JAGADGURU ANNADANISHWARA MAHA SWAMIJIversusV.C. ALLIPUR & ANOTHER
2009 INSC 38120 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a school, appealed an order of the Director of Pre‑University Education granting promotion to an assistant teacher (respondent No.1). The respondent filed a contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful disobedience of the Director’s order. The Karnataka …
PRABHAKARAN AND ORS.versusM. AZHAGIRIPILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2006 INSC 15520 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, heirs of the original mortgagor, sued the heirs of the mortgagee for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 7 September 1935 and for an account of income. The mortgagee had assigned the mortgage to an assignee on 12 February 1954, and the plaintiffs argued that this assignment deed was an acknowled…
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…
VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUSTversusM/S CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
2009 INSC 23020 February 2009Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined two appeals arising from a High Court judgment involving Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) and M/s Continental Construction Company. The first appeal concerned a claim of Rs 74,810.38 for recovered jack‑rods, which the Court held was time‑barred under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and …
RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI & ANR.versusMUHAMMED KUNJU & ORS.
2008 INSC 22420 February 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed two suits for specific performance of agreements to sell property, expressly stating in the plaints that they were always ready and willing to fulfil their part of the contracts. The defendants contested the validity of the agreements and claimed the suits were barred by limitation, but they never …
DES RAJ AND ORS.versusBHAGAT RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS .
2007 INSC 16920 February 2007Dismissed
UTKAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATIONversusCENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD
1999 INSC 1520 January 1999Appeal(s) allowed
Utkal Commercial Corporation entered into a contract with Central Coal Fields Ltd to supply alumina ferric, which expired in August 1975. A dispute arose and the appellant served a notice on 12 September 1976 demanding the respondent concur in the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 194…
SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS.versusSHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER
2024 INSC 102519 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and its trustees challenging the High Court’s affirmation of a trial court order that rejected their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC to dismiss a plaint filed by Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj seeking declaration of own…
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 …
NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD.versusFEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
2024 INSC 102719 December 2024
The Supreme Court examined an appeal by NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd. (NTBCL) against a High Court order that halted toll collection on the Delhi‑NOIDA Direct Flyway (DND Flyway). The dispute arose from a 1997 Concession Agreement granting NTBCL the right to build, operate and collect tolls, which a residents' welfare…
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…
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…
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…
HAMIDKHANversusASHABI & ORS.
2008 INSC 131919 November 2008Case Partly allowed
The plaintiff, a lease‑holder of land and superstructure since 1951, entered into a sale agreement with a charitable trust on 26 February 1980, subject to permission from the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Commissioner initially ordered the property to be sold by public auctio…
ITW SIGNODE INDIA LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
2003 INSC 64719 November 2003Case Partly allowed
ITW Signode India Ltd., a manufacturer of box‑strappings from duty‑paid cold‑rolled steel strips, claimed that the product fell under tariff item 26AA(iii) and no further excise duty was payable. The Revenue argued that the product should be re‑classified under tariff item 68/7308.90 and that a short‑levy of duty could…
VAN VIBHAG KARAMCHARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT (REGD.)versusRAMESH CHANDER AND ORS.
2010 INSC 70519 October 2010Dismissed
The appellant cooperative society entered into an oral agreement in 1974 and a written sale deed in 1976 to purchase land from the first respondent, who later claimed the agreement was cancelled in a public notice dated 3 February 1991. The appellant filed a suit on 11 February 1991 for declaration of ownership and inj…
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 …
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)versusDHARAMPAL
2001 INSC 52719 October 2001Disposed off
The State of Delhi appealed the acquittal of Dharampal, who had been convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated "lal mirch kutti". The Sessions Judge had set aside the conviction on the ground that the contents of the Central Food Laboratory certificate were not read out to the accu…
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…
P.K. RAMACHANDRANversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
1997 INSC 66519 September 1997Dismissed
The State of Kerala filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal against a Sub‑Court decree in an arbitration matter, but the appeal was filed 565 days after the limitation period expired. The High Court, despite the respondent’s strong opposition, condoned the delay without recording any satisfaction that the explanation offere…
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…
WAKF BOARD ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYversusBIRADA VOLURAMANA REDDY
1999 INSC 34519 August 1999Dismissed
The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board filed a suit in 1973 to recover possession of a 48½‑cent parcel of land that had been granted as a service Imam plot to the Paish Imam of a mosque and subsequently alienated through several sales. The trial court allowed the suit, but the High Court dismissed it on the ground that the clai…
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…
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHANversusRAM CHARAN
2006 INSC 34919 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The employer (Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan) terminated pump driver Ram Charan. The Labour Court held that the termination violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and ordered reinstatement with 25% back wages. The employer challenged the award in the High Court; the Single Judge dismissed the writ pet…
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)…
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 …
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…
M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD.versusASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS. 786787 OF 2019 IN
2019 INSC 139718 December 2019Dismissed
M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. filed a money suit against Assam State Electricity Board for interest on delayed payments. The Supreme Court had earlier held the suit barred by limitation, rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of benefit under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 14, and also held that the 1993 …
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…
H.P. STATE FOREST COMPANY LTD.versusM/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
2008 INSC 146818 December 2008Dismissed
The appellant, H.P. State Forest Co. Ltd., insured timber with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. under a policy dated 16 November 1987 that was later found to be a typographical error and effectively covered only eight months. The timber was washed away in September 1988, and the insurer repudiated the claim on 13 Octobe…
M/S. P. MANOHAR REDDY & BROS.versusMAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEV. CORPN. & ORS.
2008 INSC 148218 December 2008Dismissed
The contractor, M/s P. Manohar Reddy & Bros., completed an excavation contract for the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, received full payment and accepted the final bill. Later it claimed extra work, but raised the claim after the contract had ended and beyond the 30‑day period prescribed in clauses …
RAM SWAROOP AND ANR.versusMAHINDRU AND ORS.
2003 INSC 73518 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff Krishan Dutt sued for a one‑third share and partition of land that his father had allegedly inherited from his brother‑in‑law after the widow Gangi remarried the brother Bala Ram, invoking a custom of "illaqua" whereby a widow’s property passes to the brother she marries. The defendants (appellants) prove…
M/S. INDIA HOUSEversusKISHAN N. LALWANI
2002 INSC 55818 December 2002Dismissed
The respondent filed two revision petitions against a High Court order under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1960, but applied for a certified copy of the order after the 30‑day limitation period had expired. The Supreme Court held that, under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the time req…
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…
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…
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…
AVTAR SINGH HITversusDELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AND ORS
2006 INSC 70718 October 2006Dismissed
The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee held elections for its Executive Board on 19 December 2005, but the petitioner claimed confusion over the meeting date prevented his participation. He filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election, while the newly elected…
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 …
LAXMIDAS MORARJI (DEAD ) BY LRS.versusMISS BEHROSE DARAB MADAN
2009 INSC 115318 September 2009Dismissed
The landlord of a flat in Greater Bombay filed a suit under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 seeking eviction of the occupant, who claimed tenancy rights as a family member of the deceased tenant. The Small Causes Court entertained the suit, but the appellate court held t…
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…
TUNDAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS.versusMUNSHI AND ORS.
2006 INSC 51818 August 2006Dismissed
The owners of agricultural land mortgaged the property and, after the mortgagor's death, the heirs filed a suit for redemption under the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act. The Collector dismissed the suit for lack of sufficient evidence, but did not record any findings on the merits. The heirs later filed a redemption…
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…
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…
M/S. KAMAKSHI BUILDERSversusM/.S. AMBEDKAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS.
2007 INSC 63718 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Kamakshi Builders, entered into a partnership with the owner of a property (Respondent No.3) and, through an arbitration award, acquired ownership of the premises that had been leased to Ambedkar Educational Society (Respondent No.1). The society claimed title to the property on the basis of an alleged o…
NARAIN PRASAD AGGARWAL (D) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF M.P.
2007 INSC 64218 May 2007Disposed off
The plaintiff, Narain Prasad Aggarwal, claimed ownership of a parcel of land that had been auctioned in 1859 and subsequently passed down through his ancestors. The State of Madhya Pradesh asserted that the land was Nazul land held by the government on lease to the plaintiff's predecessor, Putri Sethani, and that the S…
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…
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (D1), AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.versusRAHAMATULLAH KHAN ALIAS RAHAMJULLA
2020 INSC 20518 February 2020Disposed off
The dispute concerned Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (the licensee) seeking to recover an additional electricity demand raised after discovering that earlier bills had been issued under a wrong tariff code. The consumer challenged the demand, arguing it was time‑barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. T…
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…
J.C. BUDHRAJAversusCHAIRMAN, ORISSA MINING CORPN. LTD. & ANR.
2008 INSC 6418 January 2008Case Partly allowed
The contractor (N.C. Budhraja) completed excavation work for Orissa Mining Corp. Ltd. (OMC) and later claimed extra payment for work beyond the contract. OMC acknowledged pending claims in a letter dated 28‑Oct‑1978 and paid Rs.3,50,000 on 4‑Mar‑1980, after which the contractor invoked arbitration on 4‑Jun‑1980. The le…
RAM BACHAN RAI AND ORS.versusRAM UDAR RAI AND ORS.
2006 INSC 3318 January 2006Matter referred to larger bench
In Ram Bachan Raj & Ors. v. Ram Udar Rai & Ors., the appellant challenged a Subordinate Judge's order that the limitation period for filing an execution petition under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 began when the decree became enforceable (i.e., when signed). The appellant relied on several Supreme Court deci…
PURAN SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
1996 INSC 9318 January 1996
The appellants filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, relating to land allocation under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. During the pendency of the petitio…
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…
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSKIPPER CONSTRUCTLON CO. (P) LTD. AND ORS.
1999 INSC 57417 December 1999Disposed off
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sold a plot to Skipper Construction Co., which defaulted on payments and subsequently sold space in the proposed building to far more buyers than the available units, many of whom paid large sums. DDA re‑entered the plot, sold it to a third party, and was ordered in 1996 to reimbur…
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…
SUNITADEVI SINGHAN1A HOSPITAL TRUST AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
2008 INSC 130717 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The Sunita Devi Singhania Hospital Trust, a charitable hospital, imported equipment under Notification 64/88-Cus which exempted it from customs duty provided it reserved 10% of beds for low‑income patients and offered free outpatient treatment to at least 40% of patients. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate T…
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…
UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
2006 INSC 70517 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India entered into a construction contract with Shring Construction Company. After the contract was completed, a dispute arose and the High Court appointed an arbitrator who awarded a sum to Shring. The Union challenged the award by filing a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, and subsequ…
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 …
M/S SONALI POWER EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.versusCHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI & ORS.
2025 INSC 86417 July 2025Case Partly allowed
The appellant, Sonali Power Equipments, supplied transformers to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board between 1993 and 2004 and faced delayed payments. It referred the dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, obtaining an award in 2010, which the respondents …
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…
GANNMANI ANASUYA AND ORS.versusPARVATINI AMARENDRA CHOWDHARY AND ORS.
2007 INSC 61717 May 2007Case Partly allowed
The plaintiffs, sons of the family Karta, sued the appellants for partition of two properties and for a decree directing the appellants to render accounts of a poultry‑tube manufacturing joint venture, claiming a 2/3 share in one property and a 4/9 share in the other. The appellants contended that the business was thei…
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…
SNEH GUPTAversusDEVI SARUP & ORS.
2009 INSC 20117 February 2009Dismissed
The appellant, Sneh Gupta, an heir of Munni Devi, challenged a compromise decree that had been entered into by the original plaintiff Veena Nirwani and certain defendants during the pendency of two suits concerning land mutation and alleged fraud. The compromise resulted in the withdrawal of both suits, but Gupta and o…
BALAKRISHNANversusMALAIYANDI KONAR
2006 INSC 9417 February 2006Dismissed
Balakrishnan, the decree holder, purchased the judgment debtor's property in a court auction in 1981 and the sale was confirmed in 1983. He later filed an application for delivery of possession, which the trial court ordered in his favour. The respondent challenged the order, arguing that the application was filed beyo…
MONOTOSH KUMAR MITRA (DEAD) BY LRS.versusAMRENDRANATH SHAW (DEAD) AND ORS.
2000 INSC 8617 February 2000
In a mortgage suit, a preliminary decree dated 18 November 1968 ordered the defendants to pay Rs.24,000 in four annual instalments, with the first instalment due on 31 March 1969. The decree allowed the plaintiff to apply for a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property upon any default, subject to Section 34 of t…
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 …
BHAG MAL (ALIAS) RAM BUX AND ORS.versusMUNSHI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2007 INSC 6017 January 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, sons of Sher Singh, inherited land sold by their father to Bansi. They challenged the sale in a suit that was dismissed, but on appeal a declaratory decree was obtained in their favour. While the decree was pending, both Sher Singh and Bansi died, and the appeal was abated on 14‑Oct‑1977 because Bansi's…
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…
M/S. SHAKTI TUBES LTD. TR. DIRECTORversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
2008 INSC 144916 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed
Shakti Tubes Ltd., a contractor for the State of Bihar, entered into a contract for supplying black pipes that contained an escalation clause. Disputing the escalated price, the contractor filed a writ petition in 1994, which was partially admitted in 1995. After serving a notice under CPC s.80, it filed a money suit i…
BHAGYODAY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusRAVINDRA BALKRISHNA PATEL DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS
2022 INSC 121016 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant bank granted a loan to a partnership firm which defaulted, leading to a Lavad suit under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. An award was passed in 1988 and a certificate under Section 103 was issued in 1995, creating a deemed decree. The bank filed an execution petition in 1995, which was withd…
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…
GOVERNMENT OF INDIAversus1.VEDANTA LIMITED (FORMERLY CAIRN INDIA LTD.) 2. RAVVA OIL (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. 3. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LIMITED
2020 INSC 54816 September 2020Dismissed
The Government of India appealed a Delhi High Court order that allowed Vedanta Ltd. and its affiliates to enforce a foreign arbitral award under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court examined the applicable limitation period for filing an enforcement petition, the scheme of the 199…
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.…
MITHAILAL DALSANGAR SINGH AND ORS.versusANNABAI DEVRAM KINI AND ORS.
2003 INSC 48416 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, three co‑plaintiffs, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. One plaintiff died, and his legal representatives applied for condonation of delay, setting aside the abatement of the suit and to be brought on record. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the application, finding suf…
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…
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, SUB-DIVISION, KOTAversusMOHAN LAL
2013 INSC 54216 August 2013Case Partly allowed
The appellant, a state agriculture marketing board, terminated the services of workman Mohan Lal in February 1986 without notice or retrenchment compensation. The workman raised an industrial dispute six years later, and the Labour Court held the termination violated Section 25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, o…
GANESHPRASAD BADRINARAYAN LAHOTI (D) BY LRS.versusSANJEEVPRASAD JAMNAPRASAD CHOURASIYA AND ANR.
2004 INSC 45216 August 2004Leave Granted & Allowed
The landlord sued the tenant for possession of a property on the ground of unauthorised sub‑letting and obtained a decree. The tenant appealed, but died while the appeal was pending. His heirs, unaware of the appeal, learned of it only when the advocate wrote a letter and promptly filed an application under Order 22 Ru…
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS AND HOUSING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSH. MOHINDER SINGH JAGDEV AND ORS.
1996 INSC 89616 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed
Sh. Mohinder Singh Jagdev was appointed as a Section Officer in the Central Public Works Department in 1956 but was found to have obtained the appointment using false certificates. He was suspended and later terminated on 10 September 1957 under Rule 5 of the Central Government (Temporary) Service Rules, 1949, while cr…
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…
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERSversusKAMAL SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER
2008 INSC 75916 June 2008Case Allowed
The State of West Bengal appealed against a West Bengal Administrative Tribunal order that granted higher pay scales to two officers, Kamal Sengupta and another, after a review application was allowed. The respondents contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review its own order on the basis of a later decisi…
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, …
RANGANAYAKAMMA AND ANOTHERversusK.S. PRAKASH (D) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS
2008 INSC 71116 May 2008Dismissed
The case involved two sisters who challenged a 1983 deed of partition and relinquishment of their rights in family properties in favour of their brothers, alleging fraud and lack of consideration. The lower courts had held that the properties were joint family assets, the partition was a family settlement, and the sist…
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…
KAMLESH BABU AND ORS.versusLAJPAT RAI SHARMA AND ORS.
2008 INSC 49716 April 2008Case Allowed
The dispute arose from a registered Will dated 5 August 1972 that mutated property in favour of the appellants. Respondent No.1 filed a suit alleging the Will was procured by fraud; the trial court dismissed the suit and held it barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The first appellate cour…
PUKHRAJ D. JAIN AND ORS.versusG. GOPALAKRISHNA
2004 INSC 28116 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The original owners of a residential building executed an agreement to sell the property to Dr. Gopalakrishna in 1974 and received an advance, but Gopalakrishna later rescinded the contract and sued for recovery of the advance. He subsequently sought to amend his suit for specific performance, which the trial court rej…
BABU KHAN AND ORS.versusNAZIM KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2001 INSC 20916 April 2001Case Allowed
The appellants, pucca tenants, filed an application under Section 91 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 seeking reinstatement after being dispossessed, but the revenue authorities dismissed their claim. They subsequently filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession, which the trial co…
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusNANDLAL RAIGAR
1996 INSC 53616 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed
Nandlal Raigar, an accountant in the Rajasthan Telephones Department, was dismissed on May 9, 1973 for alleged fabrication of records. After exhausting departmental appeals, he filed a suit in 1980 seeking a declaration that his dismissal was illegal. The trial court dismissed the suit on limitation grounds but noted p…
KRISHNA PILLAI RAJASEKHARAN NAIR (D) BY LRS.versusPADMANABHA PILLAI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2003 INSC 72015 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a non‑redeeming co‑mortgagor, claimed a 9/12 share in a jointly owned mortgaged property and sought declaration of title, possession, or partition after another co‑mortgagor fully redeemed the mortgage and took possession. The trial court and first appellate court decreed partition, ordering the appellan…
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…
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusPUNJAB SINGH AND ANR.
2003 INSC 47815 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed
Punjab Singh was granted a Freedom Fighters Pension under the 1972 scheme, but the pension was suspended when his income exceeded the Rs.5,000 ceiling. The Government later introduced the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme in 1980, removing the income ceiling and granting him a fresh pension effective 1 August 19…
HARDESH ORES PVT. LTD.versusM/S HEDE & CO.
2007 INSC 57615 May 2007Dismissed
Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. and Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. entered into extraction and purchase agreements with Hede & Co. containing a clause allowing the lessee to renew the lease every five years at its sole option. The lessees exercised the option in December 2001, but Hede & Co. denied renewal, leading t…
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…
CHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusCENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ORS.
2010 INSC 21215 April 2010Dismissed
The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB) appealed an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity dated 17 May 2007, filing the appeal on 24 December 2007 and seeking condonation of a 160‑day delay. The Court was asked to decide (i) whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could be invoked to extend the …
SETH RAMDAYAL JATversusLAXMI PRASAD
2009 INSC 51115 April 2009Dismissed
The borrower, Laxmi Prasad, had pledged jewellery to money‑lender Seth Ramdayal Jat in 1987 for a loan. After the lender was convicted in a criminal case for charging excess interest, the borrower served a notice on 12 May 1998 demanding the return of the jewellery, which was ignored. A suit for recovery of the pledged…
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…
ACHALDAS DURGAJI OSWAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusRAMVILAS GANGABISAN HEDA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
2003 INSC 1315 January 2003Dismissed
The appellant, a mortgagor in a usufructuary mortgage, filed a suit for redemption and was directed by the trial court to deposit the mortgage money within a stipulated period. He failed to deposit, sought an extension which was denied, later deposited the amount with permission, and then applied for a final decree wit…
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…
M/S SINGH ENTERPRISESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR AND ORS.
2007 INSC 132014 December 2007Dismissed
Miss Singh Enterprises appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the Jharkhand High Court which had dismissed its writ petition challenging the dismissal of its appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The appeal had been filed 21 months after the service of the original order, far beyond the 60‑day …
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…
FAIRGROWTH INVESTMENTS LTD.versusTHE CUSTODIAN
2004 INSC 60814 October 2004Dismissed
Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. was notified under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 and filed a petition of objection under Section 4(2) more than 30 days after the notification. The Special Court rejected the petition on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court exa…
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…
WEST BENGAL ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES SUPPLY CORPORATIONversusSWADESH AGRO FARMING AND STORAGE PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
1999 INSC 40114 September 1999Dismissed
The appellant filed a suit in 1980 for recovery of a sum of money; the High Court decreed the suit ex‑parte on 8 March 1982, but the formal decree was only drawn up and signed on 9 August 1983. An execution petition filed in 1995 was allowed, but the High Court division bench later set aside the execution order on the …
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…
THE INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusGRAPCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.
1999 INSC 26414 May 1999Disposed off
ICICI filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 seeking recovery of about Rs 36.5 crore from Grapco Industries Ltd. and others. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, on the same day, issued an ex‑parte injunction restraining the respondents from alienating h…
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 …
SRI BISWANATH BANIK & ANR.versusSMT. SULANGA BOSE & ORS.
2022 INSC 30014 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a title suit seeking a declaration under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, a permanent injunction and related reliefs, alleging continuous possession of the property for over twelve years. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to have the plaint rejected …
PRAKASH CORPORATESversusDEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED
2022 INSC 18014 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
Prakash Corporates filed a money suit against Dee Vee Projects Limited on 21‑12‑2020. The defendant failed to file a written statement within the 30‑day period and sought extensions, which were granted up to 15‑04‑2021, but the 120‑day deadline fell on 06‑05‑2021. The trial court and the High Court refused further exte…
VOLTAS LTD.versusROLTA INDIA LTD.
2014 INSC 10214 February 2014Case Partly allowed
Voltas Ltd. and Rolta India Ltd. entered into civil construction contracts which later gave rise to disputes and termination. The appellant invoked the arbitration clause in 2006, after which the respondent filed a counter claim of Rs.333.73 crores in 2011. The key issue was whether the counter claim was barred by limi…
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDAversusM/S PUNJAB FIBRES LTD., NOIDA
2008 INSC 18714 February 2008Dismissed
The appeals concerned whether a High Court could condone a delay in filing a reference application under Section 35‑H of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The reference applications were filed after the statutory period of 180 days. The Court examined the provisions of Sections 35‑G, 35‑E(3) and the lack of any condonation…
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERSversusVIVEK V. GAWDE ETC. ETC.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 84313 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned eviction proceedings initiated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against occupants who held premises on a licence basis. The respondents challenged the Inquiry Officer's authority and the High Court's order that framed nine specific points for the Officer to determine, alleging violation…
M.R. VINODAversusM.S. SUSHEELAMMA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS
2021 INSC 87813 December 2021Dismissed
The case involved three branches of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family that executed a partition deed in 1961. In 1969 the eldest brother of one branch, acting as Karta, and a cousin executed a relinquishment deed surrendering their branch's share in favour of the eldest uncle who had repaid a family mortgage. Four younge…
DAVINDER PAL SEHGAL AND ANR.versusM/S PARTAP STEEL ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
2001 INSC 60713 December 2001Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, settled abroad, filed a suit for declaration and possession but their advocate could not appear on the scheduled date due to a family emergency, and no notice of the next hearing was received. The trial court dismissed the suit for non‑prosecution and later dismissed two restoration applications under O…
SUNDER DAS AND ORSversusGAJANANRAO AND ORS.
1996 INSC 148413 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined a suit filed by three brothers challenging a 1959 sale deed by their father, the Karta of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family, which conveyed an ancestral house to the defendants. The plaintiffs argued the father lacked authority to alienate their undivided 3/4 share and that the suit was barred …
COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX, U.P.versusM/S MOHAN BRICKFIELD, AGRA
2006 INSC 84013 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The assessee, Mohan Brickfield, was engaged in brick manufacturing and sales. During two surveys of its premises in 1984-85, it failed to produce its books of accounts, which were later produced at the time of assessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the books, citing the non‑production at the surveys and other discr…
RAJRATAN BABULAL AGARWALversusSOLARTEX INDIA PVT. LTD.& ORS.
2022 INSC 108113 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, an ex‑director of the corporate debtor, contested the admission of an application filed by the operational creditor under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) alleging a debt for coal supplied under a purchase order. The creditor claimed the coal was of inferior quality, leading to email…
RAGHUNATH (D) BY LRS.versusRADHA MOHAN (D) THR. LRS & ORS.
2020 INSC 59013 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court considered a suit filed in 1974 by a co‑sharer seeking to enforce his pre‑emptive right over a sale of a property in Ajmer. The property had previously been transferred in 1945, 1946 and on 5 Nov 1966, the latter after the Rajasthan Pre‑Emption Act, 1966 came into force. The issue was whether the one‑…
RAMAN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusR. NATARAJAN
2022 INSC 95413 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a 1993 agreement of sale of land, which was conditioned on the defendant first entering into an agreement with his brother's wife to purchase a parcel of her land for access. The trial court granted specific performance, the first appellate court reversed, and the …
JOSE PAULO COUTINHOversusMARIA LUIZAVALENTINA PEREIRA & ANR.
2019 INSC 102913 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned the succession of property belonging to a Goan domicile, Joaquim Mariano Pereira, who had bequeathed a Bombay immovable to one daughter while the other two daughters contested the applicability of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, to that property. The dispute centered on whether the Portuguese Civil …
ESHA BHATTACHARJEEversusMANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY AND OTHERS
2013 INSC 62013 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The case arose from a writ petition filed by an assistant teacher seeking enforcement of an interim order that her services not be disturbed. The managing committee of the school failed to comply with the order, leading to multiple contempt petitions. The committee later appealed the interim order and sought condonatio…
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLversusISMAT AHMED AND OTHERS
2025 INSC 98413 August 2025Dismissed
The tenant (appellant) occupied a flat in Kolkata and was served a summons for eviction on 29 September 2022. He filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, together with a Section 5 Limitation Act application, 17 days after the statutory 30‑day period for depositing r…
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusTARSEM SINGH
2008 INSC 93013 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed
Tarsem Singh, invalidated from the Indian Army in 1983, sought disability pension. A single High Court judge in 2000 granted the pension and limited arrears to 38 months before the writ filing. Unsatisfied, Singh appealed, and the High Court Division Bench in 2006 ordered payment of arrears from 1983 (16 years) with 6%…
HAMEED JOHARAN (D) AND ORS.versusABDUL SALAM (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2001 INSC 36113 August 2001Dismissed
In a partition suit, a final decree was passed on 20‑Nov‑1970 but the decree holder failed to furnish the required stamp paper, delaying the drawing up of the decree. The decree holder's legal representatives filed an execution petition on 21‑May‑1984, more than twelve years after the decree. The respondents argued tha…
SRI BABU RAM @ DURGA PRASADversusSRI INDRA PAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.
1998 INSC 30613 August 1998Dismissed
The plaintiff, an undischarged insolvent, entered into a joint application with the creditor to sell his land for the debt amount, with a clause allowing repurchase within five years. After the sale deed was executed by the Official Receiver, the plaintiff was adjudicated insolvent, but later obtained an unconditional …
DR. CHIRANJI LAL (D) BY LRS.versusHARI DAS (D) BY LRS.
2005 INSC 27913 May 2005Appeal(s) allowed
In a partition suit, a final decree was passed on 7 August 1981 but was not engrossed on stamp paper until the respondents furnished the required stamp papers on 25 May 1982. The appellant filed an execution application on 21 March 1994, arguing that it was barred by the 12‑year limitation period under Article 136 of t…
SABIR ALI KHANversusSYED MOHD. AHMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS
2023 INSC 36813 April 2023Dismissed
The case concerned a Shia waqf‑al‑aulad created in 1934, whose property was allegedly alienated by two void sales in 1960 and 1974 without the sanction of the Waqf Board. The respondents, who were beneficiaries of the waqf, claimed title by adverse possession, while the appellant argued that limitation provisions (Arti…
SUCHA SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS.versusBALDEV RAJ WALIA & ANR.
2018 INSC 33813 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The original plaintiff, Sucha Singh, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant in 1996, which he later withdrew with the court's permission to pursue appropriate proceedings before a competent forum. He subsequently filed a fresh suit for specific performance of the same agreement, which the defendant…
MIZO CHIEF COUNCIL MIZORAM, THR. PRESIDENT SHRI L. CHINZAHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2026 INSC 23613 March 2026Dismissed
The Mizo Chief Council filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of tribal chieftains alleging that the State had acquired their traditional lands without paying due compensation, violating their fundamental right to property. The petition was filed in 2014, more than six decades after the 1955 notification that…
RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGHversusRAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS
2019 INSC 35713 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff and his brother executed a registered gift deed in 1981 transferring land to the appellant, the appellant's son. Neither the plaintiff nor his brother contested the deed for about 22 years; the appellant filed a partition suit in 2001, in which the plaintiff was a defendant. In 2003 the plaintiff filed a …
VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR.versusRAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRS.
2024 INSC 10913 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed
In 1947 a mother, Thayammal, executed a First Settlement Deed granting interests in her property to her two sons and her daughter. Subsequent deeds in 1952 and later altered those interests, ultimately leaving the daughter’s husband, Gopalakrishnan, claiming a vested right as heir of the daughter under the First Settle…
R.B. RAMLINGAMversusR.B. BHUVANESWARI
2009 INSC 3113 January 2009Hearing Adjourned
The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) 568 days after the Madras High Court judgment of 18 September 2006, claiming the delay was caused by the pendency of a review application filed within the prescribed period. The central issue was whether the prosecution of a review proceeding could be considered a "su…
BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD AND ANR.versusSMT. SUGNA DEVI AND ORS.
2003 INSC 71412 December 2003Dismissed
Sugna Devi was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the President of the District Board, Gonda, in 1966. After prolonged illness she returned to work in 1971 but was told she was terminated without any formal termination order. When basic education was transferred to the Basic Shiksha Parishad under the U.P. Basic Educ…
SHYAM KUMAR INANIversusVINOD AGRAWAL & ORS.
2024 INSC 86512 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants purchased 23.98 acres of agricultural land from Sushila Devi under an Agreement to Sell dated 30‑08‑1990, paid full consideration and took possession, but the legal heirs refused to execute a sale deed. The trial court decreed specific performance, but the High Court reversed, holding the agreement void …
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.versusSUBRATA BORAH CHOWLEK, ETC.
2010 INSC 77612 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents, employees of Indian Oil Corporation, obtained a writ order regularising their service. The corporation appealed the order, filing its appeal 59 days after the deadline and seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Gauhati High Court Division Bench rejected the condon…
P. DAIVASIGAMANIversusS. SAMBANDAN
2022 INSC 107012 October 2022Dismissed
The appellant, who owned a one‑acre wetland, entered into a 1989 agreement to sell the land to the respondent for Rs 6,50,000, with a six‑month completion clause. The respondent repeatedly notified the appellant to perform, demonstrated his readiness and willingness, and filed a suit for specific performance in 1993. T…
MAHABIR SINGHversusSUBHASH AND ORS.
2007 INSC 107812 October 2007
Mahabir Singh filed a suit in 1985 and, after serving summons, obtained an ex‑parte decree against Subhash on 19‑Feb‑1986 when the defendant failed to appear. Subhash sought to set aside the decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on 7‑Feb‑1997, claiming improper service of summons. The trial court and the appellate c…
ANNAKILIversusA. VEDANA YAGAM AND ORS.
2007 INSC 108512 October 2007Dismissed
The respondents bought land from the Corporation of Madras, which was later mistakenly transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and allotted to the appellant under a slum‑clearance scheme. The respondents obtained a writ directing the denotification of the area as a slum, but the High Court set aside the dire…
RAJUL MANOJ SHAH ALIAS RAJESHWARI RASIKLAL SHETHversusKIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ANR.
2025 INSC 110912 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that her sister‑in‑law could not sell a jointly owned bungalow and that an agreement to sell dated 21‑10‑2011 was void. After the sister‑in‑law died, the court substituted a Nazir as defendant No.1. In 2021 the respondent (defendant No.2) applied to amend his wri…
SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORANversusJAGAN DEVI & ORS.
2025 INSC 110512 September 2025Dismissed
The plaintiffs claimed a one‑third share in agricultural land and sought a permanent injunction and joint possession, alleging that a sale deed dated 14‑06‑1973 was fraudulent and void because they never executed it and received no consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit as time‑barred; the First Appellate Co…
A. VALLIAMMAIversusK.P. MURALI AND OTHERS
2023 INSC 82312 September 2023Disposed off
A. Valliammai entered into an agreement to sell land to K. Sriram in 1988, with an advance paid and the balance due by May 1989, later extended to November 1989. After disputes and notices in 1991 indicating Valliammai's refusal to perform, Sriram filed an injunction suit, which was later dismissed, and assigned his ri…
AXIS BANK LIMITEDversusNAREN SHETH & ANR.
2023 INSC 82012 September 2023Dismissed
Axis Bank Limited (appellant) appealed against the admission of a Section 7 petition filed by State Bank of India (respondent No.2) against Shreem Corporation Limited (the corporate debtor). The dispute centered on whether the petition was time‑barred under the three‑year limitation period, given that the debtor was de…
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusC. PADMA AND ANR.
2003 INSC 47512 September 2003Dismissed
The respondents were injured in a motor accident on 18 February 1989 and filed a claim petition for compensation on 2 November 1995. The appellant, New India Assurance Co., argued that the claim was barred by the six‑month limitation prescribed in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as read with the repeale…
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.versusPRADEEP KUMAR AND ANR.
2000 INSC 44112 September 2000Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents filed a suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh and a sales tax officer, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The District Judge reversed that decision, and the State filed a second appeal before the High Court but omitted the required application for condonation of delay under Order 41 Rule 3…
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)versusAHMED JAAN
2008 INSC 92912 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The State of NCT of Delhi filed a criminal revision petition against the discharge of Ahmed Jaan, who was charged with offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 124A and 120B of the IPC for alleged terrorist activities. The trial court discharged him for lack of prima facie evidence. The State’s revision petition and an …
PARWATBAIversusSONABAI AND ORS.
1996 INSC 87212 August 1996Dismissed
The dispute concerned land originally owned by Punjaba. Upon his death, his widow Parwatabai obtained a limited estate in 1941 and executed a registered gift deed transferring enjoyment of the land to her husband, who thereafter possessed it. After Parwatabai’s death in 1966, her daughters claimed succession to the fat…
THIRUNAGALINGAMversusLINGESWARAN & ANR.
2025 INSC 67212 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, but the trial court passed an ex‑parte decree after the defendants stopped appearing. The defendants later obtained condonation of delay for earlier applications under Order IX Rule 13, but the Supreme Court dismissed those condonation petitions i…
NIDHI KAIMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ETC.
2017 INSC 13112 May 2016Directions issued
The appellants, who had secured admission to medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh through the Pre‑Medical Entrance Test (PMT), challenged the cancellation of their results and admissions on the grounds that the Vyapam Board was not validly constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007 and …
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.versusANSHUMAN SHUKLA
2008 INSC 64312 May 2008Matter referred to larger bench
The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a revision application before the High Court under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, but the application was 80 days late. The issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows condonation of delay, applies to such revision appl…
PANCHANAN OHARA AND ORS.versusMONMATHA NATH MAITY (DEAD) TH. LRS. & ANR.
2006 INSC 32812 May 2006Dismissed
The appellant, a subsequent purchaser of a suit property, challenged a decree granting specific performance of an agreement for sale entered into between the original buyer (Respondent No.1) and a private limited company (Respondent No.2). The company had promised to execute and register a sale deed but later refused, …
P. SARATHYversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA
2000 INSC 33012 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed
P. Sarathy, a former branch manager of State Bank of India, was suspended and removed from service after a departmental enquiry. He first appealed to the Bank's Local Board, which dismissed his appeal, and then filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act before the Deputy Commissi…
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.versusL.K. AHUJA
2004 INSC 25712 April 2004Disposed off
The dispute arose from contracts for work where the parties had agreed to refer disagreements to arbitration. After a fresh award was made by a newly appointed arbitrator, the appellant sought to set aside the award, challenging several items including sales‑tax refund and loss‑of‑profit claims, and also argued that th…
RAICHURMATHAM PRABHAKAR AND ANR.versusRAWATMAL DUGAR
2004 INSC 25812 April 2004Dismissed
The landlord sought possession of two shop premises to demolish and reconstruct them under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. After the landlord completed the work, he offered the rebuilt premises back to the tenants at a higher rent, but the tenants filed execution…
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.versusSGT GIRISH KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.
2026 INSC 14912 February 2026
The case concerned ex‑servicemen who, after being granted disability pension, sought arrears of pension dating back to their discharge dates, invoking the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in Union of India v. Ram Avtar which recognized a broad‑banding right. The Union of India appealed, arguing that the Limitation Act, 19…
RAVINDER NATH AGARWALversusYOGENDER NATH AGARWAL & ORS.
2021 INSC 8612 February 2021Disposed off
The petitioners, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal and his sister Lily Nath, sought transfer of a partition suit and a testamentary case involving a Will dated 06‑04‑2011 of their father. The first petition asked to move the partition suit from the Additional District Judge, Saket, Delhi to the District Court, Nainital, whil…
MALLURU MALLAPPA (D) THR. LRS.versusKURUVATHAPPA & ORS.
2020 INSC 17312 February 2020Directions issued
Malluru Mallappa filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30 March 2000, alleging the defendants had breached the contract. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was not ready to perform his part. The trial court dismissed the suit on both grou…
RASHTRIYA !SPAT NIGAM LTD.versusM/S. PRATHYUSHA RESOURCES & INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.
2016 INSC 15912 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, awarded a transport contract to Prathyusha Resources & Infra Pvt. Ltd. The contract was extended and a dispute arose over the base year for price escalation, leading to arbitration where the arbitrator ruled in favour of the respondent. The district court s…
J. KUMARADASAN NAIR & ANR.versusIRIC SOHAN & ORS.
2009 INSC 16512 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved an appeal by J. Kumaradasan Nair & Anr. against Iric Sohan & Ors. concerning the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, after the appellants had prosecuted appeals in the wrong forum and cited an incorrect provision. The Kerala High Court had held that Section 14 was not attracted an…
DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.
2024 INSC 104911 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a suit in 2017 seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 04‑12‑2004, alleging fraud and claiming they only became aware of the deed on 31‑03‑2017 when a revenue notice was issued. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the thre…
M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. & ANRversusM/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD. & ANR.
2023 INSC 105911 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, North Eastern Chemicals Industries Ltd. and another, claimed payment of principal and interest from Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. under the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990. The Commissioner of Payments awarded the principal but initiall…
MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRAversusROOP RANI MEHRA & ORS.
2017 INSC 121211 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a partition suit for a family property and later sought to amend the plaint to claim a share in the sale proceeds of another family property sold in 2000. The amendment application was filed on 17 January 2011, before any evidence had been led, although issues had been framed and a date for recordin…
RATAN SINGHversusVIJAY SINGH AND ORS.
2000 INSC 58311 December 2000Appeal(s) allowed
Ratan Singh obtained a decree for possession of his property in 1970, but did not file an execution petition. The respondent filed a first appeal, dismissed in 1973, and later a second appeal which the High Court rejected as time‑barred. Ratan Singh later relied on the High Court order to revive the decree and filed an…
PATEL BHUDARBHAI MAGANBHAI AND ANR.versusPATEL KHEMABHAI AMBARAM AND ORS.
1996 INSC 147111 December 1996Dismissed
The dispute arose over a property mortgaged by widow Bai Jivi in 1911; after her death in 1955 the property passed to her daughter Hati, who filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge decreed in favour of the respondents, holding that Hati was the …