Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3,095 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 601–800.

MRS. HAFIZUN BEGUMversusMD. IKRAM HEQUE & ORS.

2007 INSC 77724 July 2007Disposed off

The appellant, Hafizun Begum, the widow of a deceased motor‑vehicle accident victim, challenged an order allowing the deceased's brothers—who were not financially dependent on him—to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court had dismissed her claim, holding that the brothers were entitled to

OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2006 INSC 46324 July 2006Disposed off

Om Prakash Srivastava, extradited from Singapore, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under Article 226 alleging violation of the Extradition Act and inhuman prison conditions in Uttar Pradesh. The Delhi High Court held that it might have jurisdiction but that the Allahabad High Court could more effectively d

DHURANDHAR PRASAD SINGHversusJAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

2001 INSC 30824 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, D.P. Singh, sued Jai Prakash University and others for a declaration that an order terminating his services was illegal. The suit was decreed ex parte against the college's governing body, which later became a constituent unit of the university, but the university was not impleaded. In execution, the uni

FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG & ORS.versusHINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.

2020 INSC 36224 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant partnership firm owned 249.60 bighas of land that was slated for acquisition by the State of Rajasthan for the benefit of the respondent company. An agreement dated 01.02.1980 provided that about 145 bighas would be sold to the respondent, with the price to be fixed by arbitration. The sole arbitrator fix

SHIVAKUMAR & ORS.versusSHARANABASAPPA & ORS.

2020 INSC 34924 April 2020Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership of several properties on the basis of a Will dated 20‑05‑1991 executed by the deceased Sri Sangappa and sought to declare a trust created by the defendants void. The defendants challenged the genuineness of the Will, pointing to numerous irregularities such as the use of d

M/S. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITEDversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 36024 April 2020Case Partly allowed

The borrower defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage offered by the guarantor, leading State Bank of India to initiate SARFAESI proceedings and eventually auction the secured assets, which were purchased by Tripower Enterprises. The bank sought the return of original title documents deposited with the Debt Recovery T

HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.versusDALJIT SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 56924 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had entered into an agreement to sell a Delhi property and associated business for Rs 55.50 crore, receiving Rs 5 crore as part consideration, and sued for specific performance. The defendants contested the agreement, claiming the document was forged, the signatures on pages 3

J. BALAJI SINGHversusDIWAKAR COLE & ORS.

2017 INSC 38624 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Balaji Singh filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction which was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the first appellate court allowed him to file additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, set aside the trial court decree and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh trial, invoking O

FATEHJI & COMPANY & ANR.versusL.M. NAGPAL & ORS.

2015 INSC 35624 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs entered into a written agreement of sale on 2 July 1973 for a property, with performance fixed for 2 December 1973. The defendants sought extensions, the last of which expired on 1 February 1977. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance on 29 April 1994, and the defendants moved to dismiss it

RAJASTHAN SRTC & ORSversusMOHAR SINGH

2008 INSC 52224 April 2008Dismissed

The Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, a statutory corporation created under the Road Corporation Act, 1951, dismissed driver Mohar Singh for alleged misconduct and the dismissal was upheld by its appellate authority. Singh filed a civil suit in the Additional Munsif Court challenging the termination and t

WILLIAMSversusLOURDUSAMY & ANR.

2008 INSC 52424 April 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Williams, claimed title to a parcel of land based on a registered deed of sale from respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 sued for a permanent injunction, asserting ownership through an oral agreement of sale with respondent No.2, but respondent No.2 was not impleaded. The trial court limited the issue to pos

AFAQ HUSAINversusUPSRTC & ANR.

2008 INSC 53024 April 2008Dismissed

Afaq Husain, a conductor appointed on an ad‑hoc, daily‑wager basis by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was given a three‑month contract in 1976 and terminated thereafter with one month’s notice pay. He raised an industrial dispute in 1982; the Labour Court, assuming continuous service from 1972‑1976, held tha

SRI VEERA HANUMAN RICE AND FLOUR MILL AND ANR.versusSTATE BANK OF INDIA, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, A.P.

2000 INSC 23724 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of India obtained a preliminary decree for a sum of Rs. 70,087.75 in 1987 and was required to apply for a final decree by 31‑12‑1991. It filed the application only on 27‑7‑1994, seeking condonation of a 714‑day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order 34 Rule 5 of the CPC. The subordin

HIND BUILDERS ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND VICE-VERSA

1990 INSC 15324 April 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The contractors (Hind Builders) were awarded Rs.57,47,198 by two arbitrators for work on the Metro Railway Project, including Rs.6,76,540 as interest. The Calcutta High Court reduced the award on two grounds: the amount for earth consolidation (item c(xii)) and the period for pendente lite interest. The Supreme Court h

YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS.

2025 INSC 38324 March 2025Disposed off

The appellants claimed ownership of a 3.34‑acre parcel of land in Kurnool district, asserting that it was a patta land acquired by a registered sale deed in 1970 and that they had been in uninterrupted possession for over twenty years. The State argued that the land was an assigned government land, subject to a non‑ali

MD MISHER ALI @ MESER ALIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 20524 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Md Misher Ali was alleged by the Assam police to be an illegal migrant from Bangladesh who entered India after 24 March 1971. The police referred him to the Foreigner's Tribunal, which served notice by hanging it at his temporary address in Sivasagar, despite his permanent residence being in Dhubri, and subsequently de

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusKALAWATI DEVI & ORS.

2009 INSC 39624 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which appealed a decision of the Jharkhand High Court that dismissed its claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court had held that the insurer had not obtained leave to contest the claim under section 170 after the vehicle owner failed to take interest, and th

U.P. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOWversusMANJU GOEL & ORS.

2009 INSC 39724 March 2009Disposed off

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.9,18,288 to victims of a 1979 accident, directing Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (UPJ) to pay. UPJ appealed to the Allahabad High Court, but after the reorganization of Uttar Pradesh, the appeal was transferred to the newly created Uttarakhand High Court. Unaware of this transfer,

WOODS BEACH HOTELS LTD.versusMAPUSA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF GOA LTD. & ORS.

2009 INSC 39924 March 2009Disposed off

The Bank of Goa extended a loan to a firm of its director and secured it by mortgaging the appellant’s property “Soranto”. After obtaining an award, the bank executed attachment and later purchased the property itself, subsequently conducting an auction in which Softitel Hospitality & Management emerged as the highest

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSUKH DEO PRASAD

2009 INSC 40124 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) was ordered by a trial court to deposit rent payments for a godown it leased from borrowers into the bank’s loan account, an order that the bank sought as an interim direction. The bank later filed a contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC, alleging FCI’s disobedience

CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALOREversusZULEKHA BL & ORS.

2008 INSC 38824 March 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Corporation of Bangalore filed a suit against Zulekha B.I. and others claiming title over a disputed property. Zulekha asserted that she had purchased the land from M.N. Rudrappa and sought a declaration of ownership and an injunction against interference. The trial court dismissed her suit; the Karnataka High Cour

ANITA LAXMI NARAYAN SINGHversusLAXMI NARAIN SINGH

1992 INSC 8624 March 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Anita Laxmi Narayan Singh married Laxmi Narain Singh in 1987. The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Bombay. The wife, residing in Ghaziabad, had to travel long distances to defend herself and applied for interim maintenance and travel expenses. The Supreme Court directed the

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.versusCHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI

2023 INSC 15824 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Chandervir Singh Negi, filed a suit in 2003 seeking a declaration, mandatory injunction and direction to the State of Himachal Pradesh to complete land acquisition for a road constructed on his land in 1987, alleging no compensation and damage to fruit trees. The trial court held the suit barred by limit

P. SHYAMALAversusGUNDLUR MASTHAN

2023 INSC 16224 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff obtained an ex‑parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, directing him to pay the balance consideration of Rs 15,00,000 within two weeks, which he failed to do. After a delay of 853 days, the plaintiff sought an extension of time under CPC 148 and Section 28 of the Specific Relie

S. MURALI SUNDARAMversusJOTHIBAI KANNAN & ORS

2023 INSC 16124 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010) challenging a Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation order concerning a pathway. The High Court discarded a survey report and ruled in favour of the respondents on 03.03.2017. The respondents then filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of th

LANKA VENKATESWARLU (D) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF A.P. & ORS.

2011 INSC 15924 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The original plaintiff, Lanka Venkateswarlu, filed a suit for title and injunction which was appealed after his death in 1990. The High Court ordered the government pleader to bring the legal heirs on record within a week, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The appeal was dismissed on 6 February 1998 for non‑

VADIRAJ NAGGAPPA VERNEKAR (D) THROUGH LRS.versusSHARAD CHAND PRABHAKAR GOGATE

2009 INSC 24524 February 2009Dismissed

The suit concerned the ownership of a flat and the validity of letters of administration obtained by the respondent. A key witness, Sadanand Sheshgiri Shet, gave his evidence by affidavit under Order 17 Rule 4 CPC. The plaintiffs later moved a motion under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking to recall the witness to adduce fa

BISHWANATH PRASAD SINGHversusRAJENDRA PRASAD AND ANR.

2006 INSC 11524 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bishwanath Prasad Singh, sold a piece of land to the respondents on 24 June 1977 and simultaneously executed an agreement for reconveyance, the parties agreeing that the sale would become absolute only upon payment of Rs.3000 within 23 months. The respondents claimed the transaction was a usufructuary mo

PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD.versusSIKANDER SINGH

2006 INSC 12624 February 2006Dismissed

The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (the appellant, a State) sued two of its employees, an inspector and a field officer/supervisor, for loss of wheat allegedly caused by their negligence and misappropriation. Both employees had been dismissed in departmental proceedings; the inspector was reinstated after depo

MST. BHABIA DEVIversusPERMANAND PD. YADAV

1997 INSC 19424 February 1997Dismissed

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance against Mst. Bhabia Devi, and an ex‑parte decree was granted when she failed to appear. She later applied under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree, alleging that notice was not served because she was not residing at the alleged address. Evidence show

P. UDAYANI DEVIversusV.V. RAJESHWARA PRASAD RAO AND ANR.

1995 INSC 14024 February 1995Appeal(s) allowed

A money decree against the respondent led to the auction sale of his property, which was purchased by the appellant. The sale certificate described the property by its boundaries and termed it a "terraced house". The respondent later claimed that only the terraced building, not the adjoining portion, was sold and sough

OMDEO BALIRAM MUSALE & ORS.versusPRAKASH RAMCHANDRA MAMIDWAR & ORS.

2024 INSC 9324 January 2024Dismissed

The petitioners filed a suit for declaration in 1982 alleging that their father had illegally sold family property in 1980. The suit was dismissed for default because the petitioners failed to pay the process fee for serving notice, and subsequent applications for restoration of the suit and the revision petition were

KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIAversusBIKRAM SINGH JARYAL

2017 INSC 7324 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Kuldeep Singh Pathania, who lost a 2012 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging irregularities in voting and postal ballots. The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition on preliminary ground

V. RAJENDRAN AND ANR.versusANNASAMY PANDLAN (D) THR. LRS. KARTHYAYANL NATCHIAR

2017 INSC 125724 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction in 2004 describing the suit property as Survey No.192/9. During the trial they discovered that the respondents had transferred the patta and executed an Inam Settlement Deed referring to the same land as Survey No.192/14, creating a confusion about the identity of th

WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD.versusMSM SATELLITE (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.

2014 INSC 5024 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a Facilitation Deed containing an arbitration clause (Clause 9) that required disputes to be referred to ICC arbitration in Singapore. The respondent rescinded the deed alleging fraud and sought a temporary injunction restraining the arbitration. The Bombay High Court granted the injunction, hold

KALYAN SINGH CHOUHANversusC.P. JOSHI

2011 INSC 6624 January 2011Dismissed

The appellant Kalyan Singh Chouhan, declared elected by a margin of one vote in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election, challenged the High Court's order rejecting his application to summon all ten tendered votes, arguing that the entire set should be examined to prevent miscarriage of justice. The respondent C.P.

CHIEF ENGINEER, HYDEL PROJECT & ORS.versusRAVINDER NATH & ORS.

2008 INSC 9224 January 2008Case Allowed

The respondents, who were work‑charge employees on the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project, were terminated after the project’s completion under Rule 20(1) and Rule 3‑A of the Certified Standing Orders. They filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the termination was illegal, reinstatement and back‑wages. The trial cour

BASAYYA I. MATHADversusRUDRAYYA S. MATHAD AND ORS.

2008 INSC 9424 January 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, obtained occupancy rights to certain lands, while his brothers claimed a share and filed a suit for partition. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit. The High Court, in a second appeal (RSA No. 105 of 1997), directed production of the

SADHANA LODHversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.

2003 INSC 3224 January 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The claimant's son died in a motor vehicle accident and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,50,000 as compensation. The insurer, National Insurance Co., filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the award, but the High Court initially dismissed the petition and later r

KHAZAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2002 INSC 4624 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The land of the deceased Khazan Singh was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award fixing compensation was made by the Collector. Dissatisfied, Khazan Singh filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for a reference to a Civil Court, which the Collector made. The Civil Court dismissed the refere

MAJOR PAKHAR SINGH ATWAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1995 INSC 7324 January 1995Dismissed

The Punjab Town Improvement Act was used to acquire 821 kanals of land for municipal expansion. The Collector’s 1977 award fixed compensation per marla, which the Tribunal enhanced in 1984. Claimants sought further enhancement, relying on a later 1987 Tribunal award and sale transactions cited in the Collector’s award,

MAHADEO SAVLARAM SHELKE AND ORS.versusPUNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.

1995 INSC 7424 January 1995Dismissed

The Pune Municipal Corporation acquired a two‑storey building for road widening under the Land Acquisition Act, compensated the owner and took possession, while tenants (appellants) occupied the premises under leave‑and‑licence agreements. After the agreements expired, eviction proceedings were successful, and the Supr

UNION OF INDIAversusVIJAY KRISHNA UNIYAL (D) THROUGH LRS.

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 6823 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India, as the owner of land covered by an Old Grant, issued a notice to resume a 3.398‑acre property in Landour Cantonment occupied by Vijay Krishna Uniyal, who sued for a permanent injunction claiming ownership based on a 1980 sale deed and long possession. The trial court, the first appellate court and t

SMT. BAYANABAI KAWAREversusRAJENDRA S/O BABURAO DHOTE

2017 INSC 113623 November 2017Dismissed

The plaintiff purchased a plot from a housing cooperative society by a registered sale deed dated 29‑12‑1981 and was placed in possession. The defendant later encroached on the land and erected a hut, prompting the plaintiff to sue for possession and mesne profits. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed th

RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWATversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2011 INSC 81623 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a farmer, challenged the acquisition of his agricultural land by the State of Haryana, alleging that the statutory notices under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not properly published, he was denied a hearing, and that possession of his land was never actually taken because crops were standing at the

BOARD OF WAKF, WEST BENGALversusANIS FATMA BEGUM AND ANR.

2010 INSC 80523 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a dispute over the demarcation of a Wakf estate created by a 1936 deed, which divided the property into 75% for the descendants (Wakf‑al‑al‑aulad) and 25% for religious purposes. A suit for demarcation was filed in the Calcutta High Court, which held that the demarcation was incorrect and that the Wa

M/S. S.B. MINERALSversusM/S. MSPL LIMITED

2009 INSC 125523 November 2009Dismissed

The respondent (M/S MSPL Ltd.) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioner (S.S. Minerals), which was decreed. The petitioner appealed and the first appellate court set aside the decree, dismissing the suit. The respondent then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedur

N.S.S NARAYANA SARMA AND ORS.versusM/S. GOLDSTONE EXPORTS (P) LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 58023 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The original suit sought partition of a 196‑acre property in Hydernagar village, resulting in a preliminary decree that became final and a commissioner was appointed for division. Respondents, assignees of decree‑holders, obtained possession of their shares through execution proceedings. The appellants, who claimed to

BHAGWAN DAS AND ANR.versusSARDAR ATMA SINGH

1995 INSC 77723 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were tillers of agricultural land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, held the land by a temporary sanad in 1954 that became permanent in 1965. After purchasing the land, the respondent, an absentee landlord, sought possession under Section 250 of the Ma

JOGDHAYANversusBABU RAM AND OTHERS

1982 INSC 8523 November 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a decree‑holder in a pre‑emption suit, was required to deposit the purchase price and costs in court. He deposited the full amount except for a shortfall of 25 paise, which he later paid after obtaining permission, claiming a bona‑fide mistake. The executing court condoned the shortfall, but the first ex

GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLCversusBYJU RAVEENDRAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 81123 October 2024

The appellant, GLAS Trust Company LLC, a financial creditor of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd (the corporate debtor), challenged the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) approval of a settlement between the corporate debtor and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the setting aside of the NCLT order

GOVINDAMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusVAIDIYANATHAN AND ORS.

2018 INSC 97423 October 2018Dismissed

The case concerned a 2.72‑acre property originally owned by two brothers, which was partitioned in 1912 giving each brother a 50% share. The plaintiffs, descendants of one brother, claim ownership of the 1.36‑acre "A Schedule" share, while the defendant’s father purchased the other 1.36‑acre share in a 1933 court aucti

SATHEESH V.K.versusTHE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 114023 September 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a borrower, defaulted on a loan from The Federal Bank and the bank classified the loan as a Non‑Performing Asset, invoking SARFAESI provisions. The High Court ordered the appellant to pay Rs.2 crore immediately and the balance in twelve instalments, which the appellant challenged by a Special Leave Petit

THE JAMIA MASJIDversusSRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2021 INSC 52823 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Jamia Masjid Gubbi filed a suit seeking a declaration that the State Wakf Board owned a specific property, possession, an injunction and mesne profits. Defendants argued that the suit was barred by res judicata, relying on three earlier suits concerning the same property. The Supreme Court examined whether the earl

AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 53123 September 2021Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, original landowners of two parcels acquired in 1976 for the NOIDA project, challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Courts (Rs 4.628 and Rs 6 per square yard) and sought enhancement to Rs 297 per square yard, relying on the High Court's decision in Mangu v. State of U.P. and the earlier jud

GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusPATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI

2019 INSC 107023 September 2019Dismissed

The appellants, sons of the deceased donor, claimed that a property gifted by their father to the respondent was ancestral and that the donor lacked authority to execute the gift deed, alleging the deed was forged. The trial court held the property ancestral, a view affirmed by the first appellate court, but the Gujara

M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITEDversusM. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 106823 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Canara Nidhi Ltd. advanced a Rs.50 lakh loan secured by mortgage and a demand promissory note, which the borrower M. Shashikala failed to repay, leading to an arbitral award of Rs.63.82 lakh. Shashikala filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award and sought

SHARADAMMAversusMOHAMMED PYREJAN (D) THROUGH LRS. &ANR.

2015 INSC 69423 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Sharadamma filed a suit in 1998 for declaration of title and restoration of possession of a property. The suit was dismissed in 1990 and she appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, she assigned her interest to her daughter Padmavathi, who subsequently sold the property to G.R. Ramesh. The Karnataka High Court dism

KANWAR SINGH SAINIversusHIGH COURT OF DELHI

2011 INSC 70923 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Kanwar Singh Saini appealed against a conviction for criminal contempt by the Delhi High Court for allegedly breaching an undertaking given in a civil suit that resulted in a decree granting a permanent injunction. The Supreme Court held that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is only available during

HEMAJI WAGHAJI JATversusBHIKHABHAI KHENGARBHAI HARIJAN & OTHERS

2008 INSC 107523 September 2008Dismissed

Hemaji Wagahaji Jat filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and declaration of ownership of land in Yavarpura, claiming title by adverse possession. The trial court erroneously held that he had acquired ownership through adverse possession and decreed in his favour. The District Judge and the Gujarat High Court rev

BANK OF INDIAversusM/S MEHTA BROTHERS & ORS.

2008 INSC 107923 September 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of India sued Mehta Brothers (defendants 1‑5) and Deutsche Bank (defendant 6) for breach of an irrevocable Letter of Credit. The trial court passed an ex‑parte decree against defendant 6 and dismissed the suit against defendants 1‑5. Defendant 6 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil P

BACHHAJ NAHARversusNILIMA MANDAL & ANR.

2008 INSC 107223 September 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and injunction over a narrow strip of land, claiming it formed part of their property purchased in 1962. The trial court held the strip was part of the plaintiffs' land and ordered the defendant to pay a nominal sum for the encroached portion; the first a

JOSEPH SEVERANCE AND ORS.versusBENNY MATHEW AND ORS.

2005 INSC 43623 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants entered into a licence agreement with the respondents to construct a cinema theatre, which was renewed for five years in 1991 with a condition to surrender possession after expiry. The licencee died in 1994, after which the respondents remained in possession. The appellants filed a suit for mandatory and

AKKAYANAICKERversusA.A.A. KOTCHADAINAIDU AND ANR.

2004 INSC 54323 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant obtained a decree for a debt on 2 May 1973 and filed an execution petition the same year, which was stayed due to a legislative bar under the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance and subsequent Acts. The decree was later scaled down and amended on 18 October 1979 under the Tamil

GUPTA STEEL INDUSTRIESversusM/S. JOLLY STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 109823 September 1996Disposed off

The parties entered into a compromise decree while an appeal was pending, obligating the respondents to deposit specified sums and the appellants to surrender possession of land and machinery. The respondents failed to deposit the amounts by the stipulated deadline; the High Court later accepted the delayed payment and

DHIRENDRA KUMAR GARG AND ORS.versusSMT. SUGANDHI BAI JAIN & ORS.

1988 INSC 29523 September 1988Dismissed

The husband of the respondent filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages against the appellants who were tenants. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the appeal was pending when he died; his legal representatives and the minor children under the mother’s guardianship were substituted. A compromise pe

M/S OM GURUSAI CONSTRUCTION COMPANYversusM/S V.N. REDDY & ORS

2023 INSC 76023 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose when M/s OM Gurusai Construction Company (appellant) submitted the additional performance security for a water resources project two days later than the two‑working‑day deadline stipulated in Clause 2.22.0(ix) of the tender, due to a nationwide strike by employees of nationalised banks on the prescrib

THANGJAM ARUNKUMARversusYUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH & ORS.

2023 INSC 76223 August 2023Dismissed

The appellant, a returned candidate to the Manipur Legislative Assembly, was challenged by the unsuccessful candidate who filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices, including non‑disclosure of a financial transaction. The appellant moved applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and Section 86 of the Re

KANAILAL & ORS.versusRAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS.

2017 INSC 79223 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants (defendants) challenged a summary dismissal of their second appeal by the Calcutta High Court, which had been filed against a decree granting partition to the plaintiffs. The High Court dismissed the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 without stating facts, the parties' submissions, or reasons, and without id

AJAY ARJUN SINGHversusSHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS

2016 INSC 119423 August 2016Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a returned MLA, challenged an election petition alleging corrupt practices and excess expenditure under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC seeking to strike out several paragraphs of the petition as frivolous, scandalous or vexatious. The

UNION OF INDIAversusTATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LTD.

2007 INSC 85723 August 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India invited tenders for a telecom licence and, after receiving a tender, issued a Letter of Intent to Tata Teleservices, which later failed to fulfil its obligations. The Union claimed damages of Rs 50 crore and set‑off the amount, while Tata claimed Rs 654.25 crore for breach of contract. The Telecom Di

RAJINDERA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusPREM MAI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 85823 August 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rajindra Singh (deceased) through his legal representatives, challenged a decree from a 1957 suit in which Prem Mai and Sudha Mai were granted declaration and possession of land. The decree was reversed on appeal, declaring the appellant a Sirdar and entitled to possession. While the suit was pending, a

DADI JAGANNADHAMversusJAMMULU RAMULU AND ORS.

2001 INSC 38823 August 2001Dismissed

The judgment concerns a sale of immovable property executed against the judgment‑debtor, which was challenged under Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC. The debtor filed the application and deposit on the 59th day after the sale, but the executing court rejected it, insisting that the deposit be made within 30 days as per Ord

RACHAKONDA NARAYANAversusPONTHALA PARVATHAMMA AND ANR.

2001 INSC 39023 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase two plots of land, paying earnest money, but later learned that the seller lacked title to one plot (Plot B). The plaintiff sought specific performance of the contract for the remaining plot (Plot A) after relinquishing any claim to Plot B and paying the full contract

BALRAM S/O BHASA RAMversusILAM SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 92623 August 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a decree‑holder, obtained a money decree against the respondent and sought execution by auctioning the respondent's agricultural land. Although the appellant was permitted to bid and his bid was accepted, he failed to deposit the full purchase price within the statutory 15‑day period, citing a set‑off of

SMT. SAWARNIversusSMT. INDER KAUR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 93223 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Smt. Sawarni, and her sister Roori claimed to be the daughters of the deceased landowner Gurbax Singh and sought a declaration of title and possession of the disputed land. A will executed by the widow Gurdip Kaur in favour of the two daughters and a succession certificate issued under the Indian Success

U.S. SASIDHARANversusK. KARUNAKARAN & ANR

1989 INSC 25523 August 1989Dismissed

The appellant, a voter in the Mala constituency of Kerala, filed an election petition challenging the election of the sitting Chief Minister on grounds of several alleged corrupt practices, including a notice, a photograph, and a video cassette purportedly used for election propaganda. The petition annexed these docume

SHRI CHAND ETC.versusGOVERNMENT OF U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS.

1985 INSC 18523 August 1985Case Allowed

The Uttar Pradesh Government approved a draft scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to allow its State Transport Undertaking to operate stage carriages on the Saharanpur‑Delhi inter‑state route, excluding all other operators. The scheme, published in 1959, was challenged by 50 operators; the Allahabad High Court in

RAM NARAYAN AGARWAL ETC ETC.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS

1983 INSC 10123 August 1983Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, who had defaulted on Uttar Pradesh sales tax, were subject to arrest and detention under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as a method of recovering arrears treated as land revenue. They challenged the constitutionality of this process, alleging violations of Articles 14

VISHU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHANversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 88423 July 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned ownership of a 2‑18‑10 bigha parcel of land in NOIDA, jointly purchased in 1997 by Reddy, Sudhakar and Vishnu. Reddy later sought to establish sole ownership by filing separate suits and a writ petition, suppressing the earlier joint‑ownership litigation, and obtained a High Court order declaring

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusN. R. SRIVASTA & ORS.

2020 INSC 46223 July 2020Dismissed

The Union of India and Safdarjung Hospital appealed against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) order that held Safdarjung Hospital liable for medical negligence and directed payment of Rs.2 lakh compensation to the complainant. The complaint arose from the death of a premature baby who was re

G H SURINDER PAL SONIversusSOHAN LAL (D) THRU LRS .

2019 INSC 79723 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement and obtained a decree from the trial court directing the respondent to execute the sale deed within two months of depositing the balance consideration. Both parties appealed; the appellate court affirmed the trial court decree, effecting a merger of the two

D.A.V. BOYS SR. SEC. SCHOOL ETC. ETC.versusDAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITIEE

2010 INSC 42423 July 2010Dismissed

The DAV College Managing Committee, holder of a registered trademark for "DAV" and "Dayanand Anglo Vedic", filed four suits in the Delhi District Court under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against several schools in Chennai that were using the same mark. The Chennai schools filed transfer petitions under Sect

P.K. PALANISAMYversusN. ARUMUGHAM & ANR.

2009 INSC 94323 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for recovery of money in 1998 with a deficit court fee, seeking extensions under Sections 148, 151 and later Section 149 of the CPC because stamp fee papers were unavailable. The deficit fee was eventually paid and the court condoned a 272‑day delay in presenting the plaint. The respondents,

P.M. PUNNOOSEversusKM. MUNNERUDDIN AND ORS.

2003 INSC 32823 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant, P.M. Punnoose, paid rent by money orders but the landlords, K.M. Munneruddin et al., disputed the amounts and refused some payments, leading to an eviction petition under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller held the tenant in wilful default and o

KEWAL CHAND MIMANI (D) BY LRSversusS.K. SEN AND ORS.

2001 INSC 30223 July 2001Dismissed

The appellants, K.L. Mimani and others, had a 50‑year lease of land in Howrah which was requisitioned under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. Their writ petition challenging the requisition was dismissed and an appeal was filed, but the lease expired by efflux of time during the pendency of

THAMMANNAversusK. VEERA REDDY & ORS.

1980 INSC 13323 July 1980Dismissed

In the 1978 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, K. Veera Reddy was elected. V. Krishna Reddy filed an election petition alleging Veera Reddy's disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. All candidates, including Thammanna (original respondent No.5), were joined as respond

OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSIONversusUTPAL KUMAR BASU AND ORS.

1994 INSC 22323 June 1994

Engineers India Limited, acting as consultant for the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), advertised a tender for a Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit in newspapers across India, including West Bengal. NICCO, a company with its registered office in Calcutta, learned of the tender, submitted its bid and subsequent rev

SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIMversusPRAKASAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 76423 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a grandson of the original defendant, was impleaded as a legal heir in execution proceedings after the original defendant died. He later filed an interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10 seeking deletion of his name, claiming he was not a legal heir and that he enjoyed tenancy rights under Section

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 77023 May 2025Dismissed

The dispute arose from a Coal India notification dated 19‑12‑2017 imposing Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) on coal dispatches, which the power generator (Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd.) claimed constituted a "change in law" under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Rajasthan distribution companies. The generator

K.H. SIRAJversusHIGH COURT OF KERALA AND ANR.

2006 INSC 35223 May 2006Dismissed

The Kerala High Court invited applications for 70 Munsif‑Magistrate posts and conducted written and oral examinations, prescribing minimum cut‑off marks of 35% (written) and 30% (oral). Several candidates, including K.H. Siraj, failed to meet the oral cut‑off and challenged the select list, alleging violation of reserv

SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS.versusK. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR.

2025 INSC 55723 April 2025Disposed off

The appellants and respondents were embroiled in a series of suits and appeals concerning a sale deed of land and the validity of a mutation register entry. The trial court dismissed the plaint on the ground of rejection under Order VII Rule 11, and subsequently, the respondents sought production of the mutation regist

SAKINA SULTANALI SUNESARA (MOMIN)versusSHIA IMAMI ISMAILI MOMIN JAMAT SAMAJ & ORS

2025 INSC 57023 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Sakina Sultanali Sunesara, challenged two consent decrees arising from compromises in suits concerning disputed land, alleging she had no notice of the compromises and that they were procured by fraud. She filed applications under Order XLIII Rule 1‑A to set aside the decrees, while the respondents argue

RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS.versusPRASHANT GARG & ORS.

2025 INSC 55223 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Dr. Karam Chand, sued the appellants for cancellation of two 1992 sale deeds and recovery of possession of a family house, alleging that the deeds were void because the vendor, Ramesh Chand, had no title and that a will favouring the plaintiffs had been admitted in earlier suits. The trial cour

GLOBE GROUND INDIA EMPLOYEES UNIONversusLUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES & ANR.

2019 INSC 55923 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Globe Ground India Employees Union raised an industrial dispute alleging that Globe Ground India Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Lufthansa German Airlines, closed its establishment and retrenched 106 workers. The union sought to implead Lufthansa, claiming it was the holding company and therefore a necessary and proper pa

ARSAD SK. & ANR.versusBANI PROSANNA KUNDU & ORS.

2014 INSC 31423 April 2014Dismissed

The appellants challenged a Calcutta High Court judgment in a second appeal concerning a land title dispute, alleging that the High Court failed to frame the substantial question of law at the time of admitting the appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined whether such an omission invalidates the

UNION OF INDIAversusSANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. AND ORS.

2013 INSC 27723 April 2013Disposed off

The Union of India filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, alleging that it was not given a chance to be heard because the special leave petition was not served and that the judgment misquoted the Expert Committee’s report. The petitio

C.N. RAMAPPA GOWDAversusC.C. CHANDREGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.

2012 INSC 18323 April 2012Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a partition suit claiming a 13‑acre property as joint family property and the defendants, though served with summons and represented by counsel, never filed a written statement. The trial court, relying solely on the plaintiff’s affidavit and documents, passed an ex‑parte decree granting the plainti

SUSHIL KUMAR SABHARWALversusGURPREET SINGH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 22023 April 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a landlord‑tenant suit where the landlord obtained an ex‑parte decree for rent arrears and eviction. The tenant contended that he never received a summons because the process server’s report was unreliable and he testified under oath that no summons was served. The Court evaluated the require

BHUPINDER SINGHversusUNITECH LIMITED

2023 INSC 28323 March 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an application filed by Unitech Limited seeking restitution of Rs. 98.07 crore that had been paid to Shri Naresh Kempanna and Col. Mohinder Khaira under an earlier order directing distribution of sale proceeds from a land transaction with M/s Devas Global Services LLP. Unitech argued that it

PREMLATA @ SUNITAversusNASEEB BEE & ORS.

2022 INSC 33523 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff initially approached the Revenue Authority under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) seeking relief, but the respondents objected that the authority lacked jurisdiction because the dispute concerned title, leading the Tehsildar to dismiss the application. While that appeal was pend

SITA RAM BHAMAversusRAMVATAR BHAMA

2018 INSC 26023 March 2018Case Partly allowed

The father of the parties, a self‑acquired owner of a house and a shop, decided to divide his property on 25‑Oct‑1992 but died on 10‑Sep‑1993. The surviving brothers recorded a memorandum of settlement on 9‑Sep‑1994, signed by their mother and sisters, allocating the entire property between them. The plaintiff sued for

MANTI DEVI & ANR.versusKISHUN SAH @ KISHUN DEO SAO & ORS.

2017 INSC 26123 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Manti Devi and her son filed an eviction suit in the Munsif Court seeking possession of two katras on the ground of personal necessity, claiming to be landlords after purchasing the property. The trial court decreed eviction in their favour. The tenants appealed to the High Court in revision, which set aside the decree

M/S. MILLENIUM WIRES (P) LTD.versusTHE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

2015 INSC 25023 March 2015Dismissed

Millenium Wires Ltd. and State Trading Corporation of India entered into an agreement to import copper wire rods from the Synergic companies, opening four letters of credit (LCs) with Allahabad Bank as the issuing bank and Malayn Bank, Malaysia as the confirming bank. After the confirming bank released payments to the

VIMAL CHAND GHEVARCHAND JAIN & ORS.versusRAMAKANT EKNATH JAJOO

2009 INSC 38723 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant partnership firm claimed title to four godowns in Nasik based on a registered deed of sale executed in 1974 by the respondent's father. The respondent occupied the property as a licencee and later contested the deed, alleging it was a security for a Rs.50,000 loan. The trial court dismissed the suit, hold

BELLACHI (DEAD) BY LRversusPAKEERAN

2009 INSC 38823 March 2009Dismissed

Bellachi, a deceased woman represented by her legal heir, filed a suit challenging a sale deed executed in favour of her younger brother, alleging misrepresentation, undue influence, fraud and collusion. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of specific pleadings under Order VI Rule 4 CPC and for finding no evide

NANSHIBHAI S/O GANESHBHAI MIRANIversusBHUPENDRA P. POPAT AND ANR.

2007 INSC 33623 March 2007Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a civil appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that a fresh General Body Meeting of Sri Lohana Mahaparishad be held to consider remaining agenda items after a consent order had directed a meeting. The appellant argued that the newly elected governing body, not the old one, could validly ta

CHANDA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusRATTNI AND ANR.

2007 INSC 33723 March 2007Dismissed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase land, paid earnest money and was required to pay the balance consideration and obtain execution of the sale deed within two months of the decree for specific performance. The trial court decreed specific performance, directing the defendants to execute the deed upon p

BAJARANGLAL SHIVCHANDRAI RUIAversusSHASHIKANT N. RUIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 19823 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Bajranglal (appellant) against a Bombay High Court Division Bench judgment that had set aside a Single Judge’s finding that the plaintiff’s title to a property was void. The appellant argued that the Division Bench erred in holding that the auction sale conducted by the Bombay Mu

P.S. PAREED KAKA AND ORS.versusSHAFEE AHMED SAHEB

2004 INSC 20223 March 2004Dismissed

The landlord filed eviction petitions under Sections 21(h) and 21(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, seeking possession of premises for his own residence and for demolition and reconstruction. The trial court dismissed the petitions, finding the landlord had not proved the building was dilapidated. The Karnata

KIRAN TANDONversusALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

2004 INSC 19923 March 2004

The Allahabad Development Authority acquired land that had been leased by the State Government to Ravindra Kumar Tandon (later Kiran Tandon). The lease expired on 8 June 1987, but the Authority took possession on 16 June 1987. The claimant sought full compensation, while the Authority and the State argued that the leas

JAYARAMDAS AND SONSversusMIRZA RAFATULLAH BAIG AND ORS.

2004 INSC 20423 March 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

Jayaramdas & Sons filed a suit for a permanent preventive injunction against Mirza Rafatullah Baig and others, which was dismissed by the trial court. The appellants sought to introduce additional certified copies of public records in the first appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, but their application wa

MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN & ORS.versusSPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, HYDERABAD

1995 INSC 20423 March 1995Reference answered

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded in a land acquisition proceeding that began in 1963, arguing that they were entitled to the enhanced rate of interest introduced by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The Collector's award (1968) and the Reference Court's award (1972) were both m

PATHAN MURTAZAKHAN DADAMKHAN AND ORS.versusJATHAN PIRKHAN AMDUMIYAN (DEAD) BY LRS.

1993 INSC 11223 March 1993Dismissed

The appellants' predecessor was a usufructuary mortgagee of certain fields. After the redemption period expired, the respondents filed a suit for redemption, which the trial court decreed subject to payment of damages for improvements. The appellate court confirmed the redemption decree but set aside the damages. In a

THIRU K. PALANISWAMYversusM. SHANMUGAM & ORS.

2023 INSC 15623 February 2023Disposed off

The dispute concerned the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party's internal governance after the death of its General Secretary, when the party shifted to a joint leadership of a Co‑ordinator and Joint Co‑ordinator. A requisition by over 80% of General Council members led to a meeting on 11 July 2022,

SWAMI SHIVSHANKARGIRI CHELLA SWAMI & ANR.versusSATYA GYAN NIKETAN& ANR.

2017 INSC 17423 February 2017Disposed off

The dispute concerned a property waqfed in 1940 by Swami Satya Dev to Respondent No.2 (Prachaarini Sabha) for the purpose of promoting Hindi language, establishing a library and other charitable activities, subject to conditions prohibiting sale or mortgage. The appellants, interested in ensuring the purpose of the waq

DHEERAJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDR. OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 20423 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Dheeraj Developers Private Limited filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed of land against Dr. Om Prakash Gupta and others. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed the decision, granting specific performance solely on the basis that Exhibit P‑1, the alleged agreement, was genuine. T

RAM RATIversusMANGE RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2016 INSC 20623 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondent were involved in two parallel suits concerning the same property, which were consolidated by the trial court. During the trial of one suit, a witness (PW‑I) was examined and the evidence was closed. After consolidation, the respondent filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC,

IVO AGNELO SANTIMANO FERNANDES & ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF GOA & ANR.

2011 INSC 15123 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

In a land acquisition proceeding, the government paid compensation by issuing cheques to four owners, two of which remained uncollected and were subsequently deposited in the State's revenue account and utilized. The owners filed an execution application seeking the balance amount and interest, arguing that under Secti

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.versusNARATA SINGH & ANR.

2010 INSC 11823 February 2010Dismissed

Narata Singh, a former work‑charged employee of various Punjab State departments (Irrigation & Power, Bhakra Dam, Beas Dam) from 1952 to 1978, was retrenched and later joined the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) as a work‑charged employee in 1982, regularised in 1984 and retired in 1990. He sought to have his earl

KOPPISETTY VENKAT RATNAM (D) THROUGH LRS.versusPAMARTI VENKAYAMMA

2009 INSC 23723 February 2009Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a civil appeal challenging a High Court judgment that set aside the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court without formulating any substantial question of law, as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (amended 1976). The Court reiterated

KRISHNAMURTHY S. SETLUR DEAD BY LRS.versusO.V. NARASIMHA SETTY & ORS.

2007 INSC 19223 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a long‑running dispute over ownership of certain lands originally sold by Kalyana Sundram Iyer. K.S. Setlur claimed title by adverse possession, asserting that tenant Shyamala Raju had attorned to him in 1946 and that he had been in possession for more than twelve years, a claim upheld by the Karnat

KHAZAN SINGH (D) BY LRS.versusGURBHAJAN SINGH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 19523 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a decree for possession of 2 bighas 17 biswas of agricultural land granted in 1953, of which only 10 biswas were actually delivered and the remaining 2 bighas 7 biswas were said to be in symbolic possession. The decree holder later sought delivery of certain "kothas" (structures) marked EFGH on the s

NATHUNI RAMversusRAGHUPAT RAM AND ORS.

2007 INSC 20023 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Nathuni Ram filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over 36 decimal of land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed him possession of 22 decimal and gave the defendants possession of the remaining 14 decimal. Nathuni Ram appealed to the High Court under Se

VIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHYversusNIRMALA DEVI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 10223 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

After the death of Mahendra Narayan Sharma, his wife succeeded to his estate and later died. Virendra Kumar Tripathy applied for a succession certificate claiming to be the real brother of Mahendra, while Nirmala Devi claimed to be Mahendra's sister, asserting that their father Ram Briksh Sharma had two wives and that

SAJJADANASHIN SAYED MD. B.E. EDR. (D) BY LRS.versusMUSA DADABHAI UMMER AND ORS.

2000 INSC 9523 February 2000Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether earlier judgments concerning the status of three wakf rozas could bar a fresh proceeding under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It clarified that a prior decision is res judicata only when the issue was "directly and substantially" in dispute, not merely "collaterally or incidental

WALI MOHAMMED KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusRAHMAT BEE AND ORS.

1999 INSC 8023 February 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Wali Mohammed Khan (by legal representatives), claimed possession of a house built in a graveyard that was originally permitted for conducting Fateha and providing tobacco to Fakirs. The permission created a public Wakf, making the house an accretion to the Wakf property and placing the appellant and his

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

2019 INSC 8123 January 2019Dismissed

M/s Shanti Conductors entered supply contracts with Assam State Electricity Board before the Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 came into force, but the supplies were completed after the Act's commencement. The Supreme Court held that the Act applies to any supply mad

ROSALIV.versusTAICO BANK AND ORS.

2007 INSC 7023 January 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, RosaliV, challenged the setting aside of an auction sale of immovable property by the executing court, which had held the sale void because the purchaser did not deposit the statutory 25% deposit on the same day and because the sale was confirmed before the 30‑day period expired. The Supreme Court examin

MOHINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2007 INSC 7123 January 2007Dismissed

The District Collector ordered redemption of a mortgaged land parcel, an order that became final after the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition. The appellant, Mohinder Singh, contended that the earlier mortgage had not been redeemed and that a receipt for Rs.425, allegedly received by the mortgagees, shoul

SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE AND ORS.versusASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

2004 INSC 5623 January 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that they were tenants of properties owned by the Shaneshwar Deosthan Trust, alleging forcible eviction and claiming injunction, compensation and other reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusANOOP SINGH AND ANR.

2003 INSC 3023 January 2003Case Partly allowed

The Ghaziabad Development Authority acquired about 6,200 sq. yards of land in 1964‑67. The original award fixed the market value at Rs 2 per sq. yard; claimants sought reference and claimed Rs 20 per sq. yard, later amended to Rs 100 per sq. yard under the CPC. The Reference Court awarded Rs 40 per sq. yard with 15% so

CHARAN LAL SAHU ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1989 INSC 39522 December 1989Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which gave the Central Government exclusive authority to represent all victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy in litigation against Union Carbide. The Court held that the Act was a valid exercise of

RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS

2024 INSC 91322 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, a group of brothers and their wives, sued the defendants, their brothers and sons, to cancel a sale deed and obtain a permanent injunction after the defendants allegedly transferred the jointly owned property to a son for a nominal consideration using a power of attorney that was not intended for sale.

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusGRACURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

2013 INSC 77322 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of India (SBI) sued Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for recovery of dues arising from letters of credit, while Gracure filed a separate suit for damages alleging wrongful withdrawal of credit facilities. The two suits were filed within two months of each other, and SBI moved to dismiss the damages suit unde

JAYA CHANDRA MOHAPATRAversusLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RAYAGADA

2004 INSC 66322 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant’s lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed in 1981. The reference court enhanced the compensation in 1990 but failed to grant the statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act. Subsequent applications resulted

KAMALESHWAR KISHORE SINGHversusPARAS NATH SINGH AND ORS.

2001 INSC 57922 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh filed a partition suit valued at Rs 16 lakhs and paid a fixed court fee of Rs 29.25, assuming it was a simple partition case. Defendant No. 20 objected, leading the trial court to order payment of ad‑valorem court fee on 10% of the sale‑deed value of certain properties. The defendant later cla

BANSILAL FARMS ETC.versusUMARANI BOSE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 137422 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the Nalban Fishery, which was part of a partition suit among members of the Sarkar family. While the suit was pending, the State of West Bengal requisitioned the fishery under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948, and took possession in 1969. After a compromis

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.versusANANTHI AMMAL AND ORS.

1994 INSC 53222 November 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 to acquire land for Harijan welfare projects. The Act was challenged as unconstitutional, alleging violations of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution and lack of protection under Articles 31A and 31C. The Ma

V NAGARAJANversusSKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD.& ORS.

2021 INSC 66322 October 2021Dismissed

The appellant, V. Nagarajan, challenged an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 31 December 2019 that dismissed his application for interim relief in a liquidation proceeding. He filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 8 June 2020, relying on a free certified cop

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusUCCHAB LAL CHHANWAL

2013 INSC 71122 October 2013Case Partly allowed

Ucchab Lal Chhanwal, a Rajasthan Police Service officer, was penalised with a censure in 1992 which barred his promotion for the 1996‑97 vacancy. He filed a writ petition seeking quash of the penalty and promotion. The High Court set aside the censure and ordered his promotion, but the Division Bench later set aside th

RIKHABSAO NATHUSAO JAINversusCORPN. OF THE CITY OF NAGPUR & ORS.

2008 INSC 121222 October 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a neighbour of respondent No.2, sought a mandatory injunction against the Nagpur Corporation and respondent No.2 to stop unauthorised construction and to prevent the corporation from granting any building‑plan sanction. The District Judge, invoking Section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, is

RABINDRA KUMAR SHAW (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusMANICK LAL SHAW

2007 INSC 109422 October 2007Disposed off

The heirs of the deceased Rabindra Kumar Shaw filed a suit for declaration of title and a permanent injunction, and the trial court granted an interim status‑quo order. The defendant appealed, and the Calcutta High Court, without deciding the merits, dismissed the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction on t

JUGAL KISHORE PRABHATILAL SHARMA AND ORS.versusVIJAYENDRA PRABHATILAL SHARMA AND ANR.

1992 INSC 29122 October 1992Disposed off

The dispute arose from a family partnership that was dissolved by a deed of dissolution, leading to three civil suits over the division of assets and liabilities of two factories. The parties agreed to refer all issues, including valuation of land, raw materials, liabilities, alleged falsification of accounts, arithmet

M/S. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITEDversusOSCAR INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 99422 September 2022Directions issued

Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd sought enforcement of a Singapore arbitral award of about INR 2,562 crore against 20 respondents, including Oscar Investments Ltd and the Singh brothers. The Supreme Court examined whether the Singh brothers (contemnors 9 and 10) had willfully violated multiple orders and undertakings of the Delh

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusAJAY BHATIA

2022 INSC 100522 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (the appellant) owned two adjacent plots, 4/4 and 4/5, in Azadpur, Delhi, and operated petrol stations on both. Ajay Bhatia (the respondent) filed a suit seeking possession and mesne profits for Plot 4/4 after the lease expired in 2003. The trial court decreed possession of Plot 4/4

CHANDRABHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSARASWATI & ORS.

2022 INSC 99722 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Chandrabhan, was adopted by his paternal uncle Baliram at age 14 under customary rites. After Baliram's death, Chandrabhan claimed ownership of the uncle's property, which his first wife Champabai was later gifted. Chandrabhan filed a suit for declaration of ownership; the trial court dismissed it, but t

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.versusM/S. GOLDEN CHARIOT AIRPORT AND ANR.

2010 INSC 63322 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Golden Chariot Airport held a licence to operate a restaurant at Mumbai Airport, which was initially for three years and later extended twice. The licence holder claimed the licence was irrevocable based on alleged oral assurances and sought to prevent eviction after the licence expired. The Supreme Court held that the

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION GALIMALA & ORS.versusABAADUTA JENA

1987 INSC 25922 September 1987Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether an arbitrator, appointed without court intervention, could award interest for the period before the reference and for the pendente lite period of the arbitration. It held that an arbitrator is not a court within the meaning of CPC s.34 and therefore cannot award pendente lite interest

TANKADHAR TRIPATHYversusDIPALI DAS

2025 INSC 101722 August 2025

The appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy, was elected from the Jharsuguda Assembly Constituency, after which the respondent, Dipali Das, filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices and EVM irregularities. The appellant challenged the petition's maintainability, arguing that the petition lacked a Form 25 affidavit as

IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.versusABDUL SHUKOOR

2025 INSC 102722 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court decreed specific performance of a sale agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant appealed and, during the pendency of the appeal, filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the CPC to lead additional documentary evidence. The High Court admitted this evidence without firs

RAMATHALversusMARUTHATHAL & ORS.

2017 INSC 79022 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant (buyer) entered into a sale agreement where the seller was obliged to conduct a survey of the land before payment was due. The seller failed to conduct the survey, prompting the buyer to sue for specific performance. The trial court and the first appellate court both decreed specific performance, finding

RANGNATH HARIDASversusDR. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE

2006 INSC 53922 August 2006Disposed off

The respondent purchased a flat from the appellant under an agreement dated 16 September 1985 and later filed a suit for specific performance. During the suit the parties executed a consent decree on 1 November 1991, confirming the original agreement and setting reciprocal obligations: the appellant to hand over the fl

MRS. JUDITH FERNANDES AND ORS.versusCONCEICAO ANTONIO FERNANDESE AND ANR,

1996 INSC 92422 August 1996Dismissed

Mrs. Judith Fernandes and others leased land containing coconut trees to Conceicao Antonio Fernandes and others for six years. After the lease expired, the plaintiffs filed an eviction suit on 10 October 1973, before the Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 came into force. The amend

HARNAMA SINGH (DEAD) LRS. ON RECORD & OTHERSversusSHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH

1991 INSC 20422 August 1991Dismissed

Three brothers sold land to Harbhajan Singh; the fourth brother, Ujagar Singh, filed four pre-emption suits which were decreed on the condition that the pre-emption money be paid by 30 August 1970. The pre‑emptors appealed for a reduction of the amount and obtained an extension of time for deposit, but their appeals we

S. TIRUPATHI RAOversusM. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.

2024 INSC 54422 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a civil suit concerning the partition of ancestral land, which led to a decree directing the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the first respondent in revenue records. The Tahsildar failed to comply, prompting a contempt petition that was initially allowed by a Single Judge but later set aside by a

KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI PATEL & ORS.versusM/S S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED

2024 INSC 54222 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellants, a group of flat buyers, filed a consumer complaint against the developer, M/s S.J.R. Prime Corporation, alleging delayed possession and various charges. The NCDRC ordered the developer to pay delayed compensation and to construct promised amenities, but the developer had previously been declared by the

MD. ALAUDDIN KHANversusKARAM THAMARJIT SINGH

2010 INSC 41822 July 2010Matter referred to larger bench

The election for the 9th Manipur Legislative Assembly was won by MD Alauddin Khan by a margin of two votes over Karam Thamarjit Singh, who filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) alleging impersonation of dead voters in certain polling stations and seeking a recount and declaration of the election as vo

M/S. HARIDAS EXPORTSversusALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

2002 INSC 30622 July 2002Disposed off

The All India Float Glass Manufacturers Association complained that Indonesian exporters were selling float glass in India at predatory prices, alleging a restrictive trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act. The MRTP Commission issued an interim injunction restraining the exporter

GHASI RAM AND ORS.versusCHAIT RAM SAINI AND ORS.

1998 INSC 26822 July 1998Case Allowed

Ghasi Ram and others filed a suit under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC to claim possession of land after their objection to an execution order was rejected. Instead of filing the suit, they pursued a civil revision before the High Court, which was entertained and later dismissed. The subsequent suit was barred by limitation, bu

VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD.versusMAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 77222 May 2025

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., the owner of agricultural land, sued Mahaveer Lunia and others for declaration, possession and injunction after the respondents executed sale deeds despite the appellant's revocation of a power of attorney and board resolution. The respondents filed an Order VII Rule 11 application seeking

SMT. BADAMI (DECEASED) BY HER L.R.versusBHALI

2012 INSC 24522 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the daughter of Badami, challenged a 1973 decree that had been obtained through a purported family settlement in which Badami allegedly transferred her entire share of ancestral land to Bhali. The trial court had passed the decree within three days of filing, without proper examination of admissions, and

ZAMINDAR DHARMIK AND SHEKSHNIK NYASversusSIDDHANATH (DEAD) BY LRS.

2007 INSC 66122 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerns a 3.23‑acre parcel that formed part of a religious and educational trust whose trustees (the appellants) sought to retain ownership after the Government issued an ejectment notice under s.248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code in 1969. The Sub‑Divisional Officer, exercising powers under s.57 of t

ANGADI CHANDRANNAversusSHANKAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 53222 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned whether a 7‑acre suit property, purchased by Defendant No.1 from his brother after a 1986 partition of the joint Hindu family, was ancestral or self‑acquired. The plaintiffs (sons and daughters of Defendant No.1) sued for partition and possession, claiming the property remained ancestral because i

KANCHHUversusPRAKASH CHAND & ORS.

2025 INSC 54222 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a civil suit in 1987 seeking cancellation of a sale deed, but the respondents repeatedly obtained adjournments and were eventually set ex parte, leading to a decree in 1991. The respondents later filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 and the Limitation Act, which were dismissed, and their subseq

AMRUDDIN ANSARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusAFAJAL ALI & ORS.

2025 INSC 56622 April 2025Dismissed

The petition arose from a series of suits concerning a land dispute in Chhattisgarh, where the original plaintiffs' father filed a suit that was dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 of the CPC and a subsequent application for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 was also rejected. The plaintiffs then instituted a fresh suit on

M/S J N REAL ESTATEversusSHAILENDRA PRADHAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 61122 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved multiple claims over the same property, with the original plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell and the appellant (original defendant No.8) seeking to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The trial court allowed the appellant’s impleadment, but the

REHAN AHMED (D) THR. LRS.versusAKHTAR UN NISA (D) THR. LRS.

2024 INSC 32922 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff Rehan Ahmed sued Ghulam Mohiuddin (Defendant No.1) and his brother Saeeduddin (Defendant No.2) for specific performance of a 1967 agreement to sell a house and shops in Jaipur. While the suit was pending, the parties entered into a compromise in 1978, which was later verified by the trial court and a decr

M/S. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA

2021 INSC 26922 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., was contracted by the State of Kerala to upgrade two highway stretches. The contract contained a clause (60.8) providing for interest on delayed payments, but the rate for local‑currency interest was left blank in the bid appendix. The arbitral tribunal awarde

RAHUL S SHAHversusJINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI & ORS.

2021 INSC 27022 April 2021Dismissed

The case arose from a protracted dispute over a one‑acre property in Bengaluru that had been sold multiple times, leading to conflicting claims and a series of suits for declaration, possession, and execution. The decree‑holders obtained a decree for possession, but the judgment debtors and subsequent purchasers repeat

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2019 INSC 54822 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., challenged demand notices for interest on entry tax levied under the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007, arguing that the Act contained no substantive provision for interest and that the High Court’s dismissal of its writ petition was barred by res

AMAR NATHversusKEWLA DEVI &ANR.

2014 INSC 30422 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Amar Nath filed a suit for possession of agricultural land, alleging that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 14‑02‑1970 was obtained by fraud and that he was entitled to a half‑share as the son of Vaij Nath. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding it barred by the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Lan

N. SURESH NATHAN & ORS., ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2010 INSC 23022 April 2010Disposed off

The case concerned promotion of Section Officers/Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Pondicherry Public Works Department under the 1965 Recruitment Rules. The Supreme Court examined whether its earlier decision in N. Suresh Nathan & Ors. v. Union of India bound courts on the method of considering

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.versusMIS. FERRO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

2009 INSC 58022 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan entered into a contract with Ferro Concrete for a water‑pipeline project. After the contractor failed to complete the work, arbitration was instituted and the arbitrator awarded various sums, including loss of profit (claim 1), idle‑machinery compensation (claim 37A), and interest at 18% per annu

T.K. MOHAMMED ABUBUCKER (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusP.S.M. AHAMED ABDUL KHADER & ORS.

2009 INSC 58922 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff purchased a 5‑acre plot in 1982 and sued the defendants for declaration of title and possession, alleging encroachment. The trial court and the High Court Single Judge dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not proved any title or prior possession and that the defendants were in possession. A

ASHUTOSH CHATURVEDIversusPRANO DEVI @ PARANI DEVI & ORS.

2008 INSC 50922 April 2008Dismissed

The predecessor of the appellant filed a suit on 21 May 1990 for declaration of title, possession and setting aside a sale deed. During the pendency, two further sale deeds were executed, and an interim order of status quo was granted. Thirteen years later, on 11 June 2003, the appellant sought to amend the plaint to c

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusINDIAN BANK AND ANR.

2003 INSC 24922 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Punjab National Bank (PNB) sued Indian Bank and Indo‑Europe Foods Ltd for recovery of a US‑dollar bank guarantee amounting to USD 5,237,284.54. The plaint sought a decree in US dollars with rupee equivalents for court‑fee and jurisdiction purposes. PNB later applied to amend the pleading to delete the rupee equivalents

FAUJA SINGHversusJASPAL KAUR

1996 INSC 56122 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Fauja Singh, contested the attachment of his residential house in an execution proceeding, invoking Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure which renders a residential house non‑attachable. The executing court ignored the plea, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revis

SMT. SARADA AND ORS.versusMANIKKOTH KOMBRA RAJENDRAN

1996 INSC 56422 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The suit concerned possession of 17 cents of land sold by T. Sekharan, who later died; the appellants (his heirs) claimed the sale was a collateral security for a loan and that an agreement dated 4 January 1983, executed in the presence of a police sub‑inspector, evidenced receipt of Rs 35,000 and the condition that th

CHANDRIKA SINGH AND ORS.versusRAJA VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH AND ANR.

1992 INSC 11622 April 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants appealed against a civil suit for possession of a plot in Varanasi, contending that the land was agricultural and thus fell within the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The respondents argued that the land was "abadi" (non‑agricultural) and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to d

MADHO S/O SHRIHARI DESHPANDEversusMADHAO S/O TRIMBAK DHARMADHIKAREE

1988 INSC 11722 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved an arbitration award concerning properties mainly located in Warora, Chandrapur, with a small portion in Nagpur. The arbitrator, a resident of Nagpur, filed the award in the Nagpur Civil Court. The Civil Judge held that only the Nagpur property and the arbitrator's residence did not confer jurisdic

R.K. GARG, ADVOCATEversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

1981 INSC 9822 April 1981Case Partly allowed

Advocate R.K. Garg, appearing for a petitioner in a Rent Act matter, threw his shoe at the presiding judge after the petition was dismissed for non‑payment of process fee under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC. The judge sought to arrest him under Section 228 IPC and referred the matter to the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Secti

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BANGALOREversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

2022 INSC 32522 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s judgment that the land acquisition proceedings for its mega‑market project had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The

AMALENDU KUMAR BERA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013 INSC 19122 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The decree dated 7 August 1969 in a title suit was executed in 2009. The State of West Bengal raised objections under Section 47 of the CPC in 2010 and again in 2011, both of which were dismissed. The State later filed a civil revision challenging the 2010 order and sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Li

RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS.versusK.K. MODI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 16222 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, beneficiaries of a welfare trust, claimed that the trustees had withheld bonus shares and dividends of Godfrey Philips Ltd., depriving them of benefits. They sought to amend their plaint to include a prayer for the sale of the shares and investment of proceeds in government securities, along with a mand

FERRO ALLOYS CORPN. LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 12422 March 1999Dismissed

Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd (FACOR) sought a mining lease for chromite in Sukinda Valley after the Central Government, following a high‑power expert committee (Sharma Committee), reduced the area previously granted to Tata Iron & Steel Co. (TISCO). The Committee assessed the needs of all claimants, including FACOR, and the

V.R. KATARKIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

1990 INSC 10222 March 1990Dismissed

V.R. Katarki, a Civil Judge of the Karnataka Judicial Service, was dismissed by the High Court for alleged irregularities in land‑acquisition cases, including writing premature letters to the Land Acquisition Officer, fixing inflated land valuations, using order‑sheets printed by a private advocate, and purchasing a pu

HEERA TRADERSversusKAMLA JAIN

2022 INSC 21922 February 2022Case Partly allowed

Heera Traders and another appealed against a decree of eviction passed by the trial court under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The landlord, Kamla Jain, sought possession of non‑residential premises and mesne profits, while the tenants argued that Section 13 of the Act, which obliges a tenant to de

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