Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3,095 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1,001–1,200.

KALIAPERUMALversusRAJAGOPAL & ANR.

2009 INSC 22820 February 2009Dismissed

Kaliaperumal purchased immovable property from Rajagopal and others by a deed dated 26 June 1983, agreeing to pay Rs.43,000, of which Rs.40,000 was to be paid in the presence of the Sub‑Registrar at registration. The deed was registered on 26 October 1983, but the balance consideration was never tendered, and the vendo

K.V. RAMI REDDIversusPREMA

2008 INSC 22320 February 2008Dismissed

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance which was decided by a Seventh Assistant City Civil Judge on 24 March 1999. The judge recorded only an endorsement in the docket and did not fully dictate the judgment before signing, with the operative portion being dictated the next day. The respondent raised a rev

CHINTAMANI AMMALversusNANDAGOPAL GOUNDER AND ANR.

2007 INSC 17020 February 2007Dismissed

The appellant, Chintamani Ammal, claimed a share in agricultural land that was part of a joint Hindu family after her father, Kesava Gounder, died in 1943. She alleged that her father had expressed an intention to sever his joint family status before death, relying on oral testimony of her aunt. The trial court held th

ESCORTS FARMS LTD., PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. ESCORTS FARMS (RAM GARH) LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER, KUMAON DIVISION, NAINITAL, U.P. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 12220 February 2004Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the land‑holding of Escorts Farms Ltd., which occupied land released by the Uttar Pradesh government to the former ruler of Kashipur under a Government Grant and later became subject to the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The State initiated ceiling proceedings, decl

SUDHANGSHU MOHAN DEB (DEAD) BY LRS.versusNIRODA SUNDARI DEBIDHUP AND ORS

2004 INSC 12320 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sudhangshu Mohan Deb, claimed possession of land that had originally been settled in his predecessor's favour and later sold to him. After a decree granting him possession was set aside, the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 vested all estates in the notified area in the State Government, e

SMT. KAMESHWARI DEVI @ KALESHWARI DEVIversusSMT. BARHANI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

1997 INSC 17620 February 1997Dismissed

The appellant, Kameshwari Devi, was a minor when a partition suit (Suit No. 178/57) was filed in 1957 concerning the estate of her father, Bigan Kumhar. A court‑appointed guardian represented her, and the suit resulted in a decree granting a 1/42 share to each branch, based on a registered partition deed (Phatbandi). A

LAKHAN SAO (DECEASED) NOW THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRSversusDHARAMU CHAUDHARY

1991 INSC 5420 February 1991Dismissed

The plaintiff, heirs of the deceased Lakhan Sao, sued Dharamu Chaudhary for declaration of title and possession of land, relying on a 1964 sale deed and challenging an earlier 1959 deed as a sham transaction without consideration. The trial court and its first appeal upheld the plaintiff's title, but the High Court set

P.K. UNNIversusNIRMALA INDUSTRIES & ORS.

1990 INSC 4820 February 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal filed by the auction‑purchaser challenged a Madras High Court decision on the time limit for depositing money under Rule 89 of Order XXI of the CPC to set aside a sale of immovable property executed against a decree. The question was whether the deposit must be made within 30 days as prescribed by sub‑rule (

HARCHARAN SINGHversusSHIV RANI AND ORS.

1981 INSC 4320 February 1981Dismissed

Harcharan Singh, a tenant of a shop in a U.P. cantonment, failed to pay rent for 1965‑66. The landlord sent a combined notice of arrears and eviction by registered post on 9 November 1966, which the tenant refused to accept on 10 November. The landlord sued for eviction under the U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent & Evic

ARUNACHALA GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LRS.versusPONNUSAMY AND ORS.

2022 INSC 7420 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned a partition suit filed by the daughter of Ramasamy Gounder, who claimed a one‑fifth share in property that was originally purchased by his brother Marappa Gounder in 1938. The lower courts held that Marappa died in 1949, that the property was joint family property and thus devolved by survivorship

DESH RAJversusBALKISHAN (D) THROUGH PROPOSED LR MS. ROHINI

2020 INSC 5920 January 2020Disposed off

The appellant and respondent, brothers, entered into an agreement to sell one floor of their ancestral property, which the respondent later sought to enforce through a suit for specific performance. The appellant repeatedly failed to file a written statement within the timelines prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the C

LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS.versusRANGANATH & ORS.

2015 INSC 5420 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs owned a parcel of land (A schedule) that had been earmarked for a road but no road was ever constructed. They sold portions of the land to the first defendant, who later transferred it to the second and third defendants, who subsequently encroached on a portion of the A schedule land (B schedule). The tr

M/S H.D.F.C.versusGAUTAM KUMAR NAG & ORS.

2012 INSC 4820 January 2012

The appellant, HDFC, granted a loan to the borrower (defendant No.1) who executed a loan agreement, a promissory note and created an equitable mortgage. Two other defendants stood as guarantors and signed letters of guarantee. After the borrower defaulted, HDFC sued both the borrower and the guarantors, but the borrowe

HORILversusKESHAV & ANR.

2012 INSC 4620 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Horil filed a civil suit in the Munsif Court seeking a declaration that a decree passed by the Assistant Collector, a revenue officer, under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was fraudulent because it was based on a forged compromise petition. The respondents contended that the suit was barred by

JAI SINGH & ORS.versusGURMEJ SINGH

2009 INSC 4620 January 2009Dismissed

The vendor Bhartu sold a 20-kanal portion (400/3723 share) of a jointly held land to the appellants, Jai Singh & Ors. The respondent, co‑sharer Gurmej Singh, filed a suit for possession invoking pre‑emption under Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, claiming a superior right to purchase the land. The k

FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD. AND ANOTHERversusMINGUEL MARTINS AND OTHERS

2009 INSC 3920 January 2009Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the acquisition of land (survey Nos.803 and 804) by the State of Goa for a tourism development project undertaken by Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. The Court had to decide whether the acquisition fell under Section 40(1)(aa) or Section 40(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether

RAJ KUMARversusSARDARI LAL

2004 INSC 4120 January 2004Dismissed

During a suit concerning an immovable property, respondents 2 and 3 sold the suit property to respondent 4, who was unaware of the pending litigation. An ex‑parte decree was later passed against respondents 2 and 3. Respondent 4 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree and sought to be bro

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusKESHAV BAHADUR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 4420 January 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased was killed in a road accident and his sons filed a claim under Section 109 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The insurer’s policy limited third‑party liability to Rs 50,000 and the premium paid was Rs 240. The Motor Vehicles Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 72,000 with interest at 12% and a default rate

MIS. NEW KENILWORTH HOTEL (P) LTD.versusORISSA STATE FINANCE CORPORATION AND ORS.

1997 INSC 4120 January 1997Dismissed

M/s New Kenilworth Hotel filed a suit challenging actions of the Orissa State Finance Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and sought a permanent injunction to protect its possession of a hotel. The trial court granted a status‑quo order, which was later vacated by a single Judge of the O

DISTT. COUNCIL OF UNITED BASEL MISSION CHURCH & ORS.versusVADOR NICHOLAS MATHIAS & ORS.

1988 INSC 1920 January 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, members of the United Basel Mission Church (UBMC) of South Kanara and Coorg, sued to declare a 1961 resolution proposing merger with the Church of South India (CSI) void, illegal and ultra vires the UBMC Constitution and the Religious Societies Act, 1880. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Hig

HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD.versusAWAZ & ORS.

2024 INSC 104419 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a consumer complaint filed by two trusts on behalf of credit‑card users alleging that banks were charging exorbitant interest rates of 36%‑49% p.a., which the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had deemed an unfair trade practice and capped at 30% p.a. The Court held that

MALLAVVA AND ANRversusKALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.

2024 INSC 102119 December 2024

The deceased plaintiff originally filed a suit in 2011 for declaration of title and injunction over certain immovable properties, which the trial court dismissed despite finding her to be the absolute owner because she was not in possession. After her death, her legal heirs appealed and successfully amended the plaint

ABDUL REJAK LASKARversusMAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 102319 December 2024

The appellant, Abdul Rejak Laskar, purchased a share of land in 1977 but later faced forcible dispossession by the respondents. After a series of title suits and appeals, the appellant sought an imperfect partition of the land under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which was denied by the Additional Deputy

DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusPRITHVI RAJ SINGH

2024 INSC 103019 December 2024

The appellant, Dwarika Prasad, was unaware of an ex‑parte decree passed against him in 1994 because his former counsel failed to inform him. Upon learning of the decree, he filed a restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on 31‑Oct‑1994, explaining his ignorance and alleging fraud by his previous lawye

AMUTHAversusA.R. SUBRAMANIAN

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 75519 December 2024Dismissed

Amutha and A.R. Subramanian were married in 2002 but lived apart for more than fifteen years following a series of disputes, including the wife filing a false dowry harassment complaint against the husband. The husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which were initially rejected by the trial and

SANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 86619 December 2024Dismissed

The appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance which was referred to mediation under Section 89 of the CPC and settled amicably; he sought a full refund of the court fees paid, but the trial court allowed only a 50% refund. He challenged this in a writ petition, arguing that Section 16 of the Court Fees Act,

G. JAYASHREE & ORS.versusBHAGWANDAS S. PATEL & ORS.

2008 INSC 150119 December 2008Dismissed

The appellants (joint purchasers) entered into an agreement of sale with the respondents (vendors) for land development, which required the purchasers to obtain a layout plan. After disputes, one co‑purchaser entered into a compromise with the vendors, effectively rescinding his part of the contract. The remaining purc

MAHILA BAJRANGI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusBADRIBAI W/O JAGANNATH AND ANR.

2002 INSC 56419 December 2002Dismissed

Mahila Bajrangi, through her legal representatives, filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of a house, claiming ownership based on a gift deed executed by her mother Gopali, who she alleged was the lawful wife of the deceased Gendilal. The defendants contended that Gopali's marriage to Gendilal was invali

T.C. LIMITEDversusDEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

1997 INSC 83219 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The bank had issued letters of credit to the appellant (seller) for buyers, and the appellant drew funds despite alleged non‑shipment of cigarettes. The bank sued the buyers and the appellant for recovery of Rs 52,59,639.66. The appellant moved to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, claiming no cause of action

GANGABAI GOPALDAS MOHATAversusFULCHAND AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 152119 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata (appellant) owned Nazul land that was leased to several lessees. After a compromise decree required the lessees to vacate, the Municipal Council attached the property for alleged tax arrears and auctioned it. The court ordered that the sale would be cancelled if the appellant paid the arrears;

HAKIM ALI AND ANR.versusBOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AND ORS.

1990 INSC 39119 December 1990Dismissed

Badlu, the father of Hakim Ali, filed a suit under Section 229‑B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking a declaration of bhumidari rights. The suit was dismissed, but the Additional Commissioner reversed the decision, leading the respondent to file a second appeal before the Board of Revenue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHIversusBANSI DHAR & SONS

1985 INSC 25219 December 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) that received Rs.2,49,874 as insurance proceeds after the death of the Karta's father. The income from this amount was initially taxed in the Karta's personal assessment, but the Income Tax Officer later treated it as HUF income, leading to assessments for assessment yea

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusAMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.

2024 INSC 87519 November 2024Dismissed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Amin Lal, sued the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department for possession of land on the basis of revenue records, sale deeds and mutation entries. The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the State had not proved adverse possession. The State appealed and the fi

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 89019 November 2024Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed a High Court order that directed the original sale certificate of auction‑purchased property to be handed over to the purchaser and that the stamp duty deposited by the purchaser be refunded. The dispute arose from the liquidation of M/s Punjab United Forge Ltd., where M/s Ferrous Alloy For

G H ASHOK KUMAR KALRAversusWING CDR. SURENDRA AGNIHOTRI & ORS.

2019 INSC 126619 November 2019Reference answered

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and the defendant filed a written statement followed by a counter‑claim. The trial court allowed the counter‑claim, but the High Court quashed it, prompting a reference to the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. The Court held that Ru

A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPAversusSANGONDEPPA & ANR.

2013 INSC 75919 November 2013Disposed off

The appellant, A.M. Sangappa, challenged a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in a regular first appeal (RFA No. 238 of 2004). The issue was whether the High Court had complied with the procedural requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which obliges a court hearing a regular first appe

DALJIT KAUR AND ANR.versusMUKTAR STEELS PVT. LTD.

2013 INSC 76119 November 2013Dismissed

Daljit Kaur and Anr. filed a suit seeking declaration that certain agreements were industrial licences. During the suit the parties entered into a compromise, which the plaintiff later disputed. The trial court recorded the compromise and, after conducting an enquiry into its validity, passed a decree based on the comp

REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHANversusBANI KANT DAS AND ORS.

2010 INSC 79619 November 2010Case Allowed

The petitioner, Remdeo Chauhan, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor of Assam after a recommendation from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Relatives of the victims challenged the commutation, arguing that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction a

M/S. AHAD BROTHERSversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 65919 November 2004Disposed off

The appellant, Ahad Brothers, owned 16.81 acres that were acquired by the State of Madhya Pradesh under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and were awarded compensation treating them as owners. Unsatisfied with the compensation, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18, which the Reference Court rejected, finding

ASHAN DEVI AND ANRversusPHULWASI DEVI AND ORS.

2003 INSC 65219 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The decree holder obtained an ex‑parte decree for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning vacant land and executed the decree, taking possession through a court nazar. The objectors, who had earlier purchased the same land and had municipal mutation, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC alleging

HEERALALversusKALYANMAL AND ORS.

1997 INSC 74519 November 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a partition suit for ten immovable properties (Schedule A) and additional properties (Schedule B). The defendants, in their written statement, admitted that seven of the Schedule A properties were joint family assets and that the appellant was entitled to a one‑third share, while three were exclusiv

U.P. CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD.versusSINGH CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS (P) LTD.

1987 INSC 34119 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Ltd. (appellant), a state enterprise, contracted with Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. (respondent) to supply and install a vanaspati plant, requiring the respondent to furnish two irrevocable bank guarantees. The plant was not completed within the stipulated time, and the

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANERversusGORDHAN DASS (D) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS

2023 INSC 93519 October 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The case concerns three bighas of land in Bikaner purchased by Gordhan Dass and co‑owners in 1970, which the Urban Improvement Trust later claimed to have acquired under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The Trust issued acquisition notices to the original khatedars recorded in the revenue records but not to t

S. RAMACHANDRA RAOversusS. NAGABHUSHANA RAO & ORS.

2022 INSC 111419 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. Ramachandra Rao, sought to have his wife—who held a General Power of Attorney (GPA) for him and was also an enrolled advocate—appear in several civil suits as his GPA holder. The Trial Court allowed her to act in that capacity, but the High Court later set aside those orders and permitted her to appea

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HOSHIARPURversusPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

2010 INSC 70919 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Committee of Hoshiarpur obtained an electricity connection for a tubewell and was later served with a revised bill of Rs.82,300 without a show‑cause notice. The Committee challenged the bill in a civil suit, which was decreed in its favour by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. The

INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2009 INSC 118419 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., entered into a contract with the State of Rajasthan for laying a PSC pipeline, which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute led to arbitration, and the arbitrators awarded the appellant the claim along with interest for pre‑reference, pendente lite, and post‑award periods.

GURPREET SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA

2006 INSC 71219 October 2006Reference answered

Gurpreet Singh appealed against the Union of India challenging the applicability of the rule of appropriation in execution of award decrees under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984) and the entitlement to interest on solatium. The Court examined whether the normal CPC rule of appropriation (Or

BALDEV SINGHversusSHINDER PAL SINGH AND ANR.

2006 INSC 73919 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

In the Gram Panchayat election for Sarpanch, both candidates received 412 votes and the Returning Officer, after a draw of lots with written consent, declared Baldev Singh elected. The defeated candidate, Shinder Pal Singh, filed an election petition alleging irregularities, including a torn consent paper and improper

M/S BAY BERRY APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.versusSHOBHA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 74019 October 2006

The testator executed a 1932 Will granting his sons only a life interest in certain properties, with absolute succession to their heirs after death. In 1975 the son, then a minor at the time of the Will, and his own son sold the property to the appellants, although they possessed only a life interest. The daughters of

UNION OF INDIAversusB. VALLUVAN AND ORS.

2006 INSC 74119 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appointed a Selection Committee to fill three pharmacist vacancies in 1999 and, besides selecting three candidates for immediate appointment, prepared a list of 19 candidates for future vacancies. The panel was cancelled after the three posts were filled, but several aggrieved candidates filed a peti

RAMLAL AND ANR.versusPHAGUA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 50719 October 2005Dismissed

The plaintiff, Phagua, executed a sale deed in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi after obtaining a Rs.400 loan, simultaneously agreeing that the property would be reconveyed if the loan was repaid within three years. The loan was not repaid, Hasrat Bi's name was mutated in revenue records and she sold the land to the appellants

SASIKUMAR AND ORS.versusKUNNATH CHELLAPPAN NAIR AND ORS.

2005 INSC 51019 October 2005Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a Kerala High Court decision disposing a second appeal (No. 174/1990) without formulating any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellants argued that the High Court erred by not stating the legal question, while the respondents c

V. PURUSHOTHAM RAOversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 52619 October 2001Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals against the Delhi High Court’s cancellation of petrol pump, LPG and SKO dealership allotments made by the Minister of Petroleum under a discretionary quota. The Court held that the 1995 Supreme Court guidelines did not tacitly approve prior allotments, and that the principle of constr

VEERAYEE AMMALversusSEENI AMMAL

2001 INSC 52919 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant entered into a sale agreement for land where time was not stipulated as the essence. When the respondent failed to execute the sale deed, the appellant sued for specific performance. The trial court and the first appellate court both held that time was not essential, the appellant was ready to perform, an

BANSILAL AND ORS.versusMOHAMMAD ISRAIL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 53119 October 2001Dismissed

The mortgagor defaulted on two consecutive instalments under the Central Provinces and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1939. The creditor obtained a certificate under Section 13(3) of the Act, which the creditor claimed operated as a final decree for foreclosure, allowing immediate possession of the mortgaged propert

SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATIONversusPOWER MECH PROJECTS LTD.

2022 INSC 98119 September 2022Dismissed

The appellant SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corp. obtained an arbitral award of Rs 142 crore in favour of the respondent Power Mech Projects Ltd. The appellant filed a Section 34 challenge and, on the same day, a Section 36(2) application for a stay of the award. The respondent subsequently filed a Section 9 applic

ILLOTH VALAPPIL AMBUNHI (D) BY LRS.versusKUNHAMBU KARANAVAN

2019 INSC 105819 September 2019Dismissed

Raman Aithan Ashari executed a deed of gift in favour of the Chuzhali Bhagavathi Dharmadeva Bhandaram, an idol, stating that possession of the property was delivered. The deed was not expressly accepted, but the High Court held that the recital of possession created a presumption of acceptance, placing the burden on th

U.P.S.E.B. AND ANRversusSANT KABIR SAHAKARI KATAI MILLS LTD.

2005 INSC 42919 September 2005Disposed off

The Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB), a public sector undertaking, entered into supply agreements with several cooperative societies registered under the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Disputes arose over the rates charged and alleged failure to provide uninterrupted power, leading the All

A. VENKATASUBBIAH NAIDUversusS. CHELLAPPAN AND ORS.

2000 INSC 45019 September 2000Disposed off

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and simultaneously obtained an ex parte temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court’s order required the plaintiff to give notice and deliver documents to the opposite party as mandated by the proviso to Rule 3, bu

WESTERN INDIA PLYWOOD LTD.versusSHRI. P. ASHOKAN

1997 INSC 66319 September 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, an employee of Western India Plywood Ltd., suffered a hand amputation while at work and received disability benefits under the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948. He later sought permission to file a suit for additional compensation against his employer under tort law, but the trial court dismis

RAMJI SHARMA @ RAMJI BABU (DEAD) BY LRS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 108319 September 1996Dismissed

The appellants, co‑sharers of a parcel of land in the town of Hajipur, sought a re‑transfer of the land that had been sold to a third party under a registered deed. They invoked Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, which allows a co‑sharer or adjo

KUMUD LATA DASversusINDU PRASAD

1996 INSC 107619 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a daughter-in-law, was in possession of a property when her mother‑in‑law filed a suit for possession. The appellant was set ex parte and sought restoration of the decree. The Delhi High Court ordered that the appellant deposit mesne profits of Rs 2,000 per month from the date of the ex‑parte decree as a

SMT. KRISHNA RAJPAL BHATIA & ORS.versusMISS LEELA H. ADVANI & ORS.

1988 INSC 28819 September 1988Dismissed

The dispute arose from a 1964 agreement whereby the tenant‑co‑partner member of the Shyam Cooperative Housing Society, Smt. Devibai H. Advani, allowed Rajpal Bhatia to occupy her flat on a leave‑and‑licence basis. After the licence was terminated, Advani sought eviction of Bhatia under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Coo

COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIAversusUNITED INDUSTRIAL BANK

1983 INSC 12319 September 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The United Industrial Bank sued the Cotton Corporation of India seeking a declaration that the bank’s branch manager lacked authority to co‑accept usance bills and also obtained an interim injunction restraining the corporation from filing a winding‑up petition against the bank. The Bombay High Court’s Division Bench u

MAHESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR(S)versusBRIJESH KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 100519 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landlord, sued the tenants for possession and arrears of rent after they defaulted on a tenancy agreement dated 31 July 1970 for a parcel of land used to set up a petrol pump, a non‑agricultural purpose. The trial court dismissed the tenants' jurisdictional challenge and decreed in favour of the appell

K. PRABHAKAR HEGDEversusBANK OF BARODA

2025 INSC 99719 August 2025Disposed off

K. Prabhakar Hegde, a former officer of Vijaya Bank (later merged with Bank of Baroda), was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings for alleged irregularities in approving temporary overdrafts. He challenged the denial of the preliminary inquiry report, the failure of the Inquiry Officer to generally question him as r

HIRABAIversusHANUMANTH KRISHNAJI BHIDE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 90219 August 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, Hirabai, challenged the sale of her 8 acres of agricultural land that had been attached and sold under execution of a money decree. She argued that the proclamation of sale under Order 21 Rule 66 of the CPC was invalid because it did not contain a valuation of the property and alleged material irregular

SUBODH KUMAR GUPTAversusSHRIKANT GUPTA AND ORS.

1993 INSC 27019 August 1993Dismissed

The plaintiff, a partner in a firm whose head office was in Bombay and factory in Mandsaur, filed a suit in the Chandigarh Court seeking dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts, alleging that the firm had a branch office in Chandigarh. The defendants contended that the Chandigarh Court lacked territori

NANCY JOHN LYNDONversusPRABHATI LAL CHOWDHURY & ORS.

1987 INSC 21819 August 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant obtained a money decree against the judgment debtor and secured attachment of the debtor's land. While the attachment was in force, the debtor sold part of the land to a third party, who subsequently sold it to the respondents. The execution petition was dismissed for default, but was later restored on th

COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERSversusM/S. MOHANLAL AND COMPANY

2016 INSC 118719 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into a construction contract containing an arbitration clause, and an award was rendered on 11 November 2010. The respondent later filed a Section 11 application in the High Court seeking appointment of an arbitrator, claiming the clause was invalid; the application was dismissed. Subsequently, on 2

ANITA KUSHWAHAversusPUSHAP SUDAN

2016 INSC 118619 July 2016Directions issued

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether it can transfer civil or criminal proceedings pending in any court of Jammu and Kashmir to a court outside the State and vice‑versa, despite the fact that Sections 25 of the CPC and 406 of the CrPC do not apply to Jammu and Kashmir and the State codes contain no such provis

R.J. SHAH AND CO.versusH.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

2007 INSC 76719 July 2007Disposed off

R.J. Shah appealed to the Himachal Pradesh High Court against a judgment of a single judge of that court, invoking the Letters Patent of the former Lahore High Court under Clause 9/10. The High Court held that the Lahore Letters Patent did not apply to Himachal Pradesh, that no appeal under those clauses was maintainab

A.A. GOPALAKRISHNANversusCOCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD AND ORS.

2007 INSC 76419 July 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The land of Survey No. 1042/2, belonging to the Karikkode Sastha and Vishnu Temple managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, was alleged to be encroached upon by respondents 3 and 4. The High Court directed the Board to take possession and allowed the encroachers to sue for title, which they did, later entering into a comp

KUNHAYAMMED AND ORSversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2000 INSC 33919 July 2000Dismissed

The Kerala Forest Tribunal held that a 1,020‑acre tract of private forest did not vest in the Government. The State of Kerala appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on 17‑Dec‑1982. No statutory remedy of appeal, revision or review was then available, so the State filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) und

SH. BAKSHI RAM AND ORS.versusSH. BRIJ LAL

1994 INSC 26919 July 1994Appeal(s) allowed

Sunder, owner of joint family property, gifted part of his land to Brij Lal. Remote reversioners (the appellants) challenged the gift and a suit was compromised, granting them a one‑eighth share after Sunder's death. After Sunder died in 1964, the appellants sued to enforce the compromise decree, but Brij Lal contended

RAMCHANDRA PANDURANG SONAR (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ORS.versusMURLIDHAR RAMCHANDRA SONAR AND ORS.

1990 INSC 20719 July 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a son of Ramchandra, claimed that Survey No.71, allotted to his father in a 1918 partition, was ancestral joint‑family property and that other suit properties were bought with its income. The defendants, other children of Ramchandra, contended that those properties were self‑acquired from the gold‑smithi

RATAN LAL ADUKIA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA

1989 INSC 20619 July 1989Dismissed

The appellants filed two suits in Alipore and Calcutta Small Causes Courts seeking compensation for short delivery of goods booked with the Indian Railways. The Union of India contended that, under Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (as amended in 1961), the trial courts lacked jurisdiction, arguing that the p

RAJAT KUMAR AND OTHERSversusS D ADARSH JAIN KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SADHAURA AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 64819 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The original plaintiff sued the school for illegal encroachment, seeking a mandatory injunction to remove a wall and a lintel that obstructed light, air and water flow. The trial courts granted the injunctions, and the first appellate court affirmed those decrees. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, however, set aside the

ALLOKAM PEDDABBAYYA AND ANOTHERversusALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 48119 June 2017Dismissed

Allokam Peddabbayya and another bought a property in 1985 that was under an equitable mortgage created in 1979 by Defendants 3 and 4 in favour of Allahabad Bank. The bank foreclosed on the loan, obtained a decree in 1991 and the property was auctioned in 1993, with a sale certificate issued to the auction purchaser (De

SMT. SHAIFALI GUPTAversusSMT. VIDYA DEVI GUPTA & ORS.

2025 INSC 73919 May 2025

The mother and younger son filed a suit for partition, possession, declaration, injunction and accounting of properties claimed to be Joint Hindu Family assets against the elder son, his wife and other family members. The elder son’s wife (defendant No.2) and subsequent purchasers (defendants No.5 and 6) sought to have

SENTHIBALAJI VversusA.P. GEETHA AND ORS

2023 INSC 57119 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a duly elected MLA, challenged an election petition filed by the first respondent that alleged improper acceptance of his nomination papers and corrupt practices. The petition relied on representations to the Returning Officer and alleged misuse of government vehicles and suppression of Election Commissi

CANARA BANKversusG S JAYARAMA

2022 INSC 59719 May 2022Disposed off

The appeal concerned an award of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) that had granted Canara Bank repayment of a loan from G S Jayarama without any recorded conciliation. The High Court had set aside the award, holding that the PLA lacked adjudicatory power and had bypassed mandatory conciliation steps. The Supreme Court exam

KAVITA KANWARversusMRS. PAMELA MEHTA & ORS.

2020 INSC 39719 May 2020Dismissed

The appellant, the younger daughter of Smt. Amarjeet Mamik, sought probate of a 2003 Will that left the entire immovable property to her, while excluding her brother and elder sister. The Trial Court and the Delhi High Court rejected the probate petition, finding numerous unexplained suspicious circumstances, including

YOMESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR BHATTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2011 INSC 40619 May 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly setting a maid on fire by pouring kerosene on her, leading to her death. The prosecution's case relied on the victim's multiple dying declarations and circumstantial evidence, as there were no eye‑witnesses. The appellant contended that the Supreme Court,

DOLLY RANIversusMANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL

2024 INSC 35519 April 2024Disposed off

The petitioners, both commercial pilots, claimed to have "solemnised" their marriage on 7 July 2021 and obtained a marriage certificate from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti, which was later used to register the marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. In reality, no Hindu rites or saptapadi were perfo

NEMAI CHANDRA DEY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusPRASANTA CHANDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

2022 INSC 43319 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a pardahnashin lady, sued to declare two gift deeds as void, alleging she was misled into executing them under the impression of a power of attorney. The trial court, after reappreciating the evidence, declared the deeds void and decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The first appellate court dismissed the

KALYAN DEY CHOWDHURYversusRITA DEY CHOWDHURY NEE NANDY

2017 INSC 37019 April 2017Case Partly allowed

The husband Kalyan Dey Chowdhury and his wife Rita Dey Chowdhury (née Nandy) were married in 1995 and later divorced. The wife sought permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was initially set at Rs.16,000 per month in 2015. The husband’s net salary rose from Rs.63,842 to Rs.95,000, prompting

MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHYversusSYED JALAL

2017 INSC 36619 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy filed a suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed, alleging that the land was Wakf property. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, which the Wakf Tribunal allowed, finding the suit meritless and barred. The High Court set asid

MESSER HOLDINGS LTD.versusSHYAM MADANMOHAN RUIA & OTHERS

2016 INSC 32619 April 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined multiple Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) arising from a protracted dispute over the acquisition and transfer of shares in Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd. The dispute involved Messer Holdings GmbH (MGG), Goyal Gases Ltd (GGL), the Ruia family (RUIAS) and a joint venture company Messer Holdings L

STATE OF A.P.versusHYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT. LTD & ANR.

2010 INSC 22319 April 2010Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 seeking a declaration that Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. and another were land grabbers of a 17,786.5‑sq‑metre parcel. The respondents asserted that they had purchased the land in 1946, posses

R.N. DEY AND ORS.versusBHAGYABATI PRAMENIK AND ORS.

2000 INSC 22919 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal, having acquired land under the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, was ordered by a Land Acquisition Judge to pay compensation to certain claimants. The State later discovered that the claimants had no title to the land and sought to vacate the interim payment order of the Calcutta High Court. The

MST. KARTAR KAURversusAJMER SINGH

1996 INSC 55319 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Kartar Kaur, the widow of the deceased Ranjit Singh, sued his son Ajmer Singh for declaration and possession of a suit property situated in the former PEPSU area. The son claimed sole inheritance under local custom, while the widow asserted a special custom allowing a widow to inherit alongside the son and relied on th

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. JAIN ASSOCIATES AND ANR.

1994 INSC 16119 April 1994

The Union of India entered into a construction contract with M/s. Jain Associates, which was later terminated for non‑completion. The contractor claimed Rs 37,37,885 and the Union counter‑claimed Rs 9,49,701. An umpire under the Arbitration Act, 1940 awarded the contractor Rs 24,10,330, granting interest up to the date

OTHAYATH LEKSHMY AND ANR.versusNELLACHINKUNIYIL GOVINDAN NAIR AND ORS.

1990 INSC 14419 April 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Othayath Lekshmy and others, were tenants who were dispossessed of their land after 1 April 1964 when the holding was sold at a court auction for arrears of rent. They filed an execution application under Section 13(B) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, seeking restoration of possession,

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEERversusM/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 19419 March 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when those appeals are governed by Articles 116, 117 of the Limitation Act or by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It overruled th

NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusJAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS.

2020 INSC 31519 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of land leased for 20 years to the respondent, sought possession after the lease was deemed terminated for non‑payment of rent and after part of the land was de‑notified following acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent claimed a share of compensation for the unexpired lease te

SHYAM SAHNIversusARJUN PRAKASH AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 31919 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Shyam Sahni filed a civil suit seeking declaration, possession, injunction and partition of property inherited from his mother. Respondent No.1 (Arjun Prakash) and his father created an equitable mortgage on the property to secure a bank loan and repeatedly failed to honour undertakings to clear the charge, leading to

SUSHIL K. CHAKRAVARTY (D) THR. LRS.versusM/S. TEJ PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.

2013 INSC 17419 March 2013Dismissed

The case concerned two cross suits between Sushil K. Chakravarty (deceased) and M/s Tej Properties Pvt. Ltd. over an agreement to sell agricultural land. The sole defendant died during the pendency of the suit, and the Delhi High Court proceeded ex‑parte without impleading his legal heirs, invoking Order XXII Rule 4(4)

MATHAI @ JOBYversusGEORGE & ANR.

2010 INSC 15819 March 2010Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioner, a defendant in a suit concerning the genuineness of a will, sought a second forensic opinion after being dissatisfied with the first report; the trial court rejected this request and the High Court dismissed his writ petition. He filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution

M/S. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusBALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

2007 INSC 30719 March 2007Dismissed

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Ltd sought to restrain Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd from establishing a sugar mill within 15 km of its proposed unit, as mandated by a Ministry of Industries directive. The suit was filed against the Union of India and its authorities, necessitating an application under Section 80(2) of

SUBHASH MAHADEVASA HABIBversusNEMASA AMBASA DHARMADAS (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2007 INSC 30919 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved three properties allotted to a Hindu joint‑family member (defendant No.2) who mortgaged them and later sold the equity of redemption to the appellant, Habib. The wife and minor sons of defendant No.2 challenged the sale, but the trial court upheld it and the decree became final. Subsequent suits quest

GANPAT ROY AND OTHERS ETC.versusTHE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS ETC.

1985 INSC 6219 March 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two civil appeals filed by tenants (Ganpat Roy and others) who challenged orders notifying a "deemed vacancy" of their non‑residential premises under Section 12(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The tenants argued that the District M

SURESH CHAND AND ANR.versusSURESH CHANDER (D) THR LRS. AND ORS.

2020 INSC 21219 February 2020Disposed off

The appeal concerned a dispute over a courtyard shared by two brothers, Beni Prasad (BP) and Kirorilal, who were joint owners of the amenity. Kirorilal sold his share to Devicharan (DC), who also claimed a right of pre-emption under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966. The central issue was whether BP's pre-emption rig

AGRA DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusANIL DAVID AND ORS.

2020 INSC 21019 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Agra Diocesan Trust Association, filed two suits for cancellation of a sale deed and permanent injunction. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had undervalued the suits and paid insufficient court fee under the Uttar Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1870. The trial court held the suits were undervalued and t

SURAT SINGH (DEAD)versusSIRI BHAGWAN & ORS.

2018 INSC 17019 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC by Siri Bhagwan against a decree favoring Murti Devi's heirs. The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the appeal without hearing the contesting respondent (Surat Singh, appellant No.4) and framed the substantial question of law only in its fi

MAYA DEVIversusLALTA PRASAD

2014 INSC 11619 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Maya Devi, filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 58 to execution proceedings initiated by the decree holder, Lalta Prasad, who had obtained an ex‑parte money decree for Rs 3.40 lakh based on an alleged agreement for sale dated 3 Nov 2003 between him and the judgment debtor, Prem Chand Verma. Maya Devi

N. SRIHARI (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusN. PRAKASH & ORS.

2008 INSC 21619 February 2008Disposed off

The case concerned a dispute over land bequeathed by N. Saya Goud in a will dated 2 January 1956. The plaintiffs claimed title based on that earliest will, while the defendants argued that the original will had not been produced before the trial court and the High Court, which relied on secondary evidence. Both lower c

N. SRIHARI (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusN. PRAKASH & ORS.

2008 INSC 22119 February 2008Disposed off

The case concerned a dispute over land bequeathed by N. Saya Goud in a will dated 2 January 1956. The plaintiffs claimed title based on that earliest will, while the defendants argued that the original will had not been produced before the trial court and the High Court, which relied on secondary evidence. Both lower c

G. CHRISTHUDAS AND ANR.versusANBIAH (DEAD) AND ORS.

2003 INSC 11019 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

A suit filed in 1960 for declaration of church properties was dismissed, and plaintiffs 1, 3 and 5 appealed while plaintiff 4 did not join. During the pendency of the appeal all appellants died. The legal heirs of appellant 4 applied to be impleaded as representatives and to set aside the abatement, but the High Court

TAYABHAI M. BAGASARWALLA AND ANR.versusHIND RUBBER INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. ETC.

1997 INSC 15619 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (appellant) sought a perpetual injunction against the tenant (defendant) to stop any construction on a building that had been destroyed by fire, claiming the tenancy had ended. The City Civil Court granted an interim injunction and later found it had jurisdiction, subsequently punishing the tenant for cont

S.S. DAYANANDAversusK.S. NAGESH RAO AND ORS.

1997 INSC 16219 February 1997Dismissed

The respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 3,825.85 and his property was sold on December 18, 1978; the petitioner bought it for Rs. 67,000. The respondent filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the CPC to set aside the sale, which the executing court dismissed. On appeal, the appellate court set aside the sale

K. VENKATA SESHIAHversusKANDURU RAMASUBBAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS.

1991 INSC 5319 February 1991Disposed off

The petition involved a dispute over the property of a deceased adoptive mother between the adoptive son K.V. Seshiah and his two sons, each claiming rights under different wills. The parties executed a compromise on 21 August 1987, whereby Seshiah agreed to pay each son Rs.1 lakh in exchange for relinquishing their in

HIRALAL KAPURversusPRABHU CHOUDHURY

1988 INSC 4819 February 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, an advocate, orally let a part of his residential premises comprising servants' quarters and a ground‑floor hall to the tenant for Rs 600 per month, with rent thereafter paid by two cheques—Rs 250 by the tenant and Rs 350 by a trust (Balkunj) of which the tenant was secretary. The landlord sought eviction

COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG & ANR.versusMST. KATIJI & ORS.

1987 INSC 5419 February 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jammu & Kashmir appealed a High Court order that enhanced compensation for land acquired for public purpose, increasing the award from Rs 1,000 to Rs 8,000 per kanal. The High Court dismissed the appeal as time‑barred, being four days late, and rejected the State's application for condonation of delay. On

G H BAJRANGA (DEAD) BY LRS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2021 INSC 2619 January 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, BAJRANGA (deceased) represented by legal heirs, challenged the State of Madhya Pradesh's declaration of his agricultural land as surplus under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. He argued that a portion of the land had been decreed in favour of his mother‑in‑law, Jenobai, in a

MANISH KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 2819 January 2021Dismissed

The petitioners challenged Sections 3, 4, and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, which introduced threshold requirements for allottees and certain financial creditors to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), clarified that a corporate debtor can initiate CIRP against anot

VENIGALLA KOTESWARAMMAversusMALEMPATI SURYAMBA & ORS.

2021 INSC 2719 January 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Venigalla Koteswaramma, filed a suit for partition of her step‑mother Annapurnamma's properties, alleging that her siblings were co‑sharers and that defendant 4 had fraudulently obtained thumb impressions to execute a sale agreement and a will. The trial court held that both the alleged will (Ex. B‑9) an

V.NARAYANASWAMYversusC.P. THIRUNAVUKKARASU

2000 INSC 2419 January 2000Dismissed

The appellant, a defeated candidate, filed an election petition challenging the Rajya Sabha election of the respondent on alleged corrupt practices, including bribery, undue influence, and the appointment of party‑affiliated persons to state corporations. The petition was found to lack material facts, material particul

MUSKAN ENTERPRISES & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2024 INSC 104618 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.74,00,000, with the Sessions Court directing a 20% deposit of that amount. They challenged the deposit condition through a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which the High C

RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA

2024 INSC 101418 December 2024Disposed off

The petitioner-wife Rinku Baheti filed a transfer petition seeking to move a pending divorce suit to the Pune Family Court and opposed the respondent-husband Sandesh Sharda's application under Article 142(1) for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The parties had a brief marriage o

GEETA DUBEY & ORS.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 65218 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The claimants, wife and son of the deceased Chakradhar Dubey, filed a motor accident claim after he was injured and later died following a collision between his car and a truck (MP-19-HA-1197). The First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 50,41,289 against the truck driver and

ANIL S/O JAGANNATH RANA AND OTHERSversusRAJENDRA S/O RADHAKISHAN RANA AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 89318 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The parties were partners in a firm and a civil suit was filed concerning partnership property. The partnership deed contained an arbitration clause, but the civil court, after hearing the parties, held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and declined to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Ar

PRITHIPAL SINGHversusSATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.

2009 INSC 132118 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant applied for leave to contest the eviction after an eight‑day delay, which the Additional Rent Controller rejected, leading to an eviction order. The tenant later sought to set aside that order using Order 9 Ru

G. SURYAKUMARI & ANR.versusB. CHANDRAMOULI & ORS.

2009 INSC 132218 December 2009Dismissed

The plaintiffs, G. Suryakumari and others, sued B. Chandramouli and others for a perpetual injunction to prevent interference with their possession of a 1,200‑sq‑yard plot purchased from Gramodyog Cooperative Housing Society. The defendants claimed ownership of a 382‑sq‑yard portion of the same land, alleging purchase

C. CHERIATHANversusP. NARAYANAN EMBRANTHIRI

2008 INSC 148318 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a deed dated 27‑10‑1969 in which the vendor transferred his one‑half leasehold interest to the vendee with a stipulation that he could repurchase the property within three years. The central issue was whether the instrument constituted an absolute conveyance with a condition of repurchase (a

KOPARGAON S.S.K. LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2008 INSC 148618 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a liquor manufacturer, challenged the State's demand for supervision charges with retrospective effect and interest, arguing that a prior High Court decision had already settled the issue. The High Court dismissed the later writ petition, holding that the demand notices were illegal. The Supreme Court ex

M/S. MALWA STRIPS PVT. LTD.versusM/S. JYOTI LTD.

2008 INSC 148918 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Malwa Strips Pvt Ltd filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC against M/s Jyoti Ltd for a sum of money. The trial court granted conditional leave to defend, requiring the respondent to deposit an admitted amount, which the respondent failed to do, leading to a decree in favour of the appellant. The respondent ap

STATE OF M.P.versusMANGI LAL SHARMA

1997 INSC 82918 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Mangi Lal Sharma, a clerk in the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department, resigned after a denied transfer request and remained absent for over five years, leading the State to treat his service as terminated. He filed a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for a declaration that he remained in service, and th

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ORS.versusPRAKASH CHANDRA ARYA

1996 INSC 151018 December 1996Disposed off

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. and others appealed against a decree appointing a Receiver over premises occupied by the respondent, Prakash Chandra Arya. The Calcutta High Court Division Bench had declined to interfere with the single judge’s order appointing the Receiver. The Supreme Court, exercising its special l

E. MAHBOOB SAHEBversusN. SUBBARAYAN CHOWDHARY & ORS.

1981 INSC 20818 December 1981Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, daughter of Moola Narayanaswamy, claimed ownership of a half share in a property sold in insolvency proceedings and alleged a partition in 1952 that allotted her the southern half. The first defendant, Nagappa, contested, alleging the transactions were benami and that no partition occurred. The trial cou

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusM/S SEW CONSTRUCTION LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 121718 November 2022Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh awarded a contract to M/S Sew Construction for a masonry dam, but the original sand quarry became depleted, prompting the contractor to seek an alternate quarry. The contract’s clause 3.11(A) allowed escalation of rates only if the circumstance was beyond the contractor’s control and a writt

SHAIKH SALIM HAJI ABDUL KHAYUMSABversusKUMAR AND ORS.

2005 INSC 57818 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

In a civil suit for partition, the defendants were required to file a written statement within 30 days, with a possible extension up to 90 days under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC. The trial court, however, granted an extension till 19‑Feb‑2004, which fell beyond the 90‑day limit, and the defendants filed the statement

AMEER TRADING CORPORATION LTD.versusSHAPOORJI DATA PROCESSING LTD.

2003 INSC 63618 November 2003Dismissed

The respondent filed a suit for eviction in the Small Causes Court and submitted an affidavit as his examination‑in‑chief under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The appellant objected, contending that because the decree was appealable, Order 18 Rule 5 should apply and the evidence should be taken o

REKHA MUKHERJEEversusASHISH KUMAR DAS AND ANR.

2003 INSC 63718 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (appellant) obtained a decree for eviction against the tenants (respondents) who simultaneously filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The Supreme Court dismissed the respondents' Special Leave Petition on the condition that the appellant would not execute the eviction decree until the

M/S BENGAL WATERPROOF LIMITEDversusMIS BOMBAY WATERPROOF MANUFACTURING CO. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 132118 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Bengal Waterproof Ltd., holder of the registered trademark ‘Duck Back’, sued Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Co. for infringement and passing off. The first suit (1980) was dismissed, and a second suit (1982) was filed alleging continuous infringement after the first suit. The trial court and High Court held the second

BRIG. SAWAI BHAWANI SINGHversusM/S. INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD.

1996 INSC 132818 November 1996Dismissed

The respondents, Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., claimed they were in possession of a hotel property under an agreement and sought a perpetual injunction to prevent the appellant, Brig. Sawai Bhabwan Singh, from interfering with their possession. The appellant, asserting exclusive ownership, applied for the appointment of a re

PRAKASH CHANDER MANCHANDA AND ANR.versusSMT. JANKI MANCHANDA

1986 INSC 24018 November 1986Appeal(s) allowed

In a suit where the defendant failed to appear for his evidence despite multiple adjournments, the trial court closed the defendant's evidence and passed a decree ex parte. The defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the decree, claiming he learned of it only later.

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.versusDELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

2022 INSC 110518 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., distribution licensees in Delhi, challenged the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (DERC) tariff orders that altered the methodology for computing AT&C losses, depreciation, FR/SR salaries, fringe benefit tax, and interest on consumer security deposits during

S. P. MISRA & ORS.versusMOHD. LAIQUDDIN KHAN & ANR.

2019 INSC 116318 October 2019Dismissed

The appellants, legal heirs of the late partner Jai Narayan Misra, sought execution of a 1993 decree against the respondents, heirs of the late partner Hashmatunnisa Begum, arising from a partnership for real‑estate development in Paigah Compound. The decree restrained the respondents from developing a disputed portion

RAJENDER BANSAL & ORS.versusBHURU (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2016 INSC 97218 October 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords filed a civil suit for eviction of tenants occupying a shop in a rural area of Haryana, which at the time of filing was not covered by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. While the suit was pending, a municipal notification brought the area within the urban sweep, thereby subjectin

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.versusBALKARAN SINGH

2006 INSC 70918 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Three officers of the Punjab Agricultural Department filed suits in 1993 seeking a declaration that an endorsement dated 13‑Mar‑1980, which fixed their pay at Rs.940‑1850, was illegal and that they were entitled to the higher Deputy Director scale of Rs.1200‑1850, along with arrears and seniority adjustments. The suits

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusRAVINDRA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 52018 October 2001Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "the principal sum adjudged" and "such principal sum" in Section 34(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the context of bank loans that allow interest to be capitalised on periodical rests. It held that, subject to the contract or established banking practice, interest t

SIDDALINGAMMA AND ANR.versusMAMTHA SHENOY

2001 INSC 52118 October 2001Leave Granted & Allowed

The landlady (appellant No.1) sought eviction of her tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, initially on the ground that her husband required treatment in Bangalore. During the pendency of the suit the husband died, and the landlady amended the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC t

DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMYversusRAMAKRISHNA HEGDE

1989 INSC 31218 October 1989Case Allowed

Ramakrishna Hegde filed a defamation suit in the Bombay High Court against Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, seeking Rs 1 crore in damages for alleged defamatory statements made at a Delhi press conference. Swamy petitioned the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the suit to the City Civi

B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR.versusD. SARALA & ANR.

2020 INSC 55618 September 2020Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the vendor, upholding the lower courts' decree that the vendee was entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement for the remaining 200 square yards of land after the vendor had already conveyed 100 square yards to a third party. The court found that the vendee h

M/S TECNIMONT PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

2019 INSC 105418 September 2019Disposed off

The Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 requires a 25% pre‑deposit of the additional demand before a first appeal can be entertained under Section 62(5). Assessors, including Punjab State Power Corporation, filed appeals and sought waiver of this requirement on grounds of financial hardship, challenging the provision as o

DAGDU KHOMANE AND ANOTHERversusEKNATH BHIKU YADAV & ORS.

2019 INSC 105218 September 2019Dismissed

The dispute concerned six acres of land belonging to the Maruti Dev Temple, which had been let out to tenants who, on Tillers' Day (1 April 1957), became deemed purchasers under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The temple trust was registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public T

BHUPINDER SINGHversusJOGINDER SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 105318 September 2019Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a scheme for the management of a Gurudwara, alleging it to be a public place of worship. The appellant‑defendant contended that the Gurudwara was private property owned by his father, a Mohtmim, and argued that the suit was not maintain

RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIAversusSHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 67318 September 2015Case Partly allowed

The case arose from a partition suit filed in 1978 where defendants No.5 and No.12, in their 1979 written statements, admitted that they had no right, title or interest in the family property, having renounced any claim. After about 25 years they sought to amend their written statements to withdraw those admissions, an

BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD.versusPRAMILA SANFUI AND ORS.

2015 INSC 67418 September 2015Disposed off

The West Bengal Housing Board (appellant) purchased a 20.184‑acre plot from the legal heirs of late Gangadas Pal, who were intermediaries under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The heirs had earlier been parties to a partition suit (Title Suit No. 121 of 1962) that was later amended to include the plot, a

SHANTI DEVI & OTHERSversusKAUSHALIYA DEVI

2015 INSC 102318 September 2015Disposed off

Ram Narayan filed a suit in 1966 which ultimately led to Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1987. The appellant died in 1994 and, because no substitution was filed within the 90‑day period prescribed by Rule 3 of Order XXII CPC and Article 120 of the Limitation Act, the appeal abated and was dismissed in default in 1997. After el

RAM SUKHversusDINESH AGGARWAL

2009 INSC 116018 September 2009Dismissed

Ram Sukh, a losing candidate in the 2007 Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly election, filed an election petition challenging the election of Dinesh Aggarwal on grounds of alleged corrupt practices and procedural lapses by the Returning Officer. The High Court dismissed the petition at the preliminary stage, holding that

SHRI MUNDRI LALversusSMT. SUSHILA RANI AND ANR.

2007 INSC 95218 September 2007Dismissed

The tenant, Shri Mundri Lal, challenged an eviction suit filed by his landlord, Smt. Sushila Rani, under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, contending that the premises were a "new construction" and therefore exempt under Section 2(2) of the Act. The trial court held

SMT. SHANTI RANI DAS DEWANJEEversusDINESH CHANDRA DAY (DEAD) BY LRS.

1997 INSC 66218 September 1997Dismissed

The appellant challenged a lower court order that rejected her claim that filing a counter‑claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure after the written statement was barred. The suit (Civil Case No. 248/82) was instituted on 15‑July‑1982 and the application for a counter‑claim was filed on 22‑June‑19

GHANTESHER GHOSHversusMADAN MOHAN GHOSH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 107118 September 1996Disposed off

The case concerned a residential dwelling house owned by an undivided family. After a partition suit, the widow of a deceased co‑owner obtained a final decree for her one‑third share and later gifted that share to her brother, a stranger to the family, who filed an execution petition. During execution, the legal heir o

UNITED BANK OF INDIAversusSH. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 107318 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

United Bank of India filed a suit to recover a loan advanced to the respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint was not signed and verified by a competent person. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a company may authorize an officer or ratify the signing of pleadings under O

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMAHAVIR HOUSING CO-OP., SOCIETY, JAIPUR ETC.

1996 INSC 106918 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Jaipur Development Authority acquired land for an urban development scheme under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation of Rs 5,000 per bigha to Jai Ambe Co‑op Housing Society and Rs 7,500 per bigha to Mahavir Co‑op Housing Society. The civil court enha

MOHAMMAD MAHIBULLA AND ANRversusSETH CHAMAN LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

1991 INSC 24218 September 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The Wakf Board filed a suit for declaration of a right of passage, which was dismissed by the trial court, leading it to file a title appeal before the District Judge. Although an exemption allowed a nominal court fee of Rs.15 on the plaint, the memorandum of appeal required a fee of Rs.638, of which only Rs.15 was pai

EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusHIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 74818 August 2023Disposed off

Experion Developers, the builder of the Windchants housing project, increased the sale area of apartments and demanded extra payment from the allottees. The allottees (respondents) filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund of the excess amount, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ordered t

S. MADHUSUDHAN REDDYversusV. NARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 84618 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two successive review petitions filed by the respondents seeking to overturn a High Court judgment that upheld the surrender of protected tenancy rights in 1967. The Court held that the respondents had ample opportunities to produce the certified revenue records earlier and failed to demonstr

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.versusM/S. EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANR.

2011 INSC 59218 August 2011Disposed off

The buyer placed a purchase order for Syrian rock phosphate and obtained an irrevocable letter of credit (LC) from State Bank of India (issuing bank) in favour of the seller. The seller presented documents to the negotiating bank, which forwarded them to the issuing bank; the bank flagged discrepancies and refused paym

D.V. PAULversusMANISHA LALWANI

2010 INSC 52818 August 2010Disposed off

The tenant, D.V. Paul, was ordered by the High Court to deposit Rs.10,000 in the trial court as compensation, failing which an eviction decree would follow. He mistakenly sent a demand draft directly to the landlord instead of depositing it in court, and later sought an extension of time to make the proper deposit. The

DYANESHWAR RAMACHANDRA RAO PATANGEversusBHAGIRATHIBAI

2006 INSC 51918 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a sister of the deceased brother, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning a house. The deceased had died leaving three sisters and his second wife, who had not remarried. The trial court upheld the suit, but the first appellate court held the plaintiff was not competent to su

MANALAL PRABHUDAYALversusORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

2006 INSC 52218 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The partnership firm Manalal Prabhudayal, insured with Oriental Insurance, suffered loss due to communal riots and claimed Rs.1,93,075. The arbitrator awarded the claim with interest at 12% per annum for the pre‑reference period, pendente lite and post‑award period, and the award was made a rule of the court. The High

SHRI PANCH NAGAR PARAKH MANDSAURversusPURUSHOTTAM DAS

1999 INSC 33918 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a suit filed in 1968 for redemption of a mortgage executed in 1934 over agricultural land in Mandsaur. The Court held that the suit was time‑barred under Section 275 of the Qanoon Ryotwari Gwalior State Act, which provides a three‑year limitation for redemption suits. It further observed that

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD.versusHINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.

1999 INSC 34018 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two appeals arising from an order of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission that restrained Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. from using the phrase "Suraksha Chakra" in its Colgate Dental Cream advertisements. The Commission had granted a temporary injunction under Sectio

M/S STYLE (DRESS LAND) ETC. ETC.versusUNION TERRITORY,CHANDIGARH AND ANR.

1999 INSC 34118 August 1999Case Partly allowed

The appellants, shop‑keepers leasing commercial premises in Chandigarh, challenged a steep increase in rent from Rs.2,671 to Rs.14,000 per month, arguing that the Union Territory lacked jurisdiction because the Central Government had not framed rules under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. T

RAM PRASAD RAJAKversusNANO KUMAR AND BROS. AND ANR.

1998 INSC 31018 August 1998Case Allowed

The landlord (appellant) filed an eviction suit under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 on the ground of bona‑fide personal requirement. The trial court dismissed the suit; the landlord appealed and obtained a decree for eviction, which the tenants (respondents) challenged by filing a revis

SURESH CHANDRA (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusPARASRAM & ORS.

2025 INSC 87318 July 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff sued the defendants for title and possession of a house, alleging they were tenants; the trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court declared the plaintiff the owner and the defendants tenants. The defendants filed a second appeal, but one co-defendant (Ram Babu) died during its pendency

N.C.V. AISHWARYAversusA.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA

2022 INSC 131018 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a 21‑year‑old wife residing in Chennai, sought the transfer of her husband’s petition for annulment of marriage filed in the Family Court at Vellore to the Family Court at Chennai under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She also had two other matrimonial petitions – restitution of conjugal right

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2011 INSC 49818 July 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a long‑running environmental dispute in which chemical industries in Bichhri, Rajasthan had been ordered in 1996 to pay Rs.37.385 crore for remediation of toxic sludge and to have their plants closed. Despite the judgment, the respondents repeatedly filed interlocutory applications to avoid p

GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT AND ANOTHERversusDATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE AND OTHERS

1995 INSC 40418 July 1995Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition challenging the Lok Sabha election of Datta Raghobaji Meghe on allegations that he exceeded the permissible election‑expenditure limit and committed corrupt practices. The Court reiterated that the right to elect and be elected is a statutory right governed strictly by th

RANA NAHID @ RESHMA @ SANA & ANR.versusSAHIDUL HAQ CHISTI

2020 INSC 43218 June 2020Disposed off

A Muslim couple divorced; the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance, which the Family Court converted into an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and ordered maintenance. The High Court set aside the conversion, holding the Family Cou

JENNIFER MESSIASversusLEONARD G LOBO

2026 INSC 50218 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Jennifer Messias, sought partition and separate possession of a flat jointly owned with the deceased husband. The trial court issued a decree on 13 April 2012 that declared the parties' shares, awarded possession and mesne profits to the appellant, and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to effect partiti

ARTI DIXIT & ANRversusSUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA & ORS

2023 INSC 55618 May 2023Dismissed

The respondents obtained an ex‑parte decree for ejectment and recovery of rent from the appellants. The appellants filed, on the same day, an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and an application under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, seeking permission to deposit or furnish securit

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR

2022 INSC 58618 May 2022Dismissed

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and the District Bar Association challenged the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, seeking to relocate the NGT bench from Bhopal to Jabalpur and to strike down provisions they claimed ousted High Court jurisdiction and provided an unconstitutional direct app

K. SRINIVASAPPA & ORS.versusM. MALLAMMA & ORS.

2022 INSC 58718 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The parties to a partition suit entered into a compromise that was recorded by a Lok Adalat on 7 July 2012, which under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is deemed a decree of a civil court. Plaintiffs 4‑6 later alleged that their signatures were obtained by fraud and filed writ petitions seeking t

M/S. HARYANA SURAJ MALTING LTD.versusPHOOL CHAND

2018 INSC 53718 May 2018Disposed off

The case concerned whether an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court loses its jurisdiction to set aside an ex‑parte award once the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant, Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd., sought to have an ex‑parte award against workman Phool Chand recal

M/S. AMBICA INDUSTRIESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2007 INSC 65518 May 2007Dismissed

Ambica Industries, carrying on business in Lucknow, was assessed to central excise there and appealed to the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Delhi, which has jurisdiction over Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Maharashtra. The appellant filed a further appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSATISH JAIN (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.

2024 INSC 31518 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Satish Jain sued the State of Madhya Pradesh and a private defendant for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions over land owned by the State but allegedly possessed by the private defendant through adverse possession. The trial court had earlier passed an ex‑parte decree in favour of the plaintiff, which was

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.versusMOHD. ABDUL QASIM (DIED) PER LRS.

2024 INSC 31018 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Mohd. Abdul Qasim, claimed title over 106.34 acres of land that had been declared a reserved forest under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. He filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, but the trial court and the High Court found that the land was forest land and that he had fail

GADDIPATI DIVIJA & ANR.versusPATHURI SAMRAJYAM & ORS.

2023 INSC 38518 April 2023Dismissed

The father of the appellants executed a sale agreement to sell 0.90 acres of land to the plaintiff for Rs.11.88 lakh, receiving an advance of Rs.4 lakh and obligating himself to demarcate the land within three months before the balance could be paid. After his death, the appellants failed to demarcate the land, and the

PUNJAB AND SIND BANKversusFRONTLINE CORPORATION LTD

2023 INSC 38618 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, had mortgaged a suit property to Frontline Corporation Ltd. after the latter defaulted on loans. The bank issued notices under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and took possession, while the borrower filed a civil suit for specific performance of a settlement agreement and obtained

M/S SUNEJA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.versusANITA MERCHANT

2023 INSC 39118 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Anita Merchant booked three flats from Suneja Towers Private Limited, paid 60% of the price, but the builder failed to deliver possession even after the agreed period, leading her to file consumer complaints. The District Forum dismissed the complaints, but the State Consumer Commission reversed the decision, ordering

RANJIT KUMAR KARMAKAR @ DULAL KARMAKARversusHARI SHANKAR DAS

2019 INSC 54218 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, which the trial court dismissed. The first appeal was allowed, overturning the trial court's decision. The defendant then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, and the High Court set aside the first appellate j

SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNYversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2018 INSC 36318 April 2018Disposed off

The Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, a society that had established Cluny Women’s College as a secular institution, later applied to the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) for a minority status certificate, which was granted in 2007. The society and the college’s governing body subsequentl

VELAYUDHAN & ORS.versusMOHAMMEDKUTTY & ORS.

2017 INSC 35918 April 2017Case Partly allowed

The respondents filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and, by implication, a declaration of title over certain land. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the first appellate court dismissed the suit. On second appeal, the High Court held the suit was only for a perpetual injunction and therefore did

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