Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Limitation Act, 1963

392 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1–200.

NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSHEELA RAMCHANDRA TIKHE

2018 INSC 102831 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) acquired 44.61 acres of land from Sheela Ramchandra Tikhe for a drainage scheme and, under a 1968 board resolution, offered to re‑allot the land on lease. Tikhe applied for the entire parcel in 1975; after negotiations, NIT allotted only 24 acres in 1982 and retained the remaining 20.

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

2019 INSC 8131 August 2016Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court examined whether the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (the 1993 Act) applies retrospectively to supply orders placed before its commencement on 23‑09‑1992. The Court held that the Act is prospective, its liability arising only after the buyer

RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORS.versusMANJIT KAUR & ORS.

2019 INSC 86931 July 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a dispute over two adjoining land parcels (Khasra Nos. 935/1 and 935/2) where the predecessor of the appellants, Harbans Singh, claimed exclusive ownership based on a family settlement. A memorandum of family settlement (Exhibit P‑6) dated 10‑03‑1988 was executed by the brothers. The trial court part

AJAY DABRAversusPYARE RAM & ORS.

2023 INSC 9031 January 2023Dismissed

Ajay Dabra filed suits for specific performance of two agreements for the sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh, where the original seller had contracted with Himalayan Ski Village Pvt. Ltd., a non‑agriculturist. The sale was conditional on obtaining permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy

M/S MONGIA REALTY AND BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITEDversusMANIK SETHI

2022 INSC 12231 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Mongia Realty and Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) sued Manik Sethi (respondent) for recovery of alleged business loans, claiming the loans were repayable within one year of the last instalment and that the suit was filed within the limitation period. The respondent denied any loan relationship, asserting the payments w

C.S. RAMASWAMYversusV. K. SENTHIL & ORS

2022 INSC 104630 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed suits in 2015‑2016 to cancel sale deeds executed in 2005, alleging fraud. The defendant moved to reject the plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, contending the suits were barred by the 10‑year limitation period. The trial court and High Court refused to reject the plaints, holding that li

RAJENDRA NAROTTAMDAS SHETH & ANR.versusCHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN & ANR.

2021 INSC 57930 September 2021Dismissed

The Union Bank of India (financial creditor) granted loans to R.K. Infratel Ltd. (corporate debtor), which defaulted on 30‑09‑2014, leading to the account being classified as an NPA. The bank filed a recovery suit under the 1993 Recovery of Debts Act and, later, an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bank

SAGAR SHARMA & ANR.versusPHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 109830 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a petition filed by the respondent under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) alleging a default of at least Rs.1,00,000. The lower tribunal had held that the IBC’s commencement on 1 December 2016 triggered the limitation period and applied Article 62 of the Limitation Act, tr

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusMR. VIJAY SITARAM DANDNAIK & ANR.

2022 INSC 88730 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Punjab National Bank (PNB) filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Jailaxmi Sugar Products Pvt Ltd, alleging default and seeking initiation of a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) issued a certificate of recovery on 1 November 20

SYED ZAINUL ABEDEENversusTHE RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKF

2019 INSC 98030 August 2019Dismissed

The appellant sought a declaration that a property, which had been surveyed and listed as "Wakf‑Al‑Allah" and published in the Official Gazette on 2 December 1965, was in fact "Wakf‑Al‑Aulad". He filed a suit under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 on 17 January 1967, more than one year after the Gazette publication, con

IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 91130 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., entered into a term loan agreement with the respondent, Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., in 2015, which became a non‑performing asset on 1 March 2018. The appellant filed a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on 15 January 2024, relying on th

RAM KARAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2014 INSC 43330 June 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ram Karan (deceased) through legal representatives, purchased agricultural land in 1962 from a Scheduled Caste vendor and obtained mutation in 1966. The State of Rajasthan, via a Tehsildar, filed a suit under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in 1993 seeking ejectment, alleging the sale violated t

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusA. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR.

2022 INSC 63030 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank (the appellant) sought initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Prasad Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. (the corporate debtor) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The corporate debtor had stood as guarantor for loans to three borrower

SURJIT KAUR GILL & ANR.versusADARSH KAUR GILL & ANR.

2014 INSC 7130 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, acting as administrator of his deceased sister's will, filed a suit for partition of her estate and related reliefs. The defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, claiming the suit was barred by limitation. The trial judge dismissed the application, but the Division Bench of the

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY

2024 INSC 93229 November 2024Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a second appeal before the High Court challenging a judgment that dismissed a suit concerning 1,300 hectares of government land. The appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 5 years, 10 months, and 16 days, which the High Court refused to condone, citing lack of sufficient cause.

KETAN V. PAREKHversusSPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER.

2011 INSC 82529 November 2011Dismissed

The Special Director of Enforcement imposed a penalty on Ketan V. Parekh and others under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The appellants filed appeals under Section 35 of the Act and sought condonation of a 1,056‑day delay, arguing that the time spent pursuing writ petitions in the Delhi High Court should be

RATHNAVATHI & ANOTHERversusKAVITA GANASHAMDAS

2014 INSC 75129 October 2014Disposed off

The plaintiff entered into a 1989 agreement to purchase a house from defendant No.2, paid the full consideration, but the seller failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff filed two suits: one for permanent injunction to prevent dispossession by defendant No.1 and No.2, and another for specific performance of the s

SUKHBIRI DEVI & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 103729 September 2022Dismissed

The appellants filed a declaratory suit challenging a relinquishment deed and were dismissed by the trial court on a preliminary issue of limitation, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court and the Delhi High Court. They contended that the limitation period should be extended to twelve years under Article 136

SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO. LTD.versusVEMUGANTI RAMAKRISHAN RAO & ORS.

2013 INSC 57829 August 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the time taken to obtain a certified copy of a High Court order vacating a stay could be excluded from the two‑year period prescribed under Section 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for making an award. The Court held that Section 11‑A only excludes the period during which the ac

M/S BHAGWANDAS B. RAMCHANDANIversusBRITISH AIRWAYS

2022 INSC 76829 July 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a cargo importer, claimed damages from British Airways for loss of perishable goods shipped from Mumbai to Canada, filing suit in 2012. The trial court held the claim was not time‑barred, but the Bombay High Court dismissed it, holding that the two‑year limitation under Rule 30 of the Carriage by Air Act

M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC.versusKERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. ETC.

2021 INSC 31429 June 2021Dismissed

The case concerned disputes arising under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) where a supplier (Silpi Industries) claimed unpaid amounts from Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and the corporation raised counter‑claims. The issues before the Supreme Court were whether

M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITEDversusNOORJAHAN BEEVI AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 45229 June 2016Dismissed

M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd., a hire‑purchase financier, sued Noorjahan Beevi and her husband for the balance of Rs.40,138 after seizing and selling a financed vehicle. The borrowers defaulted on the instalment payment on 20 May 1984, after which the financier seized the vehicle on 9 February 1985 and sold it on 30 May 1

M/S. EMM ENN ASSOCIATESversusCOMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER & ORS.

2016 INSC 45429 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Emm Enn Associates (contractor) completed a security‑fencing contract for the Government in July 2000 and received payment on 10 April 2001 for the undisputed portion of the final bill. The contract provided a two‑year defect‑liability period for the Government to recover any over‑payment, but the contractor later

M/S UMESH GOELversusHIMACHAL PRADESH COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

2016 INSC 45729 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an unregistered partnership firm, entered into a construction contract with the respondent and later contested the respondent's claim in arbitration. The respondent argued that Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 barred the firm from participating in arbitral proceedings because "other proceedings

FILOMENA SALDANHA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. FRAZIER SALDANHAversusSUNIL KOHLI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. NAVAL BOWRY, & ORS.

2022 INSC 59529 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a construction licence granted to the respondent, which the appellant claimed would obstruct a pathway adjoining his land. After a series of appeals under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, the parties reached a settlement wherein the respondent agreed to provide a 3‑metre access path, and the High Court

P. KUMARAKURUBARANversusP. NARAYANAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 59829 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, P. Kumarakurubaran, was assigned a vacant site in 1974 and executed a power of attorney in 1978 for construction. His father later sold the property in 1988 to the defendant without authority, which the appellant discovered in 2011 and filed a land‑grabbing complaint. In 2014 he instituted a suit seeking

POONA RAMversusMOTI RAM (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 10129 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Poona Ram, sought to overturn a High Court judgment that had set aside a First Appellate Court order dismissing his suit for declaration of title and possession filed by Moti Ram. Moti Ram claimed possessory title based on alleged long possession but had no documentary title, while the defendants relied

DEEPAK BHANDARIversusHIMACHAL PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

2014 INSC 6529 January 2014Dismissed

Deepak Bhandari, a director and guarantor of a defaulting industrial company, challenged a suit filed by Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. for recovery of a loan balance. The corporation had taken possession of the company's mortgaged assets under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporati

M/S. RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITEDversusK.P. JAYARAM & ANR.

2020 INSC 51828 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, K.P. Jayaram and another, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) claiming they were financial creditors of M/s. Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. for a loan of Rs.2.10 crore advanced between 2002 and 2005, alleging that part of the loan was converted into share

STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD & ORS.

2015 INSC 61828 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) bought 17% NPCL bonds from Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd (ABFSL) and later discovered that the bonds had been misappropriated by broker Hiten P. Dalal and Canara Bank Mutual Fund (CMF). SCB filed a suit for conversion and amended it to implead Dalal and CMF, but the Special Court held

KARAM KAURversusJALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ORS.

2014 INSC 34928 April 2014Dismissed

The original plaintiff, Ramesh Chander, sued Jalandhar Improvement Trust for vacant possession of a plot allotted to him after his father's land was acquired. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, leading Ramesh to file a second appeal. Ramesh died during the penden

SARANPAL KAUR ANANDversusPRADUMAN SINGH CHANDHOK AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 34728 March 2022Directions issued

Saranpal Kaur Anand filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that a 1969 sale deed and a 1995 deed were void, and an injunction against the defendants. The defendants moved to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d). The Delhi High Court Single Judge framed a preliminary issue under O

MOHINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusPARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.

2018 INSC 28328 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a suit for possession of ancestral land that had been alienated by a gift deed. The original plaintiff, Mohinder Singh, obtained a declaratory decree in 1963 based on a compromise, but the decree was conditional on the death of the donor, Ujjagar Singh, which occurred in 1971. The decree sheet was fi

SURJEET SINGH SAHNIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2022 INSC 24528 February 2022Dismissed

The petitioner entered into a sale deed with NOIDA in 2001 that promised a 10% plot allocation. After ten years he made a representation to NOIDA, and eleven years after the deed filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking specific performance. The High Court entertained the petition, directed NOIDA to decide the r

SUKHWINDER SINGHversusJAGROOP SINGH & ANR.

2020 INSC 10028 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 03‑01‑2004 with defendant No.1 for a plot of land at Rs 1,40,000, paying Rs 69,500 as earnest money. The plaintiff sued for specific performance and to set aside a later sale deed dated 11‑06‑2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 (the appellant).

LAKHA RAM SHARMAversusBALAR MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2013 INSC 78927 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, who had been using the trademark KUNDAN for his cable business since 1980, filed an injunction suit against the respondent for using the same mark. While the suit was pending, the respondent obtained registration of the mark in 1995. The appellant then filed a rectification application under Sections 45,

NAZIR MOHAMEDversusJ. KAMALA AND ORS.

2020 INSC 51127 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two second appeals filed under Section 100 of the CPC concerning a suit for declaration of title and possession of a property. The High Court had entertained the appeals despite the absence of a substantial question of law, and had allowed the respondent's claim to possession while dismissing

CHENNADI JALAPATHI REDDYversusBADDAM PRATAPA REDDY (DEAD) THR LRS. & ANR.

2019 INSC 95927 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a 1993 agreement of sale, alleging that the first defendant had signed the agreement but later sold his share to a third party and refused to execute the sale deed. The defendants contended that the signature on the agreement was forged, relying on a handwriting ex

OM PRAKASHversusASHWANI KUMAR BASSI

2010 INSC 55027 August 2010Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13‑B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and served the tenant on 19 May 2005, requiring the tenant to apply for leave to contest within 15 days. The tenant filed the application one day late, on 4 June 2005, and then sought condonation of the delay

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCILversusMINOSHA INDIA LIMITED

2022 INSC 48627 April 2022Dismissed

NDMC entered into a purchase order with Minosha India Ltd, terminated it for alleged non‑performance and the latter invoked the arbitration clause on 7 June 2016. Before the arbitration could commence, the corporate debtor was admitted to corporate insolvency resolution on 14 May 2018, a moratorium was imposed under Se

VENUversusPONNUSAMY REDDIAR (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2017 INSC 40327 April 2017Dismissed

Venu filed a suit for partition against Ponnusamy Reddiar and obtained a preliminary decree on 23 November 1959. Thirty years later, on 3 October 1989, Venu applied for the appointment of a court commissioner to execute the preliminary decree. The appellant argued that the application was barred by the three‑year limit

P. R. YELUMALAIversusN.M. RAVI

2015 INSC 27127 March 2015Disposed off

The plaintiff‑buyer entered into a sale agreement and obtained a decree for specific performance, which required him to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.33,60,000 within one month of the decree and in the form of a demand draft. The trial court extended the time by two months, making the final deadline 26‑May‑20

MULCHAND KHANUMAL KHATRIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2012 INSC 15127 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a joint owner of land in Palanpur, Gujarat, challenged a government acquisition of his property and obtained interim relief from the Gujarat High Court. While the proceedings were pending, the Land Acquisition Act was amended in 1984 inserting Section 11A, which mandates that an award be made within two

BIMAL KUMAR & ANOTHERversusSHAKUNTALA DEBI & OTHERS

2012 INSC 11027 February 2012Appeal(s) allowed

A partition suit filed in 1962 was compromised in 1964, with the decree allocating exclusive possession of specific properties to each party. The predecessor of the appellants later challenged the compromise decree on grounds of fraud, but the suit was dismissed in 1994 and the subsequent appeal in 2004 was also dismis

HARI RAMversusJYOTI PRASAD & ANR.

2011 INSC 7427 January 2011Dismissed

Hariram appealed against judgments that upheld a permanent injunction ordering the removal of his alleged encroachment on a 10‑foot public street. He argued that the suit was barred by limitation, violated Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, and lacked proof that the land was a public street. The Supreme Court held that encroac

SATYA PAL ANANDversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

2016 INSC 98826 October 2016Dismissed

The appellant, Satya Pal Anand, claimed inheritance of a plot allotted to his mother by a housing cooperative society, which after her death unilaterally executed and registered an Extinguishment Deed cancelling the allotment. He entered into a compromise deed receiving Rs.6.5 lakh, but also filed a dispute under the M

P. RADHA BAI AND ORS.versusP. ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR.

2018 INSC 89626 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The parties, heirs of a deceased businessman, disputed the division of his properties and resolved the matter by arbitration, which resulted in an award on 18 February 2010 that was received on 21 February 2010. The respondents filed an application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to se

NARASAMMA & ORS.versusA. KRISHNAPPA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

2020 INSC 50926 August 2020Dismissed

The plaintiff, A. Krishnappa, sued the defendant’s wife, Smt. Narasamma, for possession of a schedule property, claiming full ownership and seeking removal of a temporary structure. The defendant relied on an unregistered sale agreement dated 10‑10‑1976 and a General Power of Attorney dated 08‑08‑1988 to assert title,

L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA (SINCE DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.versusH. B. SHIVAKUMAR

2015 INSC 61226 August 2015Dismissed

L.C. Hanumanthappa filed a suit for permanent injunction against H.B. Shivakumar on 9 March 1990. The defendant’s written statement dated 16 May 1990 denied the plaintiff’s title to the suit property, thereby putting the plaintiff on notice that a right to sue for declaration of title had arisen. On 1 April 2002 the pl

SURESH KUMAR DAGLAversusSARWAN & ANR.

2014 INSC 99526 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The first respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant on 30 November 1992 and later filed a criminal complaint alleging cheating, which was dismissed on 30 November 1993. After a delay of fourteen years, on 28 June 2006, the first respondent instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title

ECON ANTRI LTD.versusROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.

2013 INSC 56126 August 2013Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be filed within one month of the cause of action arising, and specifically whether the day the cause of action arose should be counted in the 30‑day period prescribed by Section 142(b). Relying on Section 9 of the Ge

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.versusM/S. HIMACHAL TECHNO ENGINEERS & ANR.

2010 INSC 42926 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh entered into a construction contract and, after a dispute over extra work payment, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an award on 5 November 2007, which was physically delivered to the office on 10 November (a holiday) but actually received by the Executive Engin

MALLIKARJUNAIAHversusNANJAIAH & ORS.

2019 INSC 57826 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑owner of a parcel of land that fell to him after his father's death, discovered in 1983 that the respondents, his brothers, had encroached upon 1 gunta of his share. He measured the land, obtained knowledge of the encroachment and filed a suit in 1992 for declaration of title and injunction. The res

LAXMI PAT SURANAversusUNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

2021 INSC 22026 March 2021Disposed off

Union Bank of India extended a term loan to Mahaveer Construction, a proprietorship firm, and obtained a guarantee from Surana Metals Ltd, a corporate entity. After the loan was declared a non‑performing asset on 30‑01‑2010, the bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in Fe

BHAGWAN DAS & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF UP & ORS.

2010 INSC 12726 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land was acquired for a market yard and an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 14 March 2007, but they were not served notice of the award until 25 October 2007 and only became aware of its contents on 16 November 2007. They filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition A

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ DEHAR POWER HOUSE CIRCLE BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (PW) SLAPPER & ANOTHERversusEXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, SUNDER NAGAR/ ASSESSING AUTHORITY

2019 INSC 120025 October 2019

The petitioners, the Himachal Pradesh Bhakra Beas Management Board and others, challenged a High Court order that refused to condone a revision filed under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 after the 90‑day period prescribed for such revisions. The issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitatio

RAMJI PANDEY AND ORS.versusSWARAN KALI

2010 INSC 73125 October 2010Dismissed

The respondent sued the appellants for a declaration of co‑ownership of a house. The appellants failed to appear, resulting in an ex‑parte decree in the respondent's favour. They later filed a recall application, which was rejected, and subsequently appealed the decision in a District Court that lacked pecuniary jurisd

JIGNESH SHAH & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 108025 September 2019Disposed off

The petitioners, shareholders of La‑Fin Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., challenged a winding‑up petition filed by IL&FS under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, which had been transferred to the NCLT as a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dispute arose from a 2009 share pur

SMT. KATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ANR.versusSIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.& ORS.

2022 INSC 86525 August 2022Disposed off

The purchaser entered into two sale agreements in 1997, paying 90% of the price but failing to pay the remaining 10% within the three‑month period stipulated as essential. After sending two notices in 2000 and 2002, the purchaser filed a suit for specific performance in 2002, which the trial court dismissed as time‑bar

SATYA PAL ANANDversusSTATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 98825 August 2015

Satya Pal Anand, a septuagenarian, claimed that a plot of land allotted to his mother by a cooperative society was unlawfully cancelled by the society through a Deed of Extinguishment dated 9‑8‑2001, and that subsequent sale deeds to third parties were also void. The Sub‑Registrar refused to cancel the extinguishment d

SHRI MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN, SHELGIversusSUBHASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 33925 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, a public trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, filed change reports to record the appointment of a new Vahiwatdar and the co-option of trustees, but the reports were submitted well beyond the statutory 90‑day period. The respondents, a group o

SRI SRINIVASAIAHversusH. R. CHANNABASAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY HIS LRS. AND ORS.

2017 INSC 39625 April 2017Disposed off

The original plaintiff, M.N. Channavasavaiah, borrowed Rs.1,500 from B.M. Narayan Shetty and executed a deed of conditional sale on 28 July 1969, delivering possession of the land to the lender for five years with a condition that repayment would void the sale and reconvey the property. The lender later sold the land t

RAM LALversusJARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.

2025 INSC 30125 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which was decreed in his favour on 20‑01‑2012 directing him to deposit the balance consideration within two months. The decree was affirmed by the first appellate court on 21‑04‑2015, but no time‑limit for payment was stipulated. After a two‑year

MURUGAN & ORS.versusKESAVA GOUNDER (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

2019 INSC 25925 February 2019Dismissed

The suit concerned property of Petha Gounder that had been sold by his son Balaraman both in his own name and on behalf of his minor son Palanivel without court permission, violating Section 8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956. The plaintiffs, sons of Kannan, filed a suit in 1992 for declaration and posses

AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR.versusORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS.

2021 INSC 78424 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Oriental Bank of Commerce appealed an order of the Recovery Officer under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, but filed the appeal 31 days after the prescribed 30‑day period. The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned the delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act

N. THAJUDEENversusTAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD

2024 INSC 81724 October 2024Dismissed

The Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (respondent) sued to confirm its title and recover possession of a property it claimed to have received by a registered gift deed dated 5 March 1983 from the appellant. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the gift deed was never accepted or acted upon,

RAHEEM SHAH & ANRversusGOVIND SINGH & ORS.

2023 INSC 65124 July 2023Disposed off

The original suit (Civil Suit No.3 A/02) was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, Govind Singh, on 1 October 2005. The defendants, Raheem Shah and another, filed a regular first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC but did so 52 days after the decree, prompting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for cond

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

2015 INSC 35624 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2025 INSC 38324 March 2025Disposed off

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

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

2011 INSC 15924 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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

R. HANUMAIAH & ANR.versusSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ORS.

2010 INSC 12024 February 2010Dismissed

The appellants, R. Hanumaiyah and others, filed a suit seeking declaration of title and a permanent injunction over Survey Nos. 30 (a tank) and 31 (barren land) alleging ancestral ownership. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the Karnataka High Court set aside the decree, finding that the plaintiffs had not e

HARSHIT HARISH JAIN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 10424 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased a flat and paid stamp duty, but later cancelled the booking due to the developer's delay and executed a cancellation deed on 17 March 2015, which was registered on 28 April 2015 after an amendment to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act reduced the refund limitation period from two years

IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATIONMISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 665 OF 2021 IN (SMW (C) NO. 3 OF 2020)versus.

2021 INSC 53623 September 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court, acting suo motu, extended the limitation period for all judicial and quasi‑judicial proceedings due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, initially ordering an exclusion of the period from 15 March 2020 to 14 March 2021. After a decline in cases, the Court on 8 March 2021 limited the exclusion to that one‑year s

RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS.versusPRASHANT GARG & ORS.

2025 INSC 55223 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

M.P. STEEL CORPORATIONversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2015 INSC 34623 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M.P. Steel Corporation imported a vessel and disputed the customs duty assessed on its light displacement tonnage. After paying duty, the corporation appealed the Collector's order before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), which allowed the appeal, but the Supreme Court later set aside C

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

2019 INSC 8123 January 2019Dismissed

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

NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS.versusBHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE

2024 INSC 90222 November 2024Dismissed

The trial court had condoned a delay of four and a half years for the defendants to file their written statement. The plaintiff challenged this condonation, and the High Court set aside the trial court's order. The defendants filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the High Court's decision. The S

VIDYASAGAR PRASADversusUCO BANK & ANR.

2024 INSC 81022 October 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a suspended director of the corporate debtor, challenged the admission of a Section 7 application initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by UCO Bank, arguing that the debtor's balance‑sheet entries did not constitute a clear, specific acknowledgment of debt required under Section 18

V NAGARAJANversusSKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD.& ORS.

2021 INSC 66322 October 2021Dismissed

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

BIJAY KUMAR SINGH & OTHERSversusAMIT KUMAR CHAMARIYA & ANR.

2019 INSC 118122 October 2019Dismissed

The landlord filed eviction suits under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 alleging non‑payment of rent arrears for two shops. The tenants filed applications under Section 7(2) of the Act seeking determination of the disputed rent and deposited the arrears they admitted. The trial court allowed the applications

SABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRSversusANJUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS

2023 INSC 89822 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into an Agreement to Sell on 31 July 1975, which required the sellers to obtain permission from the District Magistrate within eight days and then inform the buyers, who were to execute the sale deed within fifteen days. The sellers never applied for permission, and the buyers filed a suit for speci

BASAWARAJ & ANR.versusTHE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2013 INSC 55122 August 2013Dismissed

The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, after receiving an award, filed references for enhanced compensation. Dissatisfied with the award, they filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act in the High Court on 16 August 2007, more than five years after the award, a

KANCHHUversusPRAKASH CHAND & ORS.

2025 INSC 54222 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SESH NATH SINGH & ANR.versusBAIDYABATI SHEORAPHULI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANR.

2021 INSC 19922 March 2021Dismissed

The petitioners, Sesh Nath Singh and others, challenged the National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) order admitting a Section 7 application by Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co‑operative Bank to initiate corporate insolvency resolution against the corporate debtor. The issue was whether the three‑year limitation period for fili

AMALENDU KUMAR BERA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013 INSC 19122 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

KIRPAL SINGHversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS.

2024 INSC 94421 November 2024Disposed off

The appellant's land was acquired under the National Highways Act, leading to an arbitral award on 25 July 2011. A regular first appeal was filed on 20 October 2011, but the High Court registry notified defects on 9 November 2011, which the appellant's counsel received only on 20 January 2012. Consequently, the appella

SUMAN DEVIversusMANISHA DEVI AND ORS.

2018 INSC 73021 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was declared elected as Ward Councilor on 28 January 2016. The first respondent filed an election petition under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act on 10 February 2016, withdrew it on 1 March 2016 and was given liberty to file a fresh petition, which she did on 2 March 2016—beyond the 30‑day pe

SINGH RAM (D) THR. L.RS.versusSHEO RAM & ORS.

2014 INSC 55421 August 2014Dismissed

The case involved a usufructuary mortgage executed in 1903 where the mortgagee claimed ownership after the statutory 30‑year limitation period had elapsed, while the mortgagor sought declaration of title by prescription. The trial and appellate courts held that, under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mor

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

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

INDER SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 38221 March 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Inder Singh, filed a suit seeking title and possession of a parcel of land, which the State later claimed as government land. After the trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court reversed that decision in favour of the appellant. The State filed a review petition, which was dismissed for d

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.

2024 INSC 24321 March 2024Dismissed

The Union of India (railways) charged Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) freight on the Baad‑Hisar route based on a chargeable distance of 444 km as per the old local distance table. In 2005 the railways revised the distance to 334 km, claiming the earlier figure was erroneous, and IOC sought a refund of the 110 km differenc

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

JANATHA DAL PARTYversusTHE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS & OTHERS

2014 INSC 4521 January 2014Dismissed

The Indian National Congress (INC) filed a suit to declare its title and obtain possession of the Congress Bhavan in Bangalore, a property originally gifted to the Bangalore City Congress Committee in 1949. After the 1969 split of the INC into Congress (J) and Congress (O), the Election Commission of India (ECI) recogn

MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF WAKFSversusSHAIKH YUSUF BHAI CHAWLA & ORS.

2022 INSC 112720 October 2022Case Partly allowed

The Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs was incorporated on 4 January 2002 and subsequently published lists of wakf properties on 13 November 2003 and 30 December 2004. Several Muslim public trusts challenged the Board’s constitution, the validity of the lists, and the applicability of Section 13(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995,

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusM/S DEEPAK ELECTRIC & TRADING COMPANY & ANR.

2011 INSC 77520 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and another appealed against a High Court order that held its objections to an arbitral award were time‑barred. The award was filed on 17‑06‑1996 and a notice of filing was served on the Union of India, but not on the Executive Engineer, who was responsible for the Union’s affairs in the arbitration.

GHEWARCHAND & ORS.versusM/S MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS.

2018 INSC 84020 September 2018Case Allowed

The plaintiffs filed a civil suit in 1978 seeking declaration of title, a permanent injunction and possession of a property that had been attached by a City Magistrate on 23‑12‑1966. The trial court held the suit was within the limitation period and decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The High Court reversed this, hol

MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE

2024 INSC 12520 February 2024Dismissed

The appellants were acquitted under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed an appeal against the acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after a 72‑day delay, seeking condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Delhi Hi

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

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

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

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

M/S TECH SHARP ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.versusSANGHVI MOVERS LIMITED

2022 INSC 98619 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tech Sharp Engineers, sought initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC against the respondent, Sanghvi Movers, for unpaid crane‑hire invoices dated 2012‑13. The respondent had earlier filed a winding‑up petition in the Madras High Court, which was pending w

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

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusSANDEEP GURAV

2025 INSC 102119 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Geojit Financial Services Ltd. filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the three‑month limitation period began on the date the award was received because the appellant's earlier applicati

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

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

K.C. LAXMANAversusK.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR.

2022 INSC 43219 April 2022Dismissed

The plaintiff, a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family, challenged a settlement/gift deed executed by his father, the Karta, which transferred a portion of the joint family property to a non‑coparcener. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the deed was null and void and partition of his share. The defendants conten

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

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)

AXIS BANK LIMITEDversusNAREN SETH & ANR.

2024 INSC 10519 January 2024

The applicant‑appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking clarification of a Supreme Court judgment dated 12 September 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2022, specifically the use of the term “unsecured creditor” in paragraph 20. The Court, after hearing counsel, held that the term should be read as “secured cre

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

ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY & SEW. BOARDversusSUBASH PROJECTS & MARKETING LTD.

2012 INSC 4219 January 2012Dismissed

The Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewage Board and Subash Projects & Marketing Ltd entered into two water‑supply contracts that gave rise to disputes resolved by a sole arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator issued awards on 22 August 2003, which the appellants received on 26

PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIAversusDHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU @ DHIRAJ SAHU & ANR.

2020 INSC 71018 December 2020Disposed off

In the biennial Rajya Sabha election from Jharkhand, MLA Amit Kumar Mahto cast his vote at 9:15 a.m. on 23 March 2018, but was convicted later that afternoon. The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, challenged the validity of that vote, arguing that the conviction rendered Mahto disqualified under Article 191(1)(e) of

TOTTEMPUDI SALALITHversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 92318 October 2023Dismissed

The appellant, managing director of Totem Infrastructure Ltd., challenged the admission of a Section 7 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) before the NCLT, arguing that the claim was barred by limitation and the doctrine of election. The banks had earlier obtained three r

DEBASISH PAUL & ANR.versusAMAL BORAL

2023 INSC 92518 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a tenant, stopped paying rent in February 2005 and was served a notice to vacate in October 2013, after which the landlord filed an eviction suit. The tenant filed an application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, but the trial court rejected it because it was fi

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

SAGUFA AHMED & ORS.versusUPPER ASSAM PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2020 INSC 55518 September 2020Dismissed

The appellants, shareholders of Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd., sought winding up of the company before the NCLT, which dismissed their petition on 25 October 2019. They applied for a certified copy of the order, received it on 19 December 2019, and filed an appeal before the NCLAT on 20 July 2020 together with

GAURAV HARGOVINDBHAI DAVEversusASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 105118 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought to initiate a corporate insolvency proceeding under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to recover a debt that had become due on 21 July 2011. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the application, applying Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which pertains to suit

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

GOTHAMCHAND JAINversusARUMUGAM @ TAMILARASAN

2013 INSC 63418 September 2013Dismissed

Gothamchand Jain filed a suit for specific performance of a contract in Pondicherry in 1991. The trial court held that Article 2262 of the French Code Civil, which provides a thirty‑year limitation, applied and the suit was not time‑barred. The High Court reversed, finding that the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, Section

PRAKASH (DEAD) BY LR.versusG. ARADHYA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 74318 August 2023Dismissed

The appellant sought redemption of a mortgage, alleging that a 1973 sale deed coupled with a reconveyance agreement constituted a mortgage by conditional sale. The sale deed transferred absolute ownership of a plot for Rs 5,000, while the reconveyance agreement allowed the vendor five years to repurchase the property o

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

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusKRISH SPINNING

2024 INSC 53218 July 2024Disposed off

SBI General Insurance issued a fire insurance policy to Krish Spinning, which settled the first fire claim by a discharge voucher and payment of Rs 84,19,579. Krish Spinning later disputed the quantum of the settlement, alleging coercion, and invoked the arbitration clause in the policy by filing a Section 11(6) applic

M/S B AND T AGversusMINISTRY OF DEFENCE

2023 INSC 54918 May 2023Rejected

The parties entered into a 2012 contract for the supply of sub‑machine guns, after which the Ministry of Defence encashed a bank guarantee and deducted liquidated damages in September 2016. The petitioner claimed the dispute should be resolved by arbitration and, after a series of bilateral discussions, issued a notice

RUSHIBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATHAKversusBHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

2022 INSC 59218 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellants, employed as Data Entry Operators of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, were initially placed in the Rs 4,000‑6,000 pay‑scale but were later granted the higher Rs 5,000‑8,000 scale of the next promotional post. In 2010 the corporation corrected this by withdrawing the higher scale, revising it to the first

RAJPAL SINGHversusSAROJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANR

2022 INSC 58918 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased agricultural land from the original owner under an agreement to sell (1993) and a registered sale deed (1996), after which he took possession. Unbeknownst to him, the owner's wife obtained a collusive decree in 1995 declaring herself owner, but the decree was never registered. Five years later s

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

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusKRISHIDHAN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 42818 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

State Bank of India (SBI) filed an application before the NCLT on 19 September 2018 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeking initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited, alleging default on a financial debt dated 10 June 2014 w

MAMTAZ & ORS.versusGULSUMA ALIAS KULUSUMA

2022 INSC 5818 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit for declaration and possession, which the trial court decided ex parte. The respondent appealed to the First Appellate Court after a delay of 2 years and 7 months, filed but later withdrew an application for condonation of delay, and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation under

G.T. GIRISHversusY. SUBBA RAJU (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 5118 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) allotted a residential site to the first defendant in 1979, obligating her to construct a house within two years under the City of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1972. In 1982 she entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the site, promising posses

UNIVERSITY OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 138917 December 2019Dismissed

The University of Delhi challenged the conversion of land acquired for the Delhi Metro project into a residential housing scheme, filing a writ petition that was dismissed for delay and laches. The University later filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) 916 days after the writ petition’s disposal, seeking condonation of t

MRS. LEELAMMA MATHEWversusM/S INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS.

2022 INSC 121417 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Mrs. Leelamma Mathew purchased a secured property advertised as 54 cents in an auction conducted by Indian Overseas Bank under the SARFAESI Act. After paying the full consideration, she received possession of only 39.60 cents, the remaining 14.40 cents having been transferred earlier by the original debtor. She sued th

BARASAT EYE HOSPITAL & ORS.versusKAUSTABH MONDAL

2019 INSC 115517 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased land from a raiyat and the respondent, a contiguous raiyat, claimed a pre‑emptive right under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, alleging that the sale consideration was inflated. The respondent filed an application with only a partial deposit (the alleged actual consid

M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.versusRAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 84117 August 2022Disposed off

The plaintiff, RAKHEJA ENGINEERS, filed a commercial suit for recovery of money without seeking urgent interim relief. The defendant, M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION, moved to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit violated Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre‑in

RANJAN DWIVEDIversusC.B.I., THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

2012 INSC 34217 August 2012Dismissed

The petitioners, accused in the 1975 Samastipur bomb‑blast case, sought quashing of the trial on the ground that a 37‑year delay violated their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the jurisprudence on speedy trial, noting that the right is implicit in Article 21 and

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusTEJPAL & ORS.

2024 INSC 45617 May 2024Disposed off

The Delhi Development Authority and other government bodies filed a batch of appeals and petitions seeking condonation of delay for challenging High Court orders that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appellants argued that subsequent judici

SUDHIR RANJAN PATRA (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusHIMANSU SEKHAR SRICHANDAN & ORS.

2022 INSC 57917 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction, but defendants 2 and 3 failed to file a written statement and were held ex-parte. They later filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC seeking condonation of delay, setting aside the ex-parte decree, and permission to file a written statement. The tria

AARIFABEN YUNUSBHAI PATEL & ORS.versusMUKUL THAKOREBHAI AMIN & ORS.

2020 INSC 29717 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The cooperative bank (R‑2) obtained a decree for repayment of a loan from respondents R‑1 and R‑3 and obtained a court order to sell the mortgaged flats. The sale was conducted and the appellants were the highest bidders. R‑1 later filed a writ petition and, after its dismissal, filed an application under Order XXI Rul

BANK OF BARODAversusKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

2020 INSC 29917 March 2020Dismissed

The Bank of Baroda sought to enforce a London decree against Kotak Mahindra Bank under Section 44A of the CPC, filing the execution petition 14 years after the decree. The trial court dismissed the petition as time‑barred, applying the 12‑year period of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court ex

BHUDEV MALLICK ALIAS BHUDEB MALLICK & ANR.versusRANAJIT GHOSHAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 17517 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of the original defendants in a 1965 title suit, were restrained by a permanent injunction that barred them from disturbing the respondents' possession of the suit property. After four decades, the respondents filed an execution application in 2017 alleging breach of the injunction, leading the tr

BALBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC.versusBALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. ETC.

2025 INSC 8117 January 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs obtained decrees for specific performance of a sale agreement, directing them to deposit the balance consideration within 20 days and the defendants to execute sale deeds. The trial court decrees were set aside by a first appellate court, but the High Court later restored them in regular second appeals,

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD.versusANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR

2022 INSC 4917 January 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the winding‑up petition filed by Antrix Corporation against Devas Multimedia Private Ltd under section 271(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging fraud in the formation and conduct of the company. The petition was never advertised, and the petitioners challenged the order on grounds of lack

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTDversusMAHESHBHAI TINABHAI RATHOD & ORS.

2021 INSC 90016 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd obtained an arbitral award on 28‑Feb‑2011 in its favour, which was dispatched by registered post on 15‑Mar‑2011 but was refused by the respondent, who finally received it on 23‑Mar‑2011. The appellant filed an execution petition on 27‑Jun‑2011; the respondent filed a petition

MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAOversusREDDY SRIDEVI & ORS.

2021 INSC 90916 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The original plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed by the trial court and set aside by the appellate court. The original defendants obtained a certified copy of the appellate decree in March 2017 but filed a second appeal only after a delay of 1011 days, in 2021. The High Court of Andhra P

RATTAN SINGH & ORS.versusNIRMAL GILL & ORS. ETC.

2020 INSC 64116 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined civil suits filed by Joginder Kaur (deceased) represented by Nirmal Gill, seeking to declare a 1990 General Power of Attorney (GPA) and related sale deeds as fraudulent and void. The lower courts had held the documents genuine, but the High Court reversed that finding, declaring them forged.

STATE OF GUJARATversusM/S KOTHARI AND ASSOCIATES

2015 INSC 78816 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat awarded a contract to M/s Kothari & Associates for canal lining, but repeatedly delayed handing over the site, forcing the contractor to seek four extensions of time. Each time the contractor claimed compensation for the delay, the State denied it, and the work was eventually completed in 1980. The

A.P. POWER COORDINATION COMMITTEE & ORS.versusMIS. LANCO KONDAPALLI POWER LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 103316 October 2015Dismissed

The dispute involved the A.P. Power Coordination Committee and related entities (appellants) and M/s. LanCo Kondapalli Power Ltd. (respondent) over capacity‑charge bills and a claim for reimbursement of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under their Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The key questions were whether the Limitation

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.versusPAWAN KUMAR GUPTA

2015 INSC 66516 September 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), a statutory corporation that had acquired the assets and liabilities of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), could invoke Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which grants a thirty‑year limitation period for suits by the Central Government.

Y. P. LELEversusMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 73216 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Maharashtra State Electricity Board filed a Special Civil Suit for recovery of money against Miraj Electric Supply Co. and its directors. During the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants' counsel withdrew his vakalatnama, and the trial court proceeded under Order XVII Rule 2 CPC, ultimately decreeing the suit ex par

M/S MISRA AND CO.versusDAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

2017 INSC 75116 August 2017Hearing Adjourned

MIS Misra & Co. was awarded Rs.5,78,873 by an arbitrator in 1988 for a construction contract with Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC). The Civil Court made the award a decree on 16 March 1991, but DVC neither paid nor appealed, and due to repeated objections the formal decree was only prepared on 21 February 2003. Misra f

K. P. NATARAJAN & ANR.versusMUTHALAMMAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 33716 July 2021Dismissed

The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed, naming a minor as the third defendant and seeking the appointment of a guardian under Order XXXII, Rule 3 of the CPC. The trial court passed an ex‑parte decree and allowed execution without properly appointing a guardian, later dismissing the respond

MR. R.S. MADIREDDY AND ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

2024 INSC 42516 May 2024Dismissed

The appellants, former cabin crew of Air India Limited (AIL), filed writ petitions between 2011 and 2013 alleging stagnation in pay, non‑promotion and denial of allowances, invoking Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. While the petitions were pending, the Government of India disinvested its 100 % share in AIL,

ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusM/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS

2025 INSC 50716 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondent No.1 formed an LLP governed by an agreement containing an arbitration clause (Clause 40). Disputes arose over the ITF project, and the appellant issued a Section 21 notice of arbitration only to respondent No.1 and filed a Section 11 application appointing an arbitrator, also only naming re

SALEM MUNICIPALITYversusP. KUMAR & ORS.

2018 INSC 105815 November 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a parcel of land that formed part of the Chinneri tank bund, leased intermittently by the predecessor S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar and later purchased by P. C. Pachiappan. The plaintiff sought declaration of title and a permanent injunction against the State of Tamil Nadu, Salem Municipality and Anna Tran

B. S. SHESHAGIRI SETTY & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS.

2015 INSC 78215 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, small farmers, mortgaged their agricultural land to a cooperative bank and, after defaulting, the bank obtained an ex‑parte arbitral award ordering sale of the mortgaged property. The land was auctioned in 1981 and the sale was confirmed in 1985, even though the appellants had repaid the principal amoun

JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR.versusM/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

2025 INSC 53315 April 2025Dismissed

The respondent, M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., sued Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and another party for recovery of a sum based on an award. The Commercial Court pronounced a judgment, but the petitioners filed their appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 after a delay of 301 days and so

ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITEDversusBISHAL JAISWAL & ANR.

2021 INSC 25415 April 2021Disposed off

The Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., a consortium of lenders, filed a Section 7 application before the NCLT seeking initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings against Corporate Power Ltd. after the latter defaulted on its loans. The NCLT admitted the application, relying on entries in the debtor's balance

SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARDversusM/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH & SONS

2021 INSC 18615 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board entered three contracts with M/s B. Ramachandraiah & Sons that contained arbitration clauses. After final payments were made in early 2003, the contractor sought reimbursement for price variations and, in November 2006, demanded the appointment of an arbitrator, reiterating the demand

SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS.versusNATHU RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 4215 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Shri Uttam Chand purchased a government‑owned property at a public auction in 1964 and obtained a sale certificate in 1965. He filed a suit for possession in 1979 against Nathu Ram and others, who claimed ancestral ownership and alleged that the Managing Officer had no authority to auction the land. The trial court rec

VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERSversusDURGA TRADING CORPORATION

2020 INSC 69714 December 2020Reference answered

The Supreme Court of India addressed two interconnected issues: whether landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable, and the scope of judicial review under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case arose from a tenancy agreement containing an ar

URVASHIBEN & ANR.versusKRISHNAKANT MANUPRASAD TRIVEDI

2018 INSC 121214 December 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13 March 1992, alleging that the entire consideration of Rs.32 lakh had been paid but the sale deed was never executed and the property was later sold to a third party. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the

JAMILA BEGUM (D) THR. LRS.versusSHAMI MOHD. (D) THR. LRS. & ANOTHER

2018 INSC 120614 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Shami Mohd., sued Jamila Begum for a declaration that a 1967 mortgage deed and a 1970 sale deed executed by his father, Wali Mohd., in favour of the defendant were void, alternatively seeking redemption of the mortgage. The trial court held the documents valid and dismissed the suit; the first appellate

KUMAR ETC. ETC.versusKARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL COOP. BANK LTD. & ANR.

2012 INSC 61414 December 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank alleged that the appellants obtained loans by pledging fake gold ornaments and secured convictions in a criminal revision proceeding. The trial court had acquitted the appellants, but the High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC

RENJITH K.G. & OTHERSversusSHEEBA

2024 INSC 77314 October 2024Dismissed

The appellants, representing the original decree holder, sought to enforce a partition decree dated 9 March 1970 that awarded them a share of a one‑acre property in Kerala. The decree was engrossed on stamp paper in 1990 and an execution petition for possession was filed in 1991, resulting in the plaintiff taking posse

NEELAM GUPTA & ORS.versusRAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

2024 INSC 76914 October 2024

The plaintiff, Rajendra Kumar Gupta, claimed ownership of a 7.60‑acre parcel of land in Mowa village, asserting that he purchased it by a registered sale deed in 1968 and had peacefully possessed it until dispossessed in 1983. The defendants, his cousins, contended that the land was joint Hindu family property, that th

DAMINI AND ANOTHERversusMANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 90914 September 2017Disposed off

The widow and son of a bus driver who died after electrocution filed an application under Section IA of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 seeking compensation. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the claim, holding that the suit was time‑barred under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a two‑y

BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJARversusVEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2020 INSC 49014 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The corporate debtor Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries defaulted on its loans on 08 July 2011. The financial creditor, JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in March 2018 to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process, stating

SMT. ARIFA & ORS.versusABHIMAN APARTMENT COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 87514 July 2025Dismissed

The petitioners, who had earlier entered into a sale agreement with the cooperative society and executed a power of attorney (PoA) that was later cancelled, filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. The High Court, on remand, dismissed the se

BINOD PATHAK & ORS.versusSHANKAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

2025 INSC 84214 July 2025Case Partly allowed

The plaintiffs filed a title suit in 1984 which was dismissed by the trial court but later allowed by the first appellate court. The defendants appealed, and the High Court set aside the first appellate court's decree, holding that several defendants had died during the pendency of the first appeal and their legal heir

M/S DHANBAD FUELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR

2025 INSC 69614 May 2025Dismissed

The Union of India filed a money suit of over Rs 8.73 crore in a Commercial Court in August 2019 without first complying with the pre‑institution mediation requirement of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant, Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd., raised a preliminary objection and sought rejection of the pl

GANESH PRASADversusRAJESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS.

2023 INSC 22814 March 2023Dismissed

The appellant, who was the original defendant, challenged a lower‑court order that allowed the plaintiffs to amend their suit seeking redemption of a mortgage and possession of a shop. The plaintiffs had earlier filed a small‑cause suit that was dismissed for non‑prosecution, and later filed a civil suit under Section

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