour. The defendant appealed and the first appellate court set aside the decree, holding that the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession. The plaintiff then filed a second app…
BALLA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusPHOOLA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2002 INSC 49627 November 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved a second appeal filed by the heirs of Balla Ram against the heirs of Phoola. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal summarily, stating “No merit”, without examining whether any substantial question of law existed between the parties as required by Section 100(3) of the Code of Civil Pr…
KANHAIYALAL AND ORS.versusANUPKUMAR AND ORS.
2002 INSC 49727 November 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's reversal of the trial and first appellate courts' findings of fact. The High Court failed to state any substantial question of law in its memorandum of appeal or judgment, yet entertained t…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusM/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION CO.
2001 INSC 58227 November 2001Disposed off
The State of Rajasthan appealed against an arbitration award that granted the contractor, M/s Nav Bharat Construction Co., interest of 18% on delayed payments. The contractor had also obtained a district court award of 15% interest, both of which were confirmed by the Rajasthan High Court. The appellant argued that the…
JAGTAR SINGHversusPARGAT SINGH AND ORS.
1996 INSC 139627 November 1996Dismissed
The elder brother of the petitioner filed a declaratory suit seeking to declare a 1990 decree null and void, which had been upheld by the Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner appealed the decree to the Additional District Judge, but his counsel, on 15 September 1995, announced that the petitioner did not wish …
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.versusSARTI DEVI
1995 INSC 79027 November 1995Disposed off
Lal Singh, a constable of the Gujarat State Reserve Police, died in service. His widow received a family pension which was stopped after she remarried. The deceased's mother, Sarti Devi, filed a suit in a Haryana court seeking the family pension. The trial court and subsequent appellate courts decreed in her favour, bu…
G. NAGAMMA AND ANR.versusSIROMENAMMA AND ANR.
1995 INSC 79327 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for reconveyance and later applied under Order 16 Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint to claim that the sale deed and reconveyance were a single transaction (mortgage by conditional sale) and to seek alternative relief of redemption of the mortgage…
UNION OF INDIAversusSATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
1979 INSC 25227 November 1979Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India, acting through the Railway Department, removed a railway inspector, Satish Chandra Sharma, for alleged misconduct and later ordered his reinstatement and back pay through an interim injunction. Sharma failed to comply with the injunction, prompting the trial court, under Order 39 Rule 2(3) of the CP…
ASHOK RANGNTH NAGARversusSHRIKANT GOVINDRAO SANGVIKAR
2015 INSC 80627 October 2015Matter referred to larger bench
The respondents filed a suit for perpetual injunction which was dismissed by the trial court; the first appeal to the District Judge also dismissed the suit. The respondents then filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court reversed both the trial court and the first appellate court judgments with…
AMINA BEEVIversusTHACHI & ORS.
2010 INSC 74427 October 2010Dismissed
The petitioners challenged a leasehold assignment deed (Exhibit A3) executed by the tenant Kunjali in favour of Abdul Kadar, arguing it was a valid assignment and that their remedy lay only in an application to the Land Tribunal under Section 13A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Supreme Court held that the deed was …
JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LTD.versusPEC LTD. & ORS.
2009 INSC 120127 October 2009Dismissed
Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. entered into a purchase agreement with a foreign seller for manganese ore and a subsequent High Seas Sale Agreement with PEC Ltd., a government company, which was to act as seller. After the cargo arrived, Jai Balaji tested a small portion, found it sub‑standard and rejected the entire consig…
BANDA CHINNA SUBBARAYUDU & ORS.versusTHAILAM VISHANATHA RAO & ANR.
2009 INSC 120227 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants obtained a decree for recovery of money and the decree-holder initiated execution proceedings, resulting in the sale of the appellants' property on 25 November 2003. On the same day a third party obtained a stay of the execution proceedings, which remained in force until 2 December 2004. Because of the s…
RAMADHAR SHRIVASversusBHAGWANDAS
2005 INSC 53127 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed
Ramadhar purchased a house from Hiralal, who was held by a trial court to be the absolute owner. In the earlier suit, the court found that Bhagwandas was a tenant paying rent to Hiralal and, after the sale, became a tenant of Ramadhar; the suit against him was dismissed. In a later suit for eviction and arrears, the tr…
SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJUversusNIMMAKA JAYA RAJU AND ORS.
2005 INSC 53227 October 2005Dismissed
The appellant, elected from the Naguru (ST) constituency in 1999, was challenged under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act on the ground that he did not belong to the "Konda Dora" Scheduled Tribe but was a Kshatriya. The appellant argued that an earlier election petition (E.P. 13 of 1983) which had dismi…
SUDHIR G. ANGUR AND ORS.versusM. SANJEEV AND ORS.
2005 INSC 53327 October 2005Dismissed
The respondents, trustees of an educational trust, filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking cancellation of a lease of trust property and removal of certain trustees, alleging forgery and mismanagement. The appellants contended that the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act,…
SARDAR HARCHARAN SINGH BRARversusSUKH DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS.
2004 INSC 62327 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed
In the 2002 Punjab Assembly election, Sukh Darshan Singh was declared elected over Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar by a narrow margin. Brar filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging that a rival's nomination was improperly accepted and that Singh had committed the corrupt practice…
DR. MAHACHANDRA PRASAD SINGHversusCHAIRMAN, BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND ORS.
2004 INSC 62127 October 2004Dismissed
The petitioner, elected to the Bihar Legislative Council on an Indian National Congress ticket, contested a Lok Sabha election as an independent (and in a second petition as a Samajwadi Party candidate). The Chairman of the Council disqualified him under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, holding that he had volu…
MUKESH KUMAR AND ORS.versusCOL. HARBANS WARAICH AND ORS.
1999 INSC 49627 October 1999Dismissed
The plaintiffs, Mukesh Kumar and others, entered into an agreement with the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) to purchase a property, but the sale deed was not executed. One of the original defendants, Ashwani Kumar, was later transposed from the defendant side to become a plaintiff. The trial court and appellate…
MAHENDRA PALversusRAM DASS MALANGER AND ORS.
1999 INSC 49427 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed
Mahendra Pal, a candidate of the Indian National Congress, challenged the election of R.D. Malanger, a Bharatiya Janata Party candidate, to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha from the Kutlehar constituency. The petition alleged that 35,310 ballot papers were distributed but 35,318 were counted, resulting in eight excess…
M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS.versusMAHANT SURESH DAS AND OTHERS ETC.
2019 INSC 123127 September 2018Directions issued
The appeals arise from civil suits concerning title to the disputed Ayodhya structure and challenge the validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The petitioners sought to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench, arguing that the observations in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) – …
FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.versusTHE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.
2018 INSC 90427 September 2018Dismissed
Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) entered into a development agreement with Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia (respondent No.3), who later terminated the agreement and sought certified copies of the development plans, layouts and related documents filed with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under the Right to Inform…
ABDUL REHMAN & ANR.versusMOHD. RULDU & ORS.
2012 INSC 43227 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, who had purchased land from the predecessor-in-interest, filed a suit for a permanent injunction against respondents who claimed title based on later sale deeds. They later sought to amend the plaint to include a declaration of title and cancellation of those sale deeds. The trial court and the High Cou…
ALKA GUPTAversusNARENDER KUMAR GUPTA
2010 INSC 65127 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed
Alka Gupta filed a second suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership, after having earlier obtained a decree for the balance price under a sale agreement with Narender Kumar Gupta. The Delhi High Court dismissed the second suit, holding it barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, by constructive res judicata, and on the …
PABITRA KUMAR ROY AND ANR.versusALITA DSOUZA
2006 INSC 66027 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved a lease dated 13 January 1969 for 21 years between the appellants (lessors) and the respondent (lessee) which contained a clause allowing either party to terminate the lease before its expiry. The lessor served a notice of determination in 1972 and obtained an eviction decree under the Transfer of Pro…
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZP ENGG. DIVN. AND ANR.versusDIGAMBARA RAO
2004 INSC 55027 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents, employed as daily‑wage engineers under a government scheme, were terminated in 1996 and filed writ petitions seeking regularisation, a direction not to discontinue their services and arrears of salary. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding that their services had been terminate…
M/S. SANGHAM TAPE COMPANYversusHANS RAJ
2004 INSC 55127 September 2004Dismissed
The employee, Hans Raj, had received a full and final settlement from Sangham Tape Company but later filed a reference petition before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Labour Court passed an ex‑parte award on 5 February 1996. The employer applied to set aside the award, but the application was…
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE NAULAKHAversusUJAGAR SINGH AND ORS.
2000 INSC 46527 September 2000Appeal(s) allowed
The Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 seeking to set aside an earlier injunction decree obtained by the respondents in 1975, alleging that the decree was the result of collusion between the respondents and the then Sarpanch. …
R. LAKSHMIversusK. SARASWATHI AMMAL
1996 INSC 112427 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The husband obtained an ex‑parte decree of divorce and subsequently died. The wife (appellant) filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the decree, asserting that it affected her marital status and property rights. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that di…
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusS. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
2021 INSC 42527 August 2021Disposed off
The legal heirs of the late S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu claimed that Union of India had illegally grabbed 7,128.5 sq. yards of land that their father had purchased, relying on a prior suit where the plaintiffs were declared owners of 4,971.5 sq. yards. The Union appealed the Tribunal's order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Gr…
NAZIR MOHAMEDversusJ. KAMALA AND ORS.
2020 INSC 51127 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined two second appeals filed under Section 100 of the CPC concerning a suit for declaration of title and possession of a property. The High Court had entertained the appeals despite the absence of a substantial question of law, and had allowed the respondent's claim to possession while dismissing…
CHENNADI JALAPATHI REDDYversusBADDAM PRATAPA REDDY (DEAD) THR LRS. & ANR.
2019 INSC 95927 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a 1993 agreement of sale, alleging that the first defendant had signed the agreement but later sold his share to a third party and refused to execute the sale deed. The defendants contended that the signature on the agreement was forged, relying on a handwriting ex…
SURJIT SINGH & ORS.versusGURWANT KAUR & ORS.
2014 INSC 57027 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed
Surjit Singh filed a suit for specific performance of a land sale contract. The trial court dismissed the suit and rejected the plaintiff's application under Section 151 CPC to file bank statements as additional documents; the High Court affirmed this rejection. On appeal, the plaintiff sought to introduce the same ban…
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusDILBAHAR SINGH
2014 INSC 99727 August 2014Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The issue was whether the High Court could re‑apprecia…
SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LTD.versusSURENDRA OIL & DAL MILLS (REFINERIES) & ORS.
2010 INSC 55227 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed
Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., the owner of the registered trade mark "Shalimar", sued Sureendra Oil & Dal Mills for infringement and sought a permanent injunction. The trial court admitted only xerox copies of the trade mark registration certificates as exhibits, marked them subject to objection, and dismissed the suit…
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusM/S CORK MANUFACTURING CO.
2007 INSC 87427 August 2007Disposed off
The appellant, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, resumed an industrial plot allotted to the respondent, Cork Manufacturing Co., alleging breach of a contractual construction deadline. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction, claiming the resumption order was illegal, that it remained in pos…
SRI INDER SAIN BEDI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusM/S. CHOPRA ELECTRICALS
2004 INSC 48427 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, S. Bedi, leased a specifically described portion of his industrial property to the respondent, Chopra Electricals, for 11 months under a licence deed that excluded a second, green‑coloured portion which was scored off. The respondent later occupied that green portion and claimed it formed part of the ten…
M/S. MAHENDRA SAREE EMPORIUMversusG.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY
2004 INSC 48227 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord G.V. Srinivasa Murthy leased a non‑residential premises to Mahendra Saree Emporium, originally a sole proprietorship, which later converted into a partnership with the tenant's relatives. The landlord claimed unlawful sub‑letting under Section 21(1)(t) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and obtained a…
THE STATE OF J & K AND ANR.versusDEV DUTT PANDIT
1999 INSC 35827 August 1999Case Partly allowed
The State of Jammu & Kashmir terminated a measurable‑item rate contract with contractor Dev Dutt Pandit after less than 50% of the work was completed and the contractor filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. An arbitrator awarded Rs. 20,08,000 based on a final bill prepared from measurements taken by…
RAMESHWAR DASS GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
1996 INSC 94927 August 1996Dismissed
The Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal set aside the removal of Rameshwar Dass Gupta and ordered his confirmation, promotion and payment of salary, gratuity and pension. Gupta filed an execution petition under Order 21 Rule 1 of the CPC to recover the awarded amounts. The executing court, however, added interest at…
GAYATHRIversusM. GIRISH
2016 INSC 118927 July 2016Dismissed
The plaintiff, a septuagenarian, filed a suit in 2007 for possession and damages. The trial proceeded with a prolonged examination-in-chief and the defendant repeatedly sought adjournments under Order XVII Rules 1 and 2, filing more than a dozen interlocutory applications on flimsy grounds, many of which were granted w…
BHAGMAL & ORSversusKUNWAR LAL & ORS
2010 INSC 43327 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, and an ex‑parte decree was passed against the appellants. The appellants only learned of the decree when execution proceedings began and filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on 8 July 1988, claiming it was with…
FIZA DEVELOPERS & INTER-TRADE P. LTD.versusAMCI (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR.
2009 INSC 94627 July 2009Dismissed
Fiza Developers & Inter‑Trade Ltd. challenged an arbitral award of Rs 57.6 crore by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking its setting aside. The respondent filed a written statement and the appellant moved the City Civil Court to frame issues under Order 14 Rule 1…
UGRE GOWDAversusNAGEGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2004 INSC 40327 July 2004Appeal(s) allowed
Nagegowda sued claiming he was the adopted son of widow Smt. Sannananjamma and that an adoption‑cum‑settlement deed gave him absolute ownership of a suit property, also seeking to declare a later gift deed by the widow void. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of proof of adoption and because the deed was unsta…
K.S. SATYANARAYANAversusV.R. NARAYANA RAO
1999 INSC 29427 July 1999Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh each to the property owner (defendant 1) and his agent (defendant 2) based on a written authorisation allowing the agent to sell the ground floor. The sale fell through; the agent returned Rs.50,000 but the owner refused to refund his share, denying any contractual relationship with the pla…
GURUCHARAN KOERI AND ORS.versusBIBI SHAMSUNISSA
1993 INSC 24827 July 1993Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage dated 28 July 1916 that covered five plots (557, 558, 559, 564, 565). They sought redemption of two plots, 565 and 551, the latter not being part of the mortgage. The trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court decreed in favour of the appellants, b…
CHHOTELAL PYARELAL THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ORS.versusSHIKHARCHAND
1984 INSC 13127 July 1984Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord filed an eviction application under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 against the partnership firm M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal. The firm contended that the application was not maintainable because the partners were not joined as responde…
BIMAL CHAND JAINversusSRI GOPAL AGARWAL
1981 INSC 12927 July 1981Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent, a lessor, sued the appellant, a lessee, for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. Under Rule 5 of Order XV of the CPC, the appellant was required to deposit the admitted rent and make regular monthly deposits; failure to do so made his defence liable to be struck off, subject to a representation un…
UNION OF INDIAversusR. B. CH RAGHUNATH SINGH & CO.
1979 INSC 13127 July 1979Dismissed
The Union of India appealed against R.B. Ch. Raghunath Singh & Co. under the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking appointment of an arbitrator after the designated Director of Storage post was abolished and the Chief Commissioner refused to act. The issue was whether the court could fill the vacancy under Section 8(1)(b) of …
ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYAversusSIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.
2024 INSC 45727 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya, was injured in a road accident and claimed Rs 10 lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded her Rs 2,41,745 with interest. She filed a Miscellaneous Application in the Gujarat High Court seeking permission to appeal the award as an indigent person, arguing…
BIKOBA DEORA GAIKWAD & ORS.versusHIRABAI MARUTIRAO GHORGARE
2008 INSC 73427 May 2008Dismissed
The parties were involved in a partition suit filed in 1969, which resulted in a decree on 27 June 1975 declaring each party's one‑third share and directing that the partition be effected by the Collector under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court failed to send the decree to the Collector, and af…
SWAMI SHANKARANANDversusMAHANT SRI SADGURU SARNANAND ETC. & ORS
2008 INSC 73527 May 2008Dismissed
The case concerned an application under Section 92(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure for sanction to sell a piece of land belonging to a religious public trust (Garhwaghat Math). The District Judge granted the sanction, after which Swami Shankaranand, a disciple and in‑charge of another Math, appealed, claiming an i…
GURNAM SINGH (D) THR. LRS.versusGURBACHAN KAUR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
2017 INSC 40527 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined a second appeal in which the original appellant and two respondents had died during its pendency. No application under Order XXII Rules 3(2) and 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed to substitute their legal representatives within the prescribed 90‑day period. The Court held th…
P.A. MOHAMMED RIYASversusM.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.
2012 INSC 19227 April 2012Dismissed
The appellant, P.A. Mohammed Riyas, contested the 2009 Lok Sabha election from Kozhikode and filed an election petition alleging that the respondent, M.K. Raghavan, committed corrupt practice by publishing false statements, invoking Sections 81, 100, 101 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petiti…
KATLA MUTHYAL NAIDUversusKOTHAPALLE VENKATAPPA NAIDU AND ORS.
2009 INSC 62427 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the High Court's dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the plaint did not contain a specific plea of adverse possession. The Supreme Court examined the averments in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the plaint, which expres…
D. DWARAKANANTHA REDDYversusCHAITNYA BHARATHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS.
2007 INSC 47827 April 2007Dismissed
The appellants claimed that they had been validly inducted as Promoter‑Members of Chaitnya Bharathi Educational Society by a Board of Governors resolution in 2000 and a General Body approval in 2006, which they said entitled them to vote in the Society’s Board elections. The Society contended that under Clause 4(b) of …
P. CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ORS.versusS. KANAKARAJAN AND ORS.
2007 INSC 49527 April 2007Dismissed
P. Chandrasekharan and others appealed to the Supreme Court against a Madras High Court order that allowed the cross‑objections of the respondents in a suit for possession of two parcels of land. The appellants argued that the High Court had erred by ignoring documentary evidence and misinterpreting the deed of sale, t…
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD.versusMADDULA RATNA VALLI AND ORS.
2007 INSC 49827 April 2007Dismissed
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a government company, claimed a statutory right to renew a lease originally granted to Burmah Shell under the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976. The lease, with a nominal rent of Rs 50 per month, had expired in 1985 and the company issued a notice in 1989 t…
SHRI BANARSI DASSversusMRS. TEEKU DUTTA AND ANR.
2005 INSC 23327 April 2005Dismissed
The appellant, Banarsi Dass, objected to the grant of a succession certificate to Mrs. Teeku Dutta, alleging she was not the deceased's daughter. He moved an application under Order 151 CPC for a DNA test to establish paternity, which the trial court allowed. The Delhi High Court set aside that order, holding that the …
J.C. SEHGALversusDEVI DASS AND ORS.
2004 INSC 31427 April 2004Leave Granted & Allowed
The dispute concerned a four‑room property in Jammu that was sold by Issar Dass to Ved Paul Gupta, who later sold it to Shashi Kant and then to Raj Kumar, the tenant. Devi Dass (respondent No. 1) filed a pre‑emption suit in 1978 under the J&K Rights of Prior Purchase Act, 1936, claiming a right based on the property’s …
MADHVI AMMA BHAWANI AMMA AND ORS.versusKUNJIKUTTY PILLAI MEENAKSHI PILLAI AND ORS.
2000 INSC 26427 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as legal heir and partition of property and simultaneously applied for a Succession Certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to claim insurance proceeds. The trial court declared the plaintiff the sole heir and granted the certificate; the appellate court set aside bo…
ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.
1998 INSC 19927 April 1998Dismissed
A.K. Srivastav was appointed as a probationary Inspector with National Insurance Company Ltd. on conditions that he achieve a premium target within twelve months, failing which his service could be terminated without notice. After failing to meet the target, the company served a notice of termination, and Srivastav fil…
STATE OF BIHARversusDHIRENDRA KUMAR AND ORS.
1995 INSC 30927 April 1995Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Bihar issued a notification under s.4 and a declaration under s.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land for a housing project, and took possession on March 22, 1957, handing it to the Housing Board. The respondent filed a title suit and sought an interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the …
LALITHA J. RAJversusAITHAPPA RAJ
1995 INSC 31027 April 1995Appeal(s) allowed
Lalitha filed a suit for declaration of title and possession and later filed an application on August 3, 1993, seeking to file a list of witnesses for summoning. Her husband, acting as general power of attorney, submitted an affidavit stating they mistakenly believed the list had already been filed, and the omission wa…
KARUNANIDHIversusSEETHARAMA NAIDU & ORS.
2017 INSC 27227 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appeal arose from a suit filed in 1988 by the great‑grandson and great‑granddaughter of Perumal Naidu (plaintiffs) seeking declaration and possession of properties that had been bequeathed by their great‑grandmother Alamelu Ammal to her sister Ramanujatha Ammal (defendant). The plaintiffs claimed that Alamelu held …
P. R. YELUMALAIversusN.M. RAVI
2015 INSC 27127 March 2015Disposed off
The plaintiff‑buyer entered into a sale agreement and obtained a decree for specific performance, which required him to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.33,60,000 within one month of the decree and in the form of a demand draft. The trial court extended the time by two months, making the final deadline 26‑May‑20…
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISEversusM/S. HONGO INDIA (P) LTD. & ANR.
2009 INSC 41427 March 2009Dismissed
The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise filed a reference application under Section 35H(1) of the unamended Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking the High Court’s direction to refer a question of law to the Appellate Tribunal, but the application was filed after the statutory period of 180 days. The High Court dismiss…
KHALEEL AHMED DAKHANIversusTHE HATTI GOLD MINES CO. LTD.
2000 INSC 15427 March 2000Dismissed
The appellant, a building contractor, was awarded a contract by the respondent, a Karnataka government company, to construct a school. The contract contained an arbitration clause (clause 35) stipulating that any dispute would be arbitrated and that enforcement actions would be heard only in courts at Bangalore. An arb…
STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ORS.versusS.K. SHARMA
1996 INSC 45927 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent, S.K. Sharma, a bank manager, was charged with temporary misappropriation of a loan amount and was removed from service after a departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer relied on statements of witnesses, but the respondent was not supplied copies of those statements nor of certain documents as required …
AKSHAYA RESTAURANTversusP. ANJANAPPA AND ANR.
1995 INSC 21927 March 1995Dismissed
Akshaya Restaurant filed a suit for perpetual injunction against P. Anjanappa and others, alleging an agreement of sale of land. The defendants' written statement admitted a sale agreement, but later they sought to amend the statement under Order 6 Rule 17, claiming the agreement was for development of the land for mut…
PAPPAMMAL (DIED) THROUGH LR R. KRSNA MURTIIversusJOTHI & ANR.
2025 INSC 27727 February 2025Dismissed
The mother, Pappammal, filed a suit for recovery of possession which was being prosecuted by her son as her power of attorney. After the mother died, the son applied to be substituted as the legal representative based on a registered will, and the Supreme Court later allowed his substitution. The daughter, another lega…
SIRAJUDHEENversusZEENATH & ORS
2023 INSC 17327 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff‑respondent (Zeenath) appealed a High Court order that remanded her suit for cancellation of a sale deed and a prohibitory injunction back to the trial court for a fresh trial. The High Court had held that the evidence on record was insufficient and that material witnesses were not examined, thereby direct…
JAGDISH CHANDERversusSATISH CHANDER AND ORS.
2019 INSC 28327 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Satish Chander, claimed that his mother Vidya Devi had been fraudulently induced to execute a gift deed in favour of Jagdish Chander, alleging that the deed was supported by a consideration of Rs 5,000 and therefore invalid under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court and the first …
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IversusM/S RASHTRADOOT (HUF)
2019 INSC 28527 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) appealed an ITAT order that had allowed the assessee, M/s Rashtadrood (HUF), under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court dismissed the appeal after hearing both parties but neither framed any substantial question of law nor provided reasons for its conclusion.…
M/S. SHERALI KHAN MOHAMED MANEKIAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
2015 INSC 17727 February 2015Dismissed
The appellant purchased an evacuee property and filed a suit in 1980 seeking specific performance of the sale, possession and the appointment of a court receiver. The trial court denied the receiver, but the High Court on appeal appointed one to take possession, collect rent and account for profits. The suit was finall…
SURYA VADANANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
2015 INSC 17827 February 2015Disposed off
Surya and Mayura Vadanan, both British citizens, married in India and had two daughters in the UK. In August 2012 Mayura brought the children to India and filed for divorce. Surya obtained an interim order from the High Court of Justice in England making the children wards of that court and directing the mother to retu…
C.K. SASANKANversusTHE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.
2009 INSC 27327 February 2009Case Partly allowed
The appellant, C.K. Sasankan, sought recovery of a loan taken by his father from Dhanalakshmi Bank and challenged the interest awarded by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was 25% from filing to judgment and 19.4% thereafter. He argued that such rates were excessive and violated Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedur…
VIDYODAYA TRUSTversusMOHAN PRASAD R & ORS.
2008 INSC 26627 February 2008Case Allowed
The Vidyodaya Trust filed a petition under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 challenging the administration of the trust, which was dismissed by the trial court. The respondents then sought leave to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was granted by the district court without…
S.N.S. (MINERALS) LTD. AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2007 INSC 22527 February 2007Dismissed
S.N.S. (Minerals) Ltd. and another challenged the excise authority's order quantifying duty and imposing a penalty on limestone chips. The High Court set aside the penalty but left the duty demand untouched. On appeal, the appellants argued that the High Court should also have struck down the duty demand under Section …
B.C. SHIVASHANKARAversusB.R. NAGARAJ
2007 INSC 22727 February 2007Disposed off
The appellant, B.C. Shivashankara, challenged a second appeal allowed by the Karnataka High Court in favour of B.R. Nagraj. The High Court had permitted the appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure but failed to formulate any substantial question of law as required by the statute. The issue before the Su…
RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU & ORS.versusGOBARADHAN SAO AND ORS.
2002 INSC 10627 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The case arose from a partition suit involving 116 acres of land where, during the pendency of a first appeal, several appellants died. Substitution applications were filed after delays of 130 days, three years, and five years. The Patna High Court refused to condone the delay and set aside the abatement, holding that …
SHAW WALLACE AND CO. LTD.versusGOVINDAS PURUSHOTHAMDAS AND ANR.
2001 INSC 12127 February 2001Dismissed
The landlords applied under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent of premises occupied by Shaw Wallace & Co. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority excluded a 1,752 sq.ft. area described as "platform and henpen" from the building, fixing rent at Rs.2…
K. ARUMUGA VELAIAHversusP.R. RAMASAMY AND ANR.
2022 INSC 10327 January 2022Dismissed
The appellant‑plaintiff, K. Arumuga Velaiyah, claimed a one‑fourth share in ancestral joint family property based on a 1994 will of his grandfather, Periyaiya Servai, and sought partition and separate possession. The lower courts dismissed the suit, holding that a partition had already been effected in 1964 by a pancha…
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusHARKISHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
2017 INSC 7627 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority acquired land of several owners in 1990‑1992 using the urgency provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The owners challenged the acquisition in the High Court, which dismissed their writ petitions, and the Supreme Court upheld the acquisition while allow…
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.versusORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P. LTD.
2017 INSC 7727 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) conducted an auction of a 9.527‑acre commercial tower in Gurgaon, where Orchid Infrastructure Developers (formerly Bhudeep Builders) submitted the highest bid of Rs 111.75 crore and deposited 10% on the spot. HUDA, through its Administrator, rejected the bid on the ground …
INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANYversusM/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.
2016 INSC 9427 January 2016
The appellant Indian Machinery Co. filed a second complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 after its first complaint was dismissed for default. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the second complaint non‑maintainable, invoking a rule analogous to Order IX Rule 9(…
ZARIF AHMAD (D} THROUGH LRS. & ANOTHERversusMOHD. FAROOQ
2015 INSC 6627 January 2015Dismissed
The plaintiff, Mohd. Farooq, filed a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants, Zarif Ahmad and another, from interfering with his possession of plot No. 358, describing the land by its boundaries and municipal number. The trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiff, but the first appell…
HARI RAMversusJYOTI PRASAD & ANR.
2011 INSC 7427 January 2011Dismissed
Hariram appealed against judgments that upheld a permanent injunction ordering the removal of his alleged encroachment on a 10‑foot public street. He argued that the suit was barred by limitation, violated Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, and lacked proof that the land was a public street. The Supreme Court held that encroac…
N.M. VEERAPPAversusCANARA BANK
1998 INSC 4127 January 1998Appeal(s) allowed
Canara Bank sued a partnership firm and its partners for recovery of a loan secured by an equitable mortgage. The trial court awarded interest at the contractual rate of 16.5% on the balance up to the date of suit and at a reduced rate of 6% per annum for future interest from the date of suit. The Karnataka High Court …
HIMACHAL PRADESH NAGAR VIKAS PRADHIKARANversusM/S. AGGARWAL & CO.
1997 INSC 6727 January 1997Appeal(s) allowed
The Himachal Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (appellant) entered into a construction contract with Mis. Aggarwal & Co. (respondent). An arbitrator awarded the respondent a 25% increase over tendered rates for work completed after the stipulated date due to delay caused by the Executive Engineer. The appellant deducted …
UNION OF INDIAversusSMT. PRATAP KAUR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. ETC.
1995 INSC 8127 January 1995Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India appealed a High Court order that had directed the Additional District Judge to award compensation of Rs. 90,000 per acre for land within a 500‑metre belt (belting) along a road, as identified by a Division Bench of the High Court under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants contended that the Distr…
ANWARI BASAWARAJ PATIL AND ORS.versusSIDDARAMAIAH AND ORS.
1993 INSC 2527 January 1993Dismissed
The first respondent, a defeated candidate, filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant. The appellant filed a recrimination notice under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but did so beyond the 14‑day period prescribed, and sought condonation of the delay under Section 5…
ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.
2024 INSC 92026 November 2024Dismissed
Rohit Kochhar filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking specific performance and a permanent injunction for a commercial property situated in Gurgaon. The defendants contested the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the relief required execution and registration of a sale deed in Gurgaon, which would forc…
ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITEDversusUV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
2021 INSC 79426 November 2021Dismissed
Electrosteel Castings Ltd., a guarantor, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that an assignment deed executed by the financial creditor in favour of UV Asset Reconstruction Co. was fraudulent and that the assignee was not a secured creditor. The suit was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that Section 34 of…
AHMED ABDULLA AHMED AL GHURAIR (THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. BARTHOLOMEW KAMYA) & ANR.versusSTAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
2018 INSC 110026 November 2018Dismissed
The plaintiffs, Dubai nationals and shareholders of a Dubai‑incorporated company (Defendant No.2), filed a derivative suit in the Madras High Court seeking a declaration that Defendant No.2 held the beneficial interest in 6.16% of the shares of an Indian company (Defendant No.1) that were registered in the names of oth…
OM PRAKASH MARWAHA (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusJAGDISH LAL MARWAHA (D) THR. LRS.
2008 INSC 135426 November 2008Dismissed
The plaintiff sought vacant and peaceful possession of a Delhi property, but the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed, and during the first appeal the sole defendant died. An application for substitution of the defendant’s legal heirs was filed but remained pending, and the decree was erroneously drawn up against…