Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3,095 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 801–1,000.

KOKKANDA B. POONDACHA AND OTHERSversusK.D. GANAPATHI AND ANR.

2011 INSC 14722 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a partition suit and the respondents later applied under Order XVI Rule 1(1) and (2) read with Section 151 of the CPC to file a list of witnesses, naming the appellants' advocate, N.R. Karnath, as a witness. The trial court allowed the list but rejected the request to summon the advocate because no

PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.versusHARVINDER SINGH

2008 INSC 24622 February 2008Dismissed

Harvinder Singh, a decree‑holder, applied during execution for interest on the decree amount, although the decree was silent on interest. The trial court allowed 12% interest, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court set aside those orders, holding that an executing court lacks jurisdiction to award inter

VINAY KR. KHAMBATEversusVINAY KR. AGGARWAL AND ORS.

2007 INSC 18822 February 2007Case Partly allowed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the tenant, who died during the proceedings. The landlord then moved an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC asserting that the tenant's son could not inherit the tenancy. The Additional Rent Controller all

RAO MAHMOOD AHMED KHAN THROUGH THEIR L.R.versusSHRI RANBIR SINGH AND ORS.

1995 INSC 12622 February 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a government revenue claimant, had the deceased's agricultural land attached and auctioned. The respondent, the highest bidder, was directed to deposit 25% of the bid immediately and the balance within 15 days. He tendered the 25% by cheque on the day of the sale, which was encashed four days later, and

VARADARAJANversusKANAKAVALLI & ORS.

2020 INSC 7522 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Varadarajan, sought to execute a decree in favour of the deceased decree‑holder Umadevi by filing an application as her legal representative under a Will. The Executing Court allowed the application, but the High Court, in revision under Section 115 of the CPC, set aside that order on the ground that the

BUSSA OVERSEAS & PROPERTIES (P) LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2016 INSC 116422 January 2016Dismissed

Bussa Overseas & Properties Ltd. sought a refund of excess provisional customs duty under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The customs authority directed the claim to be made under Section 27(2) and the appellants contested this, filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ and, on review, rejected

SRI JEYARAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ORS.versusA.G. SYED MOHIDEEN AND ORS.

2010 INSC 5222 January 2010Dismissed

The respondents instituted a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before the District Court in Tamil Nadu, seeking relief concerning a public trust. The appellants argued that a 1960 notification empowering Subordinate Courts under Section 92 removed the District Court's jurisdiction, relying on a

GANPATI MADHAV SAWANT (D) BY LRS.versusDATTUR MADHAV SAWANT

2008 INSC 8422 January 2008Case Partly allowed

The appellants, heirs of the original defendants, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging a decree that granted mesne profit without a specific prayer for an inquiry under Order XX Rule 12. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no question of law was involve

OM PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2008 INSC 8522 January 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a contractor, was caught unloading cast iron Grade‑I, defined as railway property, from a truck at a scrap yard. He claimed he was merely a laborer and not the owner, and sought reduction of his one‑year imprisonment, the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Pos

MAHAVIRversusLAKHMI AND ANR.

2007 INSC 6622 January 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Mahavir filed a second appeal against a decree, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal without formulating any substantial question of law, contrary to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was obliged to state and hear the appeal on a subs

BRAHMDEO CHAUDHARYversusRISHIKESH PRASAD JAISWAL AND ANR.

1997 INSC 4922 January 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Brahmdeo Chaudhary, a stranger to a decree for eviction in favour of respondent No.1, resisted the execution of a warrant for possession against respondent No.2. The decree‑holder applied for a warrant with police assistance; the appellant filed an application before the executing court seeking a stay an

K.V. SWAMYNATHAN AND ORS.versusE.V. PADMANABHAN AND ORS.

1990 INSC 40121 December 1990Dismissed

The appellants, sons of K.S. Vaiyapuri Chettiar, claimed ownership of six house doors in Town Survey No. 666/2 based on sale deeds executed in the 1940s and a decree for specific performance. The respondents, occupying the doors, argued that they held the property by long‑term permissive leases and had acquired title b

SRI KRISHNA SINGHversusMATHURA AHIR AND ORS.

1979 INSC 27821 December 1979Dismissed

The case concerned a dispute over a house in Varanasi claimed to be property of the Garwaghat Math, a religious institution of the Sant Mat Sampradaya. The appellant argued that the plaintiff, a Sudra, could not be ordained as a sanyasi or mahant and that the house was his personal inheritance, not Math property. The C

R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS.versusT.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.

2024 INSC 88421 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The buyer sued the sellers for specific performance of a 2005 agreement for sale of land and a tenanted building. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the buyer was not ready and willing to pay the balance price, while the High Court reversed that decision, holding that time was not of the essence and granting s

N. MOHANversusR. MADHU

2019 INSC 127021 November 2019Disposed off

The appellant, a businessman, was ordered to repay Rs.45,00,000 borrowed from the respondent, but failed to do so, leading to an ex‑parte decree in the respondent's suit. The appellant first sought to set aside the decree via an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed, and later filed a first appeal

HARYANA WAKF BOARDversusMAHESH KUMAR

2013 INSC 76821 November 2013Dismissed

The Haryana Wakf Board filed a civil suit in 2000 seeking possession of land it claimed was Wakf property. The trial court ruled in favor of the Board, but the Additional District Judge held that the question of whether the land was Wakf property fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal under Section

M. CHINNASAMYversusK.C. PALANISAMY AND ORS.

2003 INSC 66121 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1999 Karur parliamentary election the returned candidate won by 2,847 votes. The defeated candidate filed an election petition alleging irregularities in the counting of about 15,000 rejected votes across five categories, but the petition disclosed only vague, general allegations without the required particulars

SURESH KUMAR JAINversusSHANTI SWARUP JAIN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 136221 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant inducted in 1973, challenged an eviction suit filed by the landlord in 1990, arguing that the suit was barred under Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 because the ten‑year exemption period for newly constructed buildings had expired. The k

C.S. VENKATASUBRAMANIANversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA

1996 INSC 136621 November 1996Disposed off

The appellant, an advocate, represented State Bank of India in a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 2.42 crore. He issued a public notice that was contrary to the bank's interests, causing the bank to lose confidence in him and request a No Objection Certificate to engage new counsel. The advocate refused, insisting on payme

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHERversusDINA NATH

1983 INSC 17921 November 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Dina Nath, defaulted on liquor licence fees and was subjected to revenue recovery proceedings under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, resulting in a proclamation prohibiting the transfer of his half‑share in a residential property and notifying it for auction. He filed a suit seeking a permanent injunc

RATILAL JHAVERBHAI PARMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2024 INSC 80121 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a civil application under Article 227 before the Gujarat High Court, which was orally dismissed on 1 March 2023 without the judge indicating that reasons would follow. More than a year later, a detailed reasoned order dated 1 March 2023 was uploaded, having actually been prepared on 12 April 2024 a

BANARSI DASversusBRIG MAHARAJA SUKHJIT SINGH AND ANR.

1997 INSC 70221 October 1997Dismissed

Banarsi Das filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming peaceful cultivation of land he alleged to have inherited, while the defendants asserted ownership and produced documentary evidence of a sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit; the District Judge reversed that decision and decreed in favor of the plaint

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTSversusL.K. RATNA & OTHERS

1986 INSC 21521 October 1986Dismissed

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India referred three members to its Disciplinary Committee for alleged professional misconduct relating to a management consultancy brochure. The Committee held a hearing, found the members guilty and reported its conclusions to the Council, which recorded a finding of guilt an

SURESH LATARUJI RAMTEKEversusSAU. SUMANBAI PANDURANG PETKAR & ORS.

2023 INSC 84621 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Suresh Ramteke sought specific performance of a sale deed against the respondents Sumanbai Petkar, alleging that the respondents failed to execute the deed despite his readiness and payment of consideration. The trial court and the first appellate court upheld the appellant's claim, finding that the respo

RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERSversusHEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 51421 September 2021Dismissed

The plaintiffs, heirs of some original partners of the partnership firm ‘Soorajmull Nagarmull’, filed a suit seeking declaration of entitlement to the firm’s assets, representation before authorities, injunctions, and dissolution of the firm. The defendants, heirs of the remaining original partners, contended that the

DR. RANBIR SINGHversusASHARFI LAL

1995 INSC 59221 September 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Dr. Ranbir Singh, purchased a property from Shri Hemant Singh, the adopted son of the late Maharaja of Dholpur, and served notice to the tenant, Asharfi Lal, for rent default. The trial court and first appellate court upheld the eviction, finding a landlord‑tenant relationship and greater hardship to the

GURBAX SINGH S/O CHANDA SINGHversusFINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

1990 INSC 29621 September 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a retired army subedar and displaced person, bought a 7‑kanal parcel of land in a public auction in 1967 and was issued a sale certificate in 1973, making him the legal owner under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules. The second respondent, also a displaced person, claimed continu

RAMESH CHANDRAversusSHIV CHARAN DASS AND ORS.

1990 INSC 30021 September 1990Dismissed

The appellant's father bought a house with a condition that the sellers could repurchase it after five years and allowed them to remain in possession under a rent note. After the five-year period, the appellant filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the sellers (defendant No.1) and two relatives (defend

RAMA KT. BARMAN (DIED) THR. LRS.versusMD. MAHIM ALI & ORS.

2024 INSC 64421 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a title suit seeking declaration of ownership and possession of land, which the trial court decreed in their favour. The respondents appealed, and the High Court, in a second appeal, framed four additional substantial questions of law that were not raised before the trial or appellate courts, and d

STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UP EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT BOARD & ORS.versusSAROJ MAURYA & ORS.

2024 INSC 67721 August 2024Disposed off

The State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board appealed a Division Bench order of the Allahabad High Court that upheld a Single Judge's decision without providing any reasons. The Division Bench merely stated its agreement with the Single Judge and failed to consider several Government Orders and submis

SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2020 INSC 50221 August 2020Dismissed

The owners of certain land executed an agreement to sell to a housing society and also a General Power of Attorney (GPA) authorising the society's officers to sell the property. Sale deeds in favour of the appellants were later executed under the GPA. The respondents filed suits seeking cancellation of the agreement to

M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2018 INSC 73121 August 2018Disposed off

The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated 20 July 1984 under the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was made a rule of the court and later reduced in interest rate. The appellant sought execution of the award, and the State (respondent) deposited Rs 75,65,945, after which the executing court ordered the State to deposit

M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2018 INSC 73121 August 2018

An arbitral award dated 20 July 1984, made a rule of the court in 1986, was being executed when the State of Uttar Pradesh deposited Rs 75,65,945 and was later directed by the executing court to deposit an additional Rs 1,25,16,969.56, which the State objected to. The State filed a civil revision, and the High Court, i

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANIversusM/S. AURORA PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS AND ANR.

2018 INSC 73321 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a developer, was ordered by the Bombay High Court to hand over eight flats and sixteen parking spaces to the plaintiff under a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and another respondent, even though the appellant had no direct contract with the plaintiff. The appellant challenged the High Court's

SEJAL GLASS LTD.versusNAVILAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.

2017 INSC 78321 August 2017Disposed off

Sejal Glass Ltd. filed a civil suit seeking a money decree and recovery of TDS from Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and its directors. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, claiming the plaint disclosed no cause of action against the directors and seeking bifurcation of the suit. The trial

CITIBANK N.A.versusHITEN P. DALAL & ORS.

2015 INSC 59421 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from a money decree that was later set aside, where Citibank N.A. had received 9% IRFC bonds worth Rs.50 crore from Canbank Financial Services Ltd. (Canfina) and subsequently sold them in the market. The issue was how to calculate the restitution amount under Section 144 of

VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERSversusTOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 34421 August 2012Dismissed

The Delhi High Court entertained a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 13‑9‑1988 and restrained the vendor from alienating the property. The vendor later sold the suit property to six companies (the appellants) who, in turn, sold it to Bhagwati Developers, all in violation of the injunction. The appella

GHANSHYAM DASS GUPTAversusMAKHAN LAL

2012 INSC 34321 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court but, due to a clerical error, the vakalatnama of his new counsel was not filed and no lawyer appeared for either party at the final hearing. Despite the absence of representation, the High Court examined the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal. The appellant

SHUB KARAN BUBNA @ SHUB KARAN PRASADversusSITA SARAN BUBNA & ORS.

2009 INSC 106221 August 2009Dismissed

The petitioners sought a final decree for partition of property after a preliminary decree had been passed in 1964. The respondents argued that the application for a final decree was barred by the three‑year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held that an application for

BIBI SALMA KHATOONversusSTATE OF BLHAR AND ORS.

2001 INSC 38321 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant claimed a right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 after a sale deed was registered on 30 January 1988. He filed an application on 30 April 1988, seeking to have the land transferred to him. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether this application was filed withi

METPALLI LASUM BAI (SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERSversusMETAPALLI MUTHAIH (D) BY LRS.

2025 INSC 87921 July 2025

The dispute concerned the ownership of a 4‑acre 16‑gunta plot in Dasnapur village, claimed by the second wife of the deceased Metpalli Rajanna (Lasum Bai) under a registered Will dated 24 July 1974 and an oral family settlement. The trial court held that the Will was genuine, that it allocated a specific share to Lasum

R. KRSNA MURTIIversusR. R. JAGADESAN

2022 INSC 74121 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, who held a power of attorney for his mother, was prosecuting a suit filed by her for declaration and injunction. After the mother’s death, the appellant applied to be substituted as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, asserting his right as a son and citing a registered will in his favour

JASWANT SINGH & ORSversusPARK.ASH KAUR & ANR

2017 INSC 65621 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff obtained an ex‑parte decree for specific performance of a 1995 agreement. The defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, but it was dismissed in default and the defendant died shortly thereafter. The legal heirs filed a restoration application under Order IX Rule 9

M/S. MSK PROJECTS (I) (JV) LTDversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2011 INSC 51021 July 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered a dispute arising from a BOT concession agreement for the Bharatpur bypass road, where the contractor claimed entitlement to tolls and compensation for delay in the State's issuance of a traffic‑restriction notification and for the Bharatpur‑Deeg patch of road. The arbitral tribunal had awa

SYED MOHIDEEN & ANR.versusRAMANATHAPURA PERIA MOGALLAM JAMATH & ORS.

2010 INSC 41321 July 2010Dismissed

The appeal concerned a decision of the Madras High Court that remanded a matter before the Wakf Tribunal because the Tribunal had failed to consider certain points. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether, under Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act 1995, the Wakf Tribunal is deemed a civil court and can exercise the sa

SONU BABU BHAMBID & ORS.versusDREAM DEVELOPERS & ORS.

2009 INSC 93021 July 2009Dismissed

The appellants, slum dwellers, entered into a rehabilitation agreement with the respondents, a developer, which required them to obtain an eligibility certificate before the scheme could be invoked. They failed to secure the certificate, yet the developer began commercial construction on the designated plot. The appell

P.A. JAYALAKSHMIversusH. SARADHA AND ORS.

2009 INSC 93421 July 2009Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit for partition of property in 2004. The appellant filed her written statement in 2006 and later discovered a 1993 will that she claimed affected the ownership of the suit property. On 1 March 2007, after the trial had commenced and a witness had been examined, she applied under Order VIII Ru

INDERCHAND JAIN (D) THROUGH L.RS.versusMOTILAL (D) THROUGH L.RS.

2009 INSC 93721 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into a sale agreement for a haveli; the buyer sued for specific performance and obtained a decree, which the seller appealed and had set aside. During the appeal the seller withdrew the amount deposited by the buyer, and the High Court again set aside the trial court decree. Both parties filed revie

E.L.C.M. EXPORTS LIMITEDversusSOUTH INDIAN CORPN. (AGENCIES) LTD. & ANR.

2009 INSC 93821 July 2009Case Allowed

ELCM Exports Ltd., an export house, filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking damages for a delayed shipment that was held in a US customs bonded warehouse, causing the foreign buyer to reject the consignment. The Commission dismissed the complaint as barred by the one‑year li

PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI & ANR.versusPATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS

2008 INSC 84721 July 2008Disposed off

The petitioners alleged that the respondents, who were parties to a family property dispute, sold and transferred portions of the disputed land and allowed construction despite two interim orders of this Court dated 26‑April‑2004 and 10‑January‑2005 that prohibited any creation of third‑party interest without notice to

GIAN DASSversusTHE GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE SUNNER KALAN AND ORS.

2006 INSC 45921 July 2006Disposed off

The appellant, a Saunjidar, obtained a decree for possession of land from the trial court and the first appellate court. The High Court, on a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, set aside those decrees, holding that only the Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 co

MANI RAM AND ANR.versusHARI SINGH AND ORS.

1992 INSC 18021 July 1992Dismissed

In Mani Ram & Anr. v. Hari Singh & Ors., the Supreme Court examined applications filed under Order 22 Rules 3 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 151, seeking to bring the legal representatives of a deceased appellant on record in a regular second appeal. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had dismisse

EVEREST INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION & OTHERSversusGUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

1987 INSC 18021 July 1987Disposed off

Everest Industrial Corporation borrowed Rs 6 lakhs from Gujarat State Financial Corporation under a hypothecation agreement that stipulated repayment in half‑yearly instalments and interest at 8.5% per annum. After defaulting, the corporation invoked section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and a compr

JHARIA S/O MANIYAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

1983 INSC 8121 July 1983Dismissed

The petitioner Jharia was convicted under IPC s.302 read with s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment, a conviction upheld by the Rajasthan High Court while his co‑accused were acquitted. He applied for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136, but the petition was dismissed, as was a subsequent r

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.versusBACHHA LAL & ANR.

2007 INSC 72121 June 2007Case Allowed

The brothers Bachha Lal and others sued a Sales Tax Officer of the State of Madhya Pradesh alleging that he abused his powers to conduct illegal searches, revoked their sales‑tax registration and lodged a false criminal complaint under Section 353 IPC, leading to a malicious prosecution claim. The trial court held the

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORSversusE. KUTTAPPAN

1993 INSC 22121 June 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The Food Corporation of India and others (appellants) sued E. Kutiappan (respondent) under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator. Arbitrator B.S. Hegde made awards on 3 Oct 1988 and, at the respondent’s request, sent the award to the respondent’s counsel, who filed it in the Kerala Hi

PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS.versusLAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2026 INSC 52121 May 2026Dismissed

The testator B. Sheena Nairi executed a Will on 15 May 1983 bequeathing all his immovable properties to his sister Laxmi Nairthy, cancelling an earlier Power of Attorney in favour of his brother‑in‑law. After his death, his wife applied for mutation of the properties in her name, but the sister filed a suit seeking dec

ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED (NOW M/S ESL STEEL LIMITED)versusISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 52521 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Electrosteel Steel Ltd. (now ESL Steel Ltd.) filed a petition under Article 227 challenging an order that directed it to comply with an arbitral award dated 06.07.2018 passed by the West Bengal MSME Facilitation Council in favour of Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd. The award was rendered after the corporate debtor’s insolvency

MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANR.versusGURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS)

2025 INSC 51421 April 2025Dismissed

The appellants, sons of Tirakappa Gurusiddappa Malagi, challenged a compromise decree dated 18 January 2000 that partitioned seven acres of land among their father, uncles, and grandfather, alleging that their father was coerced into the settlement and that the land was not ancestral joint family property. The trial co

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITEDversusPURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 52321 April 2025Dismissed

Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and Puri Construction Ltd (PCL) entered into a Development Agreement for land development, later supplemented by a Supplementary Agreement and a Tripartite Agreement involving a bank. Disputes arose over alleged economic duress, non‑fulfilment of conditions precedent, and L&T's abandonment of the

MONOJ LAL SEAL AND OTHERSversusOCTAVIOUS TEAAND INDUSTRIES LTD.

2015 INSC 34221 April 2015Dismissed

The landlords filed an eviction suit against Octavious Tea & Industries Ltd for non-payment of rent. The tenant filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The trial court allowed the Section 7(1) application but directed the tenant to deposit arrears with the Civil Ju

DR. SHEHLA BURNEY AND. OTHERSversusSYED ALI MOSSA RAZA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2011 INSC 32721 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of a 3‑acre land alleging title derived from their parents. Defendant No.1 (Razia Begum) transferred the land to Lateef Hassan Burney (defendant No.2) who was later impleaded. The amended plaint sought possession only against defendant No.1 and made no prayer against defendant

SHANTI BUDHIYA VESTA PATEL AND ORS.versusNIRMALA JAYPRAKASH TIWARI AND ORS.

2010 INSC 22921 April 2010Dismissed

The case arose from a dispute over a suit property originally held by Budhiya Vesta Patel, who transferred his rights to respondent No.9 via a Development Agreement and an irrevocable Power of Attorney (POA). After Patel's death, his heirs (the appellants) executed further irrevocable POAs in favour of the same respond

TARA CHAND & ORS.versusMUNICIPALITY GHARAUNDA

2009 INSC 57521 April 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipality, which was dismissed by the trial court. The first appellate court set aside that dismissal, but the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the appellate court’s finding without first framing the substantial questions of law as mandated by

AHMADASAHAB ABDUL MULLA (D) BY PROPOSED LRS.versusBIBIJAN & ORS.

2008 INSC 50121 April 2008Matter referred to larger bench

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, which the trial court decreed in their favour. The first appellate court dismissed the decree on the ground of limitation, holding that the pendency of a separate suit filed by the defendant's wife and children did not suspend the limitation

WAHEED BAIGversusSANGI LAKSHMAMMA & ORS.

2008 INSC 50221 April 2008Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement of sale of a house that had been allotted to the defendant under a subsidised industrial housing scheme. The defendant was merely a lessee and had no title to sell the property, which vested in the Government. The trial court decreed specific performance; the fi

ASHOK LENKAversusRISHI DIKSHIT AND ORS.

2006 INSC 23721 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Chhattisgarh granted excise licences for retail liquor sale under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and the 2002 Rules. After objections were raised, a writ petition was filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court, naming 65 licence‑holders as parties while omitting 126 others. The High Court cancelled all th

TIRUPATI BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusSTTE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 30121 April 2004Disposed off

The Patna High Court, exercising its Article 226 jurisdiction, issued an interim order that halted construction activities on Bailey Road, prompting seven builders to seek special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, directing the petitioners to approach the High Court, but lat

VAREED JACOBversusSOSAMMA GEEVARGHESE AND ORS.

2004 INSC 29821 April 2004Dismissed

In a partition suit, a decree granted recovery of certain items to a defendant. Another defendant filed a suit challenging the decree, and the court issued a temporary injunction under Order 39 restraining execution of the decree. The suit was dismissed for default, later restored, and finally dismissed on merits. The

SRI GOPABANDHU BISWAL ETC.versusKRISHNA CHANDRA MOHANTY AND ORS. ETC.

1998 INSC 19221 April 1998Appeal(s) allowed

Gopabandhu Biswal, a former military officer appointed as Assistant Commandant in the Orissa Military Police, sought promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) and obtained a favorable order from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 1991. The Union of India, the State of Orissa and other respondents challenge

SATISH CHANDRAversusREGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DELHI.

1994 INSC 16621 April 1994

The petitioners, members of a Delhi cooperative housing society, were expelled by a resolution of the society's general body on 22 February 1990, which was later approved by the Registrar. They filed several writ petitions in the Delhi High Court challenging the expulsion and other matters, but did not contest the expu

MANAGER, FARIDKOT, PUNJAB, ETC. ETC.versusMAKHAN SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

1992 INSC 11521 April 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The Punjab government acquired about 50 acres of land for the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the District Collector awarded Rs.30,000 per acre. Both the landowners and FCI sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the reference court barred FCI’s reference but fixed compensation at Rs.1

K.M. SINGHversusSECRETARY, ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES AND OTHERS

1992 INSC 11021 April 1992Dismissed

K.M. Singh, a finance officer of the Association of Indian Universities, sued to declare that his resignation was obtained by fraud, coercion and duress. He offered that if two officials of the respondent took a special oath in a Gurudwara and a temple stating the resignation was not extracted under duress, the relevan

UNITED BANK OF INDIAversusSMT. KANAN BALA DEVI & ORS.

1987 INSC 12021 April 1987Appeal(s) allowed

United Bank of India sued Ramesh Chandra Roy Choudhury for recovery of an overdraft. The defendant died in 1960, and his widow informed a different branch of the bank of his death. The suit, filed by the Royal Exchange Branch, continued, and eight years later the bank applied to implead the deceased's legal representat

O. N. BHATNAGARversusSMT. RUKIBAI NARSINDAS & ORS.

1982 INSC 4921 April 1982Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by N. Bhatnagar, who occupied flat No. 52 in Shyam Niwas under a leave‑and‑licence agreement with a co‑partner member of Shyam Cooperative Housing Society. After the licence was terminated in 1965, the society and the member sought his eviction under section 91(1) of the Maharasht

BINA BASAK & ORS.versusSRI BIPUL KANTI BASAK & ORS.

2024 INSC 27921 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a plot of land allotted by the West Bengal Relief and Rehabilitation Department to a refugee family that migrated from East Pakistan in 1950. The lease deed was initially executed in the name of Smt. Hem Prova Basak, but the government later ordered inclusion of the two younger brothers' names and ev

MADIRAJU VENKATA RAMANA RAJUversusPEDDIREDDIGARI RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS.

2018 INSC 24921 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged the election of respondent No.1 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on the ground that the Returning Officer had improperly accepted the respondent's nomination form, which contained blank columns and lacked signatures on each page, violating the Representation of People Act, 1951. The r

T. RAVI & ANR.versusB. CHINNA NARASIMHA & ORS. ETC.

2017 INSC 24221 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a long‑standing partition suit over the matruka property of the late Nawab Jung, in which Defendant No.1 (Hamid Ali Khan) sold his share of 68 acres 10 guntas to Bala Mallaiah on 23‑Nov‑1959. The sale was challenged on the grounds that it was made during the pendency of the partition suit, that the v

M/S. BRAKEWEL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusP. R. SELVAM ALAGAPPAN

2017 INSC 24821 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

M/S. Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. obtained a decree for recovery of a sum of money from P.R. Selvam Alagappan. The respondent filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the executability of the decree on grounds of alleged mis‑joinder of parties, fraud an

HARIDAS DASversusSMT. USHA RANI BANIK AND ORS.

2006 INSC 15921 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Haridas Das entered into an oral agreement in 1982 to purchase a suit property, paid most of the consideration and took possession with a promise of a registered sale deed within three years. To protect his possession he filed Title Suit No. 201/85, reserving the right to sue for specific performance, and later filed T

KART AR SINGH @ NARANJAN SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1995 INSC 19021 March 1995Dismissed

The appellants received compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, which was later enhanced and subsequently reduced on appeal. While the appeal was pending, they executed the decree and recovered the enhanced amount together with interest. The State filed an application under Section 144 of the Cod

SANWARLAL AGRAWAL & ORS.versusASHOK KUMAR KOTHARI & ORS.

2023 INSC 14921 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents entered into a 2017 joint venture for a hospital, each contributing a Rs 10 crore interest‑free loan. In 2019 the respondents bid for the appellants' 50% shareholding, agreeing via email on a consideration of Rs 36.75 crore, which the parties argued did not include the loan amount. The re

AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS.versusMAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 21021 February 2022Dismissed

The case arose from a partition suit (O.S. No. 388/77) where the trial court decreed shares only to plaintiffs 2 and 3, rejecting plaintiffs 4‑8. The appellant‑defendant appealed and the First Appellate Court set aside the trial decree, but the High Court restored it and, on remand, divided the property among the appel

M/S. ADVANTA INDIA LTD.versusB. N. SHIVANNA

2018 INSC 18321 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Advanta India Ltd filed a complaint against advocate B.N. Shivanna alleging cheating, fraud and fabrication of documents, leading the Karnataka State Bar Council’s Disciplinary Committee to debar him for life. The Bar Council of India (BCI) on appeal reduced the punishment to 18 months, but Shivanna’s review petition u

SATISH KUMAR GUPTA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.

2017 INSC 16621 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana acquired large tracts of land for an industrial model township, vesting the land in the State after the Collector’s award. The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) later allotted part of this land to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (MSIL) under a deed that required the allottee to pay a

JAYANTILAL CHIMANLAL PATELversusVADILAL PURUSHOTTAMDAS PATEL

2017 INSC 16021 February 2017Disposed off

The appellant-landlord filed a suit in 1992 seeking a permanent injunction against the tenant for constructing a permanent structure without consent, invoking Section 13(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial court partially decreed the suit, but the High Court later dismisse

JAYAKANTHAM & OTHERSversusABAYKUMAR

2017 INSC 16121 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants entered into an agreement to sell a residential property to the respondent for Rs 1.60 lakh, receiving Rs 60,000 as advance, with the balance to be paid on execution of the sale deed. The deed was not executed within the stipulated period and the respondent sued for specific performance. The trial court

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON LONDON BRANCHversusZENITH INFOTECH LIMITED

2017 INSC 16521 February 2017Disposed off

Zenith Infotech Ltd filed a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The Registrar of the Board refused to register the reference on the ground that the company was not an "industrial company" within the meaning of

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD.versusNANAK BUILDERS & INVESTORS P. LTD. & ORS.

2013 INSC 11821 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Nanak Builders sued the Sawhneys for specific performance of a 1986 sale agreement. While the suit was pending, the Sawhneys transferred the suit property to Thomson Press (India) Ltd. despite a court injunction and public notice of the dispute. Thomson Press applied under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a defen

RAM SAHAN RAIversusSACHIV SAMANAYA PRABANDHAK AND ANR.

2001 INSC 10121 February 2001Disposed off

The appellant, a clerk of a District Cooperative Bank, was dismissed without a charge‑sheet, show‑cause notice or hearing. He filed a suit seeking a declaration that the dismissal was illegal and that he should be reinstated with consequential benefits. The lower appellate court held the dismissal void for violation of

LAL CHANDversusVIIITH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

1997 INSC 17921 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant had entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land to the respondent, who later sued for specific performance but the suit was dismissed and a decree for refund of earnest money was granted. The decree-holder sought execution of the decree, leading the court to attach and auction the appellant's land. T

RAM SAKAL SINGHversusMOSAMAT MONAKE DEVI (DEAD) AND ORS.

1997 INSC 18121 February 1997Dismissed

The appellant, a member of a joint Hindu family, executed a gift deed in favour of a stranger in 1959, later cancelled it and sold the property to the respondent. The respondent sued for a declaration that the gift deed was obtained by fraud and therefore voidable, and for possession based on the subsequent sale deed.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusMAHARAU SRAWAN HATKAR

1995 INSC 12521 February 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed a civil court order that granted additional compensation, solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 to claimants whose land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and lat

VIPIN KUMARversusJAYDEEP & OTHERS

2025 INSC 16921 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a resident of Village Fakarhedi, challenged the appointment of Defendant No.3 as a Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG distributor, alleging that the appointment was based on a fraudulent domicile certificate. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit ex parte, and the first appellate court affirmed that dismiss

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusM/S OM PRAKASH BRICK KILN OWNER, ETC.

2025 INSC 8821 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab sought to levy royalty on brick earth excavated by private brick‑kiln operators, who argued that the land and the mineral were privately owned and that the State had no authority to impose such a charge. The lower courts held that, under Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the quarry lands ve

SUNIL KUMAR MAITYversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 8421 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Sunil Kumar Maity deposited a cheque that was mistakenly credited to another customer with a similar name at State Bank of India. He filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, which was allowed; the bank appealed to the State Consumer Commission, which partially upheld the order. The bank then sought revision before

STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusMSTC LIMITED

2020 INSC 7221 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Standard Chartered Bank filed a Section 19 application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to recover a debt of about Rs 191 crore from MSTC Limited. After the DRT allowed an intervening application, the respondent appealed, withdrew the appeal, and then filed a review petition under Rule 5A, which was dismissed fo

KULDEEP KUMAR DUBEY & ORS.versusRAMESH CHANDRA GOYAL (D) TH LRS.

2015 INSC 6021 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The father of the appellants, Raj Kumar, owned a shop that was let to the respondent. After Raj Kumar’s death, his brother Shiv Kumar filed an eviction suit, and upon Shiv’s death his sons Kuldeep Kumar and Pradeep Kumar were substituted as plaintiffs as heirs. The trial court decreed eviction in favour of the plaintif

DEEPAK AGGARWALversusKESHAV KAUSHIK AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 4421 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Five candidates who were serving as Assistant District Attorneys, Public Prosecutors or Deputy Advocate General were selected for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Haryana through direct recruitment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed their appointments, holding that they did not satisfy the

RAMAKRISHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LR.versusRAI MURARI

2008 INSC 7621 January 2008Case Allowed

The appellant filed a suit for a permanent injunction to prevent the respondent from interfering with the appellant's peaceful possession of the suit land. The trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court allowed it, and the Karnataka High Court dismissed the second appeal, directing the appellant to refun

MODI ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK AND ANR.versusW.S.G. CRICKET PTE. LTD.

2003 INSC 2721 January 2003Dismissed

Modi Entertainment Network and another filed a suit in the Bombay High Court for damages arising from a contract granting exclusive telecast rights for the ICC Knockout Tournament. The contract contained a clause that disputes would be governed by English law and submitted to the non‑exclusive jurisdiction of the Engli

P. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY AND ANR.versusM/S PRATAP STEELS LTD.

2002 INSC 3821 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants (vendors) entered into a sale agreement with the respondent (buyer) for Rs.40.25 lakh, conditioning the sale on obtaining clearance under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by a stipulated date. When the clearance was not obtained, the vendors cancelled the agreement and refunded part of t

H.D. REVANNAversusG. PUTTASWAMY AND ORS.

1999 INSC 1921 January 1999Dismissed

The appellant G. Puttaswamy was declared elected after a recount ordered by the Returning Officer, which the respondent H.D. Revanna challenged, alleging that the recount violated Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and that the appellant committed corrupt practices under Sections 100 and 123 of the Represen

ZAHIRUL ISLAMversusMOHD. USMAN AND ORS.

2002 INSC 56920 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Zahirul Islam, sued Mohd. Usman and others. One of the defendants (Defendant No.2) died on 1 February 1995, but the trial court proceeded ex parte against him without substituting his legal representative. The legal representative later sought a stay of execution of the decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of th

SA. RAMACHANDRANversusS. NEELAVATHY

1996 INSC 152620 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant, occupied a plot owned by the respondent and raised super‑structures. The respondent filed an eviction suit without first giving the tenant a written notice and observing the three‑month waiting period required under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921. The trial cour

SMT. PARVATIBAI SUBHANRAO NALAWADEversusANWARALI HASANALI MAKANI AND ORS. ETC.

1991 INSC 34920 December 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, daughter and heir of a tenant, sought possession of an identical area in a newly constructed building as promised in a consent decree that required the landlord‑bank to give her an equal premises after demolition of the old building. The landlord complied with the demolition but failed to allocate the pr

NOORALI BABUL THANEWALAversusK.M.M. SHETTY AND ORS.

1989 INSC 39320 December 1989Disposed off

The landlord filed an eviction suit in 1970 against tenant K.M.M. Shetty and others, which was decreed in his favour. The Supreme Court allowed the tenant to remain in possession until 31 March 1989 on condition that he and his employees file an undertaking to vacate thereafter. In early 1989 a second respondent obtain

P. KISHORE KUMARversusVITTAL K. PATKAR

2023 INSC 100920 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned 15 acres of land in Sy. No. 3, where the plaintiff claimed title based on a sale deed from the vendor, while the defendant relied on occupancy rights granted to his predecessor under the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. The vendor had applied for occupancy under section

SRI SHIVAJI BALARAM HAIBAITLversusSRI AVINASH MARUTHI PAWAR

2017 INSC 112620 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a shop and sued the respondent for possession, alleging the respondent occupied the shop without any right. The respondent denied the appellant's title and pleaded adverse possession, claiming long possession. The trial court and first appellate court held in favour of the appellant, finding the

R. RAJANNAversusS.R. VENKATASWAMY & ORS.

2014 INSC 79620 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff obtained a decree declaring a 1982 gift deed void. The respondents appealed and the High Court set aside that decree on the basis of a compromise recorded under Order XXI Rule 3 of the CPC. The plaintiff contended that the compromise was forged and void, and filed a suit (OS No.5236 of 2005) seeking to se

SAMBHAJI & ORS.versusGANGABAI & ORS.

2008 INSC 132920 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

In a civil suit the defendants failed to file their written statement within the 90‑day period prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court refused to accept the belated statement, holding that the provision barred any extension. The defendants appealed; the High Court acknowledged the t

MANOHAR S/O SHANKAR NALE AND ORS.versusJAIPALSING S/O SHIVLALSING RAJPUT AND ORS.

2007 INSC 116720 November 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Manohar and others appealed against a High Court order that allowed execution of a decree for possession of land, arguing that the execution petition filed on 10‑December‑2001 was barred by the 12‑year limitation period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The decree, passed in a second appeal, granted posses

ABDUL RAHEEMversusTHE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.

2007 INSC 116920 November 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Abdul Raheem (Karnataka Electricity Board), entered into a sale agreement for land with Respondent No.1, who later sued for specific performance alleging the appellant's failure to perform. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court upheld the dismissal, finding that the plaintiff

RAMAN TECH. & PROCESS ENGG. CO. & ANR.versusSOLANKI TRADERS

2007 INSC 117120 November 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Raman Tech & Process Engineering Co. sued Solanki Traders for Rs.99,200 for supplied material and sought security and attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC, alleging dishonoured cheques and that the defendants were moving machinery to evade a decree. The trial court dismissed the application, find

LIVERPOOL AND LONDON S.P. AND I ASSON. LTD.versusM.V. SEA SUCCESS I AND ANR.

2003 INSC 65920 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered an Admiralty suit filed by a UK Protection & Indemnity (P&I) club seeking arrears of insurance premiums from the owners of the vessel M.V. Sea Success I, alleging the premiums were "necessaries" under the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. The vessel moved to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 1

K. SIVARAMAIAHversusRUKMANI AMMAL

2003 INSC 65520 November 2003Disposed off

The appellant and respondent owned adjoining properties in Chennai, where the appellant opened windows and a ventilator that overlooked the respondent's land. The respondent's mother sued in 1976 for an injunction to close the openings, but the trial court dismissed the injunction claim without deciding any easement ri

ABDUL RAHMANversusPRASONY BAI AND ANR.

2002 INSC 48220 November 2002Dismissed

Abdul Rahman (appellant) claimed that Prasony Bai (respondent) was not the daughter of the original land allottee Mangal Singh and that he had acquired the land by adverse possession. The dispute stemmed from earlier escheat proceedings, cancellation of an allotment to the appellant and mutation proceedings, all of whi

LAKSHMI RAM BHUYANversusHARI PRASAD BHUYAN AND ORS.

2002 INSC 48320 November 2002Disposed off

In a title suit filed in 1978, the trial court dismissed the suit, the first appeal upheld the dismissal, and the High Court allowed the second appeal but only directed that a decree be drawn up by the trial court. The trial court prepared a decree that mentioned only costs, omitting the numerous reliefs claimed in the

VJJAYABAL AND ORS.versusSHRLRAM TUKARAM AND ORS.

1998 INSC 43720 November 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' predecessors obtained an order under Section 8(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 deleting respondent No. 1’s name from the tenant list after a compromise in which he admitted he was not a tenant and purchased part of the land. No appeal was filed, so the order b

RAM DAS ALIAS RAM SURAJversusSMT. GANDIABAI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 135020 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Das, a minor when his father died, sought partition of his undivided half share in ancestral property. The defendant uncle claimed that Ram Das had been adopted by his stepfather before his mother's remarriage, that a partition had already occurred during his father's lifetime, and that the defendant had acquired t

M/S SANT RAM AND COMPANYversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 134720 November 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a contractor, entered into a contract with the State of Rajasthan for bridge widening works. A dispute arose and, by mutual agreement, the matter was referred to an arbitrator. While arbitration was pending, the respondent attempted to adjust amounts due to the appellant against another contract. The app

RESHAM SINGH PYARA SINGHversusABDUL SATTAR

1995 INSC 75720 November 1995Dismissed

The petitioner, Resham Singh Pyara Singh, claimed ownership of land purchased from a charity trust and obtained an interim injunction against the respondent's alleged trespass. The single judge of the Bombay High Court, hearing an appeal under Order 43, directed demarcation of the land in the petitioner's exclusive pos

YASHPAL JAINversusSUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS

2023 INSC 94820 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The suit was filed in 1982 by Urmila Devi to declare a sale deed void and claim possession of land. After her death in 2007, multiple applications were filed to substitute a legal representative, with Manoj Kumar Jain initially approved, later withdrawn, and Yashpal Jain seeking substitution. The trial court allowed Ya

MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKFversusM/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 94920 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf, owned a property that was leased to the respondent hotel for 33 years, which expired in 1999. After the lease ended, the appellant sued the respondents before the Wakf Tribunal for ejectment and possession, obtaining a decree in 2002. During execution of the decree, the responden

NOHARLAL VERMAversusDISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, JAGDALPUR

2008 INSC 118320 October 2008Dismissed

Noharlal Verma, a manager of District Co‑operative Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur, was removed from service on 29 April 1982 for alleged financial irregularities. He filed a departmental appeal and subsequently an application under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 on 30 June 1982, more th

THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusC.E.S.C. LTD.

2008 INSC 118420 October 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and others produced a television programme alleging illegal acts by Calcutta Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (CESC), leading CESC to file a defamation suit and obtain an interim injunction restraining further telecasts. The High Court, while confirming the injunction, also appointed

RAJESH MITRA @ RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR.versusKARNANI PROPERTIES LTD.

2024 INSC 71920 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, children of a tenant who died in 1970, claimed that they inherited tenancy rights under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which were later purportedly extinguished by the 1997 Act. The landlord sought eviction, relying on a deposition in an unrelated case as an admission that the tenancy was i

APPAIYAversusANDIMUTHU @ THANGAPANDI & ORS.

2023 INSC 83520 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a two‑acre property in 1963 from Puliyankaladi, who had earlier acquired it through a registered sale deed (Exhibit A1) dated 27‑08‑1928. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the certified copy of Exhibit A1, a public document, was admissible as secondary evidence to prove the

ISHWARLAL MALI RATHODversusGOPAL AND ORS.

2021 INSC 50220 September 2021Dismissed

The respondents filed an eviction suit in 2013 against the petitioner. Between 2015 and 2019 the petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments, ten in total, and was given a final opportunity with a cost order to cross‑examine the plaintiff’s witness, which the petitioner failed to do. The trial court consequently closed t

MUNI REDDY & ANR.versusC. NAGARAJU & ORS.

2018 INSC 84220 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed which was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by two appellate courts. The parties later compromised, and the High Court disposed of the second appeal on that compromise. Defendant No.2 challenged the validity of the compromise, but the High Court dismis

SUDARSAN PUHANversusJAYANTA KU. MOHANTY & ANR. ETC.

2018 INSC 85020 September 2018Case Partly allowed

The claimant, Sudarsan Puhan, suffered paraplegia after a motorcycle accident and obtained a compensation award of Rs.24,62,065 from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both the claimant and the insurer appealed to the Orissa High Court; the insurer's appeal was partially allowed, red

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITEDversusTUFF DRILLING PRIVATE LIMITED

2017 INSC 96720 September 2017Dismissed

The dispute arose when an arbitrator, appointed with the parties' consent, terminated the arbitration under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because the claimant failed to file a statement of claim within the time prescribed under Section 23(1). The claimant later filed an application seeking

M/S PAYAL VISION LTD.versusRADHIKA CHOUDHARY

2012 INSC 41320 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

M/S Payal Vision Ltd., the landlord, filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against Radhika Choudhary, the tenant, alleging a lease of Rs.50,000 per month and a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy due to unauthorized structural changes. The tenant contested the nature

C.K. LOKESHversusP.E. PANDURANGA NAIDU

1996 INSC 109220 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the appellant, but personal service was not effected and substitute service by newspaper failed to reach the appellant. An ex‑parte decree was passed on March 30, 1985. Upon learning of the decree in 1990, the appellant filed an application und

BYRAM PESTONFL GARIWALAversusUNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 24520 September 1991Dismissed

The appellant, Gariwala, challenged a decree passed on a compromise that was reduced to writing and signed only by his counsel, arguing that the 1976 amendment to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC required the parties themselves to sign. The respondents contended that the expression "parties" includes a recognised agent or

MUNDRIKA PRASAD SINHAversusSTATE OF BIHAR

1979 INSC 19220 September 1979Dismissed

M. P. Sinha, the Government Pleader for Patna district, was authorized to represent the State in all civil matters. When the Bihar Government appointed nine Assistant Government Pleaders and assigned a large batch of land‑acquisition cases to one of them, Sinha refused to hand over the briefs, claiming an exclusive rig

VIKRAM BAKSHI AND OTHERSversusR.P. KHOSLA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 102020 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose between the Khosla and Bakshi groups over a resort development project, leading to allegations of perjury and a criminal proceeding under Section 340 of the CrPC. The High Court initially dismissed the criminal application but later recalled its own order after a review petition was filed under Order

INDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD.versusDHARAM SINGH & ANR.

2014 INSC 54720 August 2014Dismissed

India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd., the management of a manufacturing unit, challenged the competence of 113 workmen to be represented before the Industrial Tribunal by five elected workmen. The dispute centered on whether Section 6‑1 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Industr

H. DOHIL CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD.versusNAHAR EXPORTS LTD. & ANR.

2014 INSC 99420 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the High Court's order that condoned a 9‑day delay in filing regular first appeals and a 1727‑day delay in refiling those appeals filed by Nahar Exports Ltd. and others. The Court held that the respondents failed to provide a bona‑fide explanation for the inordinate delay, showing gross negli

ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKARversusNARESH KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR

2009 INSC 105720 August 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a returned candidate, challenged the High Court's order that upheld an election petition filed by the respondent alleging corrupt practices. The petition claimed the appellant had constructed bore wells and provided ambulances after the election notification, allegedly exceeding the permissible election

RAMDAS SHIVRAM SATTURversusRAMESHCHANDRA POPATLAL SHAH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 84420 August 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant appealed a decree directing execution of a sale deed for a plot that had been transferred to the deceased respondent No.3 (Tarabai). During the pendency of the second appeal, Tarabai died and her legal heirs (respondents 5, 6 and 7) were on record. The High Court dismissed the appeal against respondents 3

A.C. ANANTHASWAMY AND ORS.versusBORAIAH (D) BY LRS.

2004 INSC 46020 August 2004Dismissed

Patel Chikkahanumaiah, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellants, sought to set aside an ex‑parte decree against him on the ground of non‑service of summons. He first filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, alleging only non‑service, without any claim of fraud, and later filed a suit under s.9 CPC al

RAM KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ANR.versusTHAWAR DAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

1999 INSC 34620 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two civil appeals arising from a dispute over a 1956 agreement to sell land and rent it, where the plaintiff sought specific performance. The High Court had set aside the trial and district court judgments, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and decreed specific performance, relying

M/S. FAIR AIR ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.versusN.K. MODI

1996 INSC 91020 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. entered into a contract with N.K. Modi to install a centrally air‑conditioned plant in his house. After alleged breach, the respondent filed a complaint before the State Consumer Commission, which stayed the proceedings and ordered the parties to arbitrate under clause 12 of the agreem

TARLOK SINGHversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AMRITSAR AND ANOTHER.

1986 INSC 17620 August 1986Dismissed

The appellant, a shopkeeper allotted a shop by the Railways in Amritsar, was ordered by the Municipal Corporation to demolish his shop after the corporation revoked the construction sanction. He appealed the demolition order to the District Judge under Section 269(2) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, and s

MANGAL SENversusKANCHHID MAL

1981 INSC 14420 August 1981Dismissed

The landlord sued the tenant for eviction under Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, alleging rent arrears of at least four months. The tenant denied any arrears, contending that he had stood surety for the landlord’s sales‑tax dues and therefore no rent was

SAYYED AYAZ ALIversusPRAKASH G GOYAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 34220 July 2021Disposed off

The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and declaration concerning a property, but the trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, deeming it barred by law, and then directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint and pay court fees within 15 days. The plaintiff challenged this direction by filing

MRS. KANIKA GOELversusSTATE OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. AND ANR.

2018 INSC 62220 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a US‑born minor girl, M, whose mother (the appellant) fled the United States with her to India and filed for divorce. The father (respondent No.2) obtained a US custody order and sought a writ of habeas corpus in Delhi to have the child returned to the US. The Delhi High Court ordered her return, but

STATE OF ASSAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2018 INSC 62720 July 2018Disposed off

The State of Assam, in a boundary dispute with the State of Nagaland, sought the production of additional topographical maps from a Survey of India witness during the trial. An earlier order of the Court had already permitted the production of certain maps, but Assam required more documents that were not in its possess

BHAU RAMversusJANAK SINGH & ORS.

2012 INSC 29320 July 2012Dismissed

The dispute involved a suit for possession of land in Himachal Pradesh that had passed through several owners and litigants. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by provisions of Order IX and Ord

SANDEEP POLYMERS PVT.LTD.versusBAJAJ AUTO LTD. AND ORS.

2007 INSC 77020 July 2007Disposed off

Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd., a Nagpur‑based manufacturer, sued Bajaj Auto Ltd. for damages after the latter terminated a lifetime‑supply agreement, causing the plaintiff’s Nagpur plant to become idle. The defendants contended that four purchase orders contained an ouster clause confining all disputes to the Pune courts,

VEDABAI @VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATILversusSHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 30120 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Vedabai filed an appeal against a trial court order but missed the prescribed period by seven days, citing illness as the reason. The Additional District Judge dismissed her application for condonation of delay, and the Bombay High Court upheld that dismissal. The Supreme Court examined whether a short delay of a few d

DEPOT SUPERINTENDENT H.P. CORPN. LTD. & ANR.versusKOLHAPUR AGRI. MARKET COMMIT. KOLHAPUR

2007 INSC 70420 June 2007Disposed off

The appellant, Depot Superintendent HP Corporation Ltd., held a lease for a petrol pump in Kolhapur that expired in December 1989. It claimed renewal for 30 years under Section 7(3) of the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex) Oil Refining Act, 1977, asserting that the renewal was automatic. The respondent, Kolhapur

MOST REV. P.M.A. METROPOLITAN AND ORS.versusMORAN MAR MARTHOMA AND ANR.

1995 INSC 38020 June 1995Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a long‑standing dispute between the Patriarch of Antioch’s group (the petitioner) and the Catholicos of the East’s group (the respondent) over the nature, governance and authority of the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church. The Court held that the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Association i

CORPORATION BANKversusD.S. GOWDA AND ANR.

1994 INSC 22220 June 1994Disposed off

Corporation Bank advanced an overdraft facility to D.S. Gowda for construction of flats, later securing the debt by an equitable mortgage and charging interest at 16.5% per annum with quarterly rests. The borrower contested the rate as excessive and argued that the RBI circulars and the Mysore Usurious Loans Act barred

P.V. HEMALATHAversusKATTAMKANDI PUTHIYA MALIACKAL SAHEEDA AND ANR.

2002 INSC 28120 May 2002Dismissed After

The petitioners sought specific performance of a contract for two cinema theatres in Calicut, but the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, a two‑judge Division Bench of the Kerala High Court delivered conflicting judgments and, without identifying any point of law difference, confirmed the trial court decree unde

M/S. I.T.L. LTD.versusM/S. SIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK LTD.

2002 INSC 28220 May 2002Dismissed

MIS. I.T. Ltd. appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the 10th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, which dismissed its appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The central question was whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

MORGAN STANLEY MUTUAL FUNDversusKARTICK DAS

1994 INSC 22020 May 1994Disposed off

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund, a SEBI‑registered domestic mutual fund, sought to issue a public fund scheme after obtaining SEBI approval for its draft scheme and advertising the issue. A prospective investor filed a petition before the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking an ex‑parte injunction res

GMR WARORA ENERGY LIMITEDversusCENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (CERC) & ORS.

2023 INSC 39820 April 2023Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals arising from Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) between GMR Warora Energy Ltd. (the generator) and various distribution companies, challenging the classification of several post‑cut‑off charges as ‘Change in Law’ events and the computation of carrying cost interest. The Court

CANARA BANKversusN. G. SUBBARAYA SETTY & ANR.

2018 INSC 38520 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Canara Bank granted a loan to N.G. Subbaraya Setty, who signed an unregistered assignment deed transferring the trademark "Eenadu" to the bank as security. The bank later cancelled the deed, invoking the Banking Regulation Act, and both parties litigated in 2004 – the bank seeking to declare the deed void and the respo

MOHIT BHARGAVAversusBHARAT BHUSHAN BHARGAVA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 44520 April 2007Dismissed

The decree holder obtained a final decree against the judgment debtor in a partnership dissolution suit filed in the District Court of Gwalior. While executing the decree, the court issued restraint orders (19 Mar 2003 and 7 Jul 2003) preventing a third‑party occupant and a bank from handing over possession and documen

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.versusALL INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANIZATION AND ORS.

2006 INSC 23520 April 2006Dismissed

The State of Karnataka entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and a Framework Agreement (FWA) with a private consortium to develop the Bangalore‑Mysore Infrastructure Corridor, requiring acquisition of about 20,193 acres of land. Several public‑interest writ petitions challenged the FWA on grounds of fraud, misrepr

MADHUKAR AND ORS.versusSANGRAM AND ORS.

2001 INSC 22020 April 2001Disposed off

The respondents filed a declaratory suit claiming joint ownership of the suit property and seeking to declare certain gift and sale deeds ineffective. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds of limitation and that a prior decree (O.S. No. 93/71) operated as res judicata against Defendant No. 1 only, despite s

PAWAN KUMAR GUPTAversusROCHIRAM NAGDEO

1999 INSC 19520 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, P.K. Gupta, purchased a shop‑godown from Narain Prasad and sued the tenant, R. Nagdeo, for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act for default in rent. The tenant contended that the sale deed was a benami transaction, alleging that the appellant was merely a name‑lender for his father, Pyarel

WORLD TANKER CARRIER CORPORATIONversusSNP SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

1998 INSC 18620 April 1998Appeal(s) allowed

World Tanker Carrier Corp (WTCC), a Liberian company, owned the vessel New World which collided on the high seas with the Cyprus‑registered vessel YA Mawlaya, resulting in deaths and damages. Various claimants filed suits in the United States, while SNP Shipping Services (an Indian company) and Kara Mara Shipping (Cypr

CHANAN LAL AND ORS.versusSMT. AZIZUNISHA

1990 INSC 14820 April 1990Dismissed

The respondent landlady filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises to continue her son’s tailoring business. The trial court upheld the claim, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the son’s business was poor a

USAMMAANTONY AND ANOTHERversusKARTHIYAYANI AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 97920 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing and demolishing the boundary fence of their property. The trial court decreed the injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and the first appellate court affirmed that decree. The High Court entertained a second appeal under

SHIVDEV KAUR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusR.S. GREWAL

2013 INSC 17720 March 2013Dismissed

Dr. Hira Singh's 1944 will granted his daughter Shivdev Kaur a life interest in a property. After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, Shivdev Kaur claimed that the life interest had crystallised into an absolute title under Section 14 of the Act. The lower courts held that the life interest remained restric

M/S. CENTURY TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD.versusDEEPAK JAIN & ANR.

2009 INSC 37620 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Century Textiles Industries Ltd. obtained a decree against M/s. Surya Trading Company, Proprietor D.K. Jain. In execution proceedings, Deepak Jain (respondent No.1) objected, claiming he was not the proprietor and thus not liable. The execution court, following a High Court revision order directing an inquiry into

C. ELUMALAI & ORS.versusA.G.L. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR.

2009 INSC 37820 March 2009Case Allowed

The Supreme Court entertained a contempt petition filed by C. Elumalai & Ors. alleging that the respondents, A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr., had willfully violated the Court's order dated 19 March 2007 which directed the Madras High Court to dispose of a suit within six months and refrain from creating any third‑party rights

PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusSMT. VILASINIBEN RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS.

2007 INSC 31920 March 2007Disposed off

Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a contempt petition against the State Government of Gujarat and its officers for refusing to implement the Supreme Court's 15 October 2004 order granting non‑agricultural (residential) permission over certain government lands. The petitioners alleged that the respondents deliberatel

PRABHAKARAN AND ORS.versusM. AZHAGIRIPILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 15520 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, heirs of the original mortgagor, sued the heirs of the mortgagee for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 7 September 1935 and for an account of income. The mortgagee had assigned the mortgage to an assignee on 12 February 1954, and the plaintiffs argued that this assignment deed was an acknowled

AJIT KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.versusCHIRANJIBI LAL AND ORS.

2002 INSC 15920 March 2002Disposed off

The appellants, tenants, were ordered to vacate premises under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. After the trial decree and a dismissed first appeal, they filed a second appeal in the Patna High Court, but neither they nor their counsel appeared at the hearing. The High Court nonetheless

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.versusKARAN SINGH BINAYAK AND ORS.

2002 INSC 16120 March 2002Dismissed

The State of West Bengal sought to revise a 1957 record of rights concerning land that had been leased to a paper mill, arguing that the land vested in the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The respondents, Karan Singh Binayak and others, had purchased the land and commenced construction after

VINOD SHARMA AND ORS.versusDIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [BASIC] U.P. AND ORS.

1998 INSC 14620 March 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, assistant teachers of the primary sections in a recognised junior high school in Uttar Pradesh, filed writ petitions seeking payment of their salaries under the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. The Allahabad High Court in 1991 directed tha

SHANKAR BALWANT LOKHANDEversusCHANDRAKANT SHANKER LOKHANDE

1995 INSC 18720 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The parties obtained a preliminary decree in a partition suit allocating a 1/6th share to the first respondent and a 5/6th share to the appellants. Although the court directed the preparation of a final decree in 1958, the final decree could not be engrossed because the appellants failed to supply non‑judicial stamps.

BASHIR AHMEDversusMEHMOOD HUSSAIN SHAH.

1995 INSC 18820 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an ejectment suit in 1988 which was repeatedly adjourned. On 8 August 1994, due to a lawyers' strike, the case was adjourned to 9 August 1994. The appellant's counsel fell ill and requested a short adjournment, offering to pay costs, but the trial court refused and ordered forfeiture of the appellan

A.A. SHIRDONE ETC.versusSAHEB H. TAJBHOKHARI

1985 INSC 6420 March 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff mortgagor filed five suits for redemption and actual possession of mortgaged land, contending that the mortgagees were not tenants and therefore could be evicted after redemption. The mortgagees argued that they were "deemed tenants" under Section 2A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 (as amended 1946) and t

GHANSHYAM DASS AND OTHERSversusDOMINION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1984 INSC 6220 March 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff's father, Seth Lachhman Dass Gupta, had a contract with the Government for supplying charcoal and, due to a price escalation clause, served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) demanding the higher price. He died before filing a suit, and his three sons filed the suit as his lega

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusSLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.

2019 INSC 24120 February 2019Dismissed

LMJ International Ltd. and Sleepwell Industries Ltd. entered into two separate contracts for the sale of Thai rice, governed by GAFTA 48 with disputes to be arbitrated under GAFTA 125 in London. Two foreign arbitral awards were rendered in favour of the respondent, who then filed execution petitions under Section 48 of

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OFversusNANDINI J. SHAH & ORS

2018 INSC 17820 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) sought eviction of several respondents from a licensed premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Estate Officer ordered eviction; the respondents appealed to the Appellate Officer, identified as the District Judge/Principal Judge

PRABHAKARA ADIGAversusGOWRI & ORS.

2017 INSC 15920 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff obtained a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his immovable property. The judgment‑debtor died shortly thereafter, and his heirs attempted to dispossess the plaintiff, prompting the plaintiff to file an execution petition. The issue before the Supreme Court was

SK. BHIKAN S/O SK NOOR MOHD.versusMEHAMOODABEE W/O SK. AFZAL & ORS.

2017 INSC 15720 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved a brother (appellant) and his sister (plaintiff) over ownership of a family property in Aurangabad. The sister claimed inheritance under Mohammedan law, while the brother asserted that the property was self‑acquired through a registered sale deed and adverse possession. The trial court dismissed th

M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusT. THANKAM

2015 INSC 14120 February 2015Disposed off

Sundaram Finance Ltd. filed a suit for injunction to restrain the repossession of a vehicle financed to T. Thankam. The loan agreement contained an arbitration clause (clause 22) and a repossession clause (clause 14.6). The respondent filed the injunction suit in a civil court; the appellant moved an application under

M/S. BHANDARI UDYOG LIMITEDversusINDUSTRIAL FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANR.

2015 INSC 14020 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Bhandari Udyog Ltd., a cotton ginning business in Raichur, Karnataka, sold 750 bales of cotton to Respondent No.2, a spinning mill in Latur, Maharashtra. A dispute over the unpaid balance was referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and an award was made directing payment. Responde

MATA PRASAD MATHUR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusJWALA PRASAD MATHUR & ORS.

2013 INSC 11320 February 2013Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, partition and injunction against several defendants, one of whom, Virendra Kumar, died without contesting the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit as abated for failure to substitute the deceased's legal representatives. On appeal, the first appellate court and the High

STATE OF ASSAMversusRIPA SARMA

2013 INSC 11420 February 2013Dismissed

The State of Assam filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging only the Gauhati High Court's order dismissing its review petition, without challenging the original judgment of the Writ Appeal dated 20 November 2007. The Court examined whether an SLP can be entertained when the

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