Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Limitation Act, 1963

673 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 401–600.

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

B.K. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPARAG GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES

2018 INSC 95611 October 2018

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. challenging the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to applications under Sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the retrospective effect of the newly inserted Section 238A. The Court examined the Insolvency La

C.NATRAJANversusASHIM BAI AND ANR.

2007 INSC 104411 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit in 2001 seeking declaration of title, an injunction and, alternatively, recovery of possession of a property, alleging that the cause of action arose in 1994. The respondents moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred b

R. M. SUNDARAM @ MEENAKSHISUNDARAMversusSRI KAYAROHANASAMY AND NEELAYADHAKSHI AMMAN TEMPLE (THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER) NAGAPATTINAM, TAMIL NADU

2022 INSC 66511 July 2022Dismissed

The appellant claimed that 26 pieces of suit jewellery kept in the temple's Kudavarai were his personal inheritance as the adopted son of Muthuthandapani Chettiar and sought exclusive possession. The respondent temple argued that the jewellery had been donated by the ancestors of Muthuthandapani as a specific endowment

PERYMON BHAGBATHYversusBHARGAVI AMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2008 INSC 80711 July 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Perymon Bhagabathy (a devaswom), sought to set aside the abatement of a second appeal after the sole plaintiff, Bhargavi Amma, died during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court dismissed the appellant's applications to condone the delay, set aside the abatement, and bring the legal representatives o

RAMESH B. DESAI AND ORS.versusBIPIN VADILAL MEHTA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 41511 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, nine shareholders of Sayaji Industries Ltd., filed a Company Petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act seeking rectification of the register on the ground that the managing director, Bipin Mehta, had fraudulently used company funds to purchase its own shares, violating Section 77. The respondents

ANNAPURNAversusMALLIKARJUN & ANR.

2014 INSC 26811 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The judgment debtor sought to set aside a court‑sale of his house under Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC but failed to make the mandatory deposit of the sale price. The executing court rejected his application and the appellate court dismissed his appeal. He then filed a writ petition, and the High Court, relying on a late

THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 29211 April 2011Disposed off

Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd imported goods in 1996 and, due to a bank error, the required exchange control documents were not forwarded to the RBI, leading to penalty orders under FERA. The company sought to appeal these orders after FEMA came into force, filing belated appeals in 2004 before the Appellate Tribunal under

VITHALBHAI PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2005 INSC 13511 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd., the lessor of a lease that expired on 24 June 1984, served a notice to the lessee demanding vacant possession and filed a suit for eviction on 16 April 1984, twelve weeks before the lease term ended. The defendant argued that the suit was premature and not maintainable. The High Court Single Judge

OM PRAKASH GUPTA ALIAS LALLOOWA (NOW DECEASED) & ORS.versusSATISH CHANDRA (NOW DECEASED)

2025 INSC 18311 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from two second appeals concerning specific performance suits where the respondents died during pendency. The heirs of the deceased respondents filed substitution applications, but the High Court dismissed applications for condonation of delay and held the appeals abated. The Supreme Court examined the p

CHINTELS INDIA LTD.versusBHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 7611 February 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Chintels India Ltd. filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award, but the single judge of the Delhi High Court refused to condone the delay in filing the application and dismissed it. The appellant challenged that order by invoking section 37(1)(c) o

SAMRUDDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusMUMBAI MAHALAXMI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

2022 INSC 3311 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑operative housing society, booked flats from the respondent builder in 1993 and took possession in 1997, but the builder never obtained the required occupancy certificate. Because of this omission, the flat owners had to pay substantially higher property tax and water charges and could not obtain re

RAMJI SINGH PATELversusGYAN CHANDRA JAISWAL

2018 INSC 2311 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent operated a flour mill and related businesses from his residential premises, initially using electricity but from 2003 switched to diesel engines that caused severe vibrations and air pollution affecting the adjoining house of the appellant. The appellant filed a suit in 2004 seeking a perpetual injunctio

UNITED FINANCE CORPORATIONversusM.S.M. HANEEFA

2017 INSC 4511 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

United Finance Corporation, the decree‑holder, purchased a property at a court auction and sought delivery of possession under Order XXI Rule 95 of the CPC. The judgment‑debtor filed applications to set aside the sale and obtained a stay of execution, which was later dismissed on 9 July 2003. The appellant filed the po

M.DURAIversusMADHU AND ORS.

2007 INSC 3111 January 2007Appeal(s) allowed

M. Durai sued Madhu and others for title to a parcel of land, relying on a sale deed dated 19‑Aug‑1978. The defendants claimed they had acquired title by adverse possession, having occupied the land openly and continuously for more than twelve years. The trial court accepted the defendants' claim and dismissed the suit

CHIEF ENGINEER OF B.P.D.P./R.E.O., RANCHIversusM/S. SCOOT WILSON KIRPATRICK INDIA PVT. LTD.

2006 INSC 82510 November 2006Disposed off

The Chief Engineer of B.P.D.P./R.E.O., Ranchi appealed against a High Court order that dismissed its arbitration appeal as non‑maintainable. The appeal concerned whether an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award falls within Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Hig

HARBANSversusOM PRAKASH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 56010 November 2005Dismissed

Harbans (plaintiff) and co‑defendants claimed ownership of a suit land on the basis that a usufructuary mortgage created over a century ago had become extinguished because the statutory limitation period for redemption (60 years) had expired. The defendant, Om Prakash, asserted that he had redeemed the mortgage by payi

MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERSversusRAZIYA KHANAM (D) THR. LRS. AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 94910 October 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

The original civil suit filed in 1979 sought cancellation of alleged forged sale deeds and an injunction. After a series of proceedings, the suit was decreed ex parte on 10 May 2012. The appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 349‑day delay, claiming they only lear

SITU SAHU AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

2004 INSC 50810 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who had been in possession of land since 1938, challenged a 1978 order under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act that restored possession of the land to a Scheduled‑Tribe claimant alleging fraudulent transfer. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 71A could be applied retrospectively to a t

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. ETC.versusM/S. SHIVAM COKE INDUSTRIES, DHANBAD, ETC.

2011 INSC 56910 August 2011Disposed off

The respondents, manufacturers of coke, were assessed for tax under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the Deputy Commissioner issued revised assessment orders. After a change in the Deputy Commissioner, the new officer highlighted irregularities and informed the Joint Commissioner, who then exercised suo motu revision po

RAMIAHversusN. NARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS.

2004 INSC 43310 August 2004Dismissed

The case concerned a suit filed by Ramiah in 1984 for possession of 1 acre 21 gunthas of land, after a previous decree in 1971 that had awarded possession to N. Narayana Reddy. The trial court and High Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, holding that the suit was filed 13 years after the appellant’s ouste

PALLAV SHETHversusCUSTODIAN AND ORS.

2001 INSC 35310 August 2001Dismissed

Pallav Sheth, a notified company debtor, was ordered by a Special Court to pay a decree and was restrained from alienating his assets. He later set up benami companies and transferred assets, which the Custodian discovered through an Income‑Tax raid. The Custodian filed an application for contempt, alleging Sheth viola

M/S PURBANCHAL CABLES & CONDUCTORS PVT. LTDversusASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER

2012 INSC 28010 July 2012Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered two appeals by suppliers of aluminium conductors against the Assam State Electricity Board concerning claims for interest on delayed payments under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. The Court held that a suit seeking only intere

BHASKER & ANR.versusAYODHYA JEWELLERS

2023 INSC 73010 May 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The appeal concerned the appropriate starting point of limitation for filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after a property was sold in execution. The sale was confirmed on 16 July 2009, a sale certificate was issued on 5 February 2010, and the purchaser filed a Rule‑95

PRAMOD KUMAR & ANR.versusZALAK SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 66610 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Pramod Kumar and another, challenged two separate alienations of ancestral land by their father Tikaram. They filed a suit in 1963 to set aside the first sale deed (21‑01‑1959) and later, in 1971, a second suit to set aside the second sale deed (11‑02‑1959). Both suits were dismissed by the trial court

JOSEPH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2007 INSC 55310 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased 14 acres of private forest land in Kerala before the appointed day of 10 May 1971 and sought exemption from vesting under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, invoking Section 3(3). The Forest Tribunal granted the exemption, but the State later sought review, which was

BHIMASHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITAversusWALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. (WIL)

2023 INSC 33510 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant, a cooperative society, sought to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but filed the application after the 90‑day statutory period and the additional 30‑day discretionary period had expired because the court was on winter vacation. The appellant argue

SYNDICATE BANKversusCHANNA VEERAPPA BELERI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 22110 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Syndicate Bank extended various credit facilities to Gadag Forge Fits (India) Pvt Ltd. The company’s directors executed personal continuing guarantees payable on demand. When the company’s accounts became dormant in mid‑1986, the Bank sent a demand letter on 12 Oct 1987 and a formal notice on 17 Dec 1987, to which the

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR.versusM/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 17510 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose when BSNL (appellant) withheld Rs.99.70 crore from Nortel (respondent) after completing a telecom tender. Nortel claimed the amount in May 2014, which BSNL rejected on 4 August 2014. After more than five years, Nortel invoked the arbitration clause on 29 April 2020 and sought appointment of an arbitra

KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI & ANR.versusKOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 17310 March 2021Disposed off

The corporate debtor Ricoh India Ltd. initiated a corporate insolvency resolution process under the IBC, inviting resolution plans. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. (KIAL) submitted its plan on time, while Kalpraj submitted a belated plan which was later accepted by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and approved by the NC

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. JAYAMMA

2016 INSC 25610 March 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the original owner retained actual possession and later sold the parcel to N. Jayamma in 1994. Jayamma built a house and, after more than twelve years, sued for a declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. Th

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S. NEELAM ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

2010 INSC 14210 March 2010Dismissed

The Union of India and others entered into a contract with M/s Neelam Engineering for security lighting, which later gave rise to disputes resolved by an arbitrator who awarded Rs.1,70,020 in favour of the respondent. The respondent filed a petition under Sections 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to have t

SAKETH INDIA LTD. AND ORS.versusINDIA SECURITIES LTD.

1999 INSC 9510 March 1999Dismissed

The appellants issued cheques that bounced, and the respondent served a notice demanding payment on 29 September 1995. Under Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellants had 15 days to pay, which expired on 14 October 1995, giving rise to a cause of action on 15 October 1995. The respondent filed a

SHAKUNT ALA DEVI & ORS.versusCHAMRU MAHTO & ANR.

2009 INSC 13810 February 2009Dismissed

The appellants sought restoration of possession of land under Section 145(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code after an Executive Magistrate had declared their right to possession in 1994. The respondent obtained a revision and the High Court set aside the lower courts' orders, invoking the Specific Relief Act and the Lim

BIBI JAIBUNISHAversusJAGDISH PANDIT AND ORS.

1997 INSC 12810 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Bibi Jaibunisha sold a property to Jagdish Pandit by a registered conveyance dated 21‑02‑1969, which included an agreement that the property would be reconveyed for Rs 4,000. She filed a suit for specific performance of reconveyance on 07‑04‑1975. The trial court and the Patna High Court dismissed the suit, holding tha

ALAGAMMAL AND ORS.versusGANESAN AND ANR.

2024 INSC 2810 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The sellers (Alagammal and others) entered into a registered agreement of sale on 22‑Nov‑1990 with the buyers (Ganesan and others) for Rs.21,000, stipulating that the balance be paid within six months. The buyers paid only a fraction of the amount and failed to complete the purchase before the deadline, while the selle

KEDARNATHversusMOHAN LAL KESAWARI AND ORS.

2002 INSC 1610 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed a suit in the Allahabad Court of Small Causes under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act for arrears of rent and eviction, which was decreed ex‑parte and executed. The tenants applied under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree but neither deposited the decretal amount nor filed a prior applicat

MIS. DISHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GOA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 8419 December 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Disha Constructions and others, entered into a contract to construct a school auditorium and were partially paid, leaving a balance due from September 2006. They served a notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the first defendant on 19 February 2009, which was received on 27 February 2009, and filed a su

M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRSversusV. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS

2019 INSC 12319 November 2019Disposed off

The instant appeals arose from five suits between 1950 and 1989 over a 1500 sq yard land in Ayodhya, claimed by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram (Ram Janmabhumi) and by Muslims as the site of the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court had directed a three-way partition of the disputed site, which the Supreme Court

RUKMANI AMMAL AND ANR.versusJAGDEESA GOUNDER

2005 INSC 5559 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a usufructuary mortgage where the mortgagee, Rukmani Ammal, purchased the mortgaged property in a court‑sanctioned auction in 1966. The plaintiff, Jagdesa Gounder, who had bought a portion of the property from the original owner in 1964, sued for declaration of title and possession. The Supreme Court

SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2023 INSC 8859 October 2023Dismissed

The case arose from a land acquisition dispute where the Reference Court enhanced compensation for landowners, prompting the Union of India to file an appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal was filed 479 days after the order, exceeding the limitation period, leading the Union to seek condonation of delay under

VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS.versusMOHAN HIRACHAND SHAH & ORS.

2015 INSC 7579 October 2015Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed suits for injunction against construction companies and later amended them to seek a declaration of title over 14.5 acres of land, claiming inheritance from their grandfather Amarsi Gujjar. The defendants, impleaded later, denied the plaintiffs' title, asserting that the land was held on behalf of

RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.versusVITHU HIRA MAHAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2009 INSC 11789 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of a Watandar, sued the respondents for a permanent injunction, asserting their right to the watan lands based on a 1941 declaration. The respondents claimed they were the adopted son of the deceased Watandar, relying on a 1931 order of the Mamlatdar, and sought re‑grant of the land. The trial cou

SUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 10189 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation was wound up in 1999, leaving a group of employees retrenched under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees Rules, 1991. Earlier Supreme Court judgments had affirmed that such employees were entitled to be absorbed in government service despite the later rescissio

KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2011 INSC 6679 September 2011Dismissed

The appellants, Khatri Hotels Private Ltd. and another, claimed title and sought an injunction over land they alleged to have purchased. The land had been urbanised under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and transferred to the Delhi Development Authority (DOA) by notification under the Delhi Development Act, 1

ELFIT ARABIA & ANR.versusCONCEPT HOTEL BARONS LIMITED & ORS.

2024 INSC 5369 July 2024Dismissed

The petitioners, a UAE entity, claimed that the respondents defaulted on payments under a 2004 MoU and invoked arbitration in 2022, eleven years after the alleged breach in 2011. The petition sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while criminal proceeding

DAHIBENversusARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS & ORS.

2020 INSC 4509 July 2020Dismissed

The plaintiffs sold agricultural land to respondent No.1 in 2009 and alleged that only a small part of the sale consideration was paid, seeking cancellation of the sale deed. They filed the suit in December 2014, more than five years after the deed, claiming the cause of action arose only when they discovered alleged f

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusLAFARGE DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 7349 July 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether sales‑tax exemption/deferment granted to cement manufacturers under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, would continue to apply after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh into the reorganised State of Madhya Pradesh and the new State of Chhattisgarh. The C

KANSHI RAM AND ANR.versusLACHHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 2849 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, successors to a landowner who mortgaged his property in 1946, sought restitution under the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976. After a collector dismissed their 1979 application as time‑barred, they filed a suit for possession of the mortgaged land in 1981 under sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The t

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKAversusV. HARISHBABU

1996 INSC 7109 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Secretary to the Government of Karnataka (appellant) contracted V. Harishbabu for canal work, but disputes led to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an award on 22‑April‑1993 and the respondent filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on 23‑April‑1993, attaching a copy of the award. Th

PATTAM KHADER KHANversusPATTAM SARDAR KHAN AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7189 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

In a partition suit, a house was auctioned and the sale was confirmed by the court on 7 August 1984. The auction purchaser obtained a sale certificate only on 9 November 1989 and filed an application for delivery of possession on the same day. The appellant contended that the application was barred by the one‑year limi

IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA ETC.versusUJAGAR SINGH & ORS. ETC.

2010 INSC 3429 June 2010Disposed off

The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, acquired land and was awarded compensation which it failed to pay, leading to the attachment and auction of the property in 1992. The auction purchaser, Jagan Singh & Co., paid Rs.22.65 lakh, but the Trust later filed objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, which were dismissed in defaul

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.versusOIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.

2013 INSC 3359 May 2013Case Allowed

Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. entered into a contract with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) for oilfield equipment and services. After alleged non‑payment of invoices, Schlumberger sent several notices to ONGC from 2008 onward, invoking arbitration under Clause 27 of the contract. ONGC failed to respond, and

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusM/S B.B.M. ENTERPRISES

2026 INSC 3589 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The work under a contract was completed on 30 July 2000, but no final bill or measurement certificate was issued by the Engineer-in-Charge. The State of West Bengal filed a notice seeking arbitration on 2 June 2022, more than 21 years after completion, and the High Court ordered arbitration, holding that the limitation

R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHERversusRAJMANI AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 4789 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a High Court order that remanded a suit to the trial court for a fresh trial on the issue of limitation, despite both the trial court and the first appellate court having held the suit hopelessly barred by limitation. The dispute arose from a family property that had been sold and subsequently

M.R. SATWAJI RAO (D) BY L.RS.versusB. SHAMA RAO (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.

2008 INSC 4729 April 2008Dismissed

The appellant mortgagee had taken a usufructuary mortgage on a property in 1948, allowing the mortgagor to remain in possession as a tenant. When the mortgagor defaulted on rent, the mortgagee obtained a money decree for arrears of rent and, in execution, purchased the property at a public auction without instituting a

PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.versusB.S. AULAKH AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3939 April 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, B.S. Aulakh, was appointed on probation as Plant Protection Expert in MARKFED and discharged before completing probation. He was subsequently appointed Plant Protection Officer in SUGARFED, later confirmed, and his post was abolished by a resolution dated 20‑12‑1977. Aulakh filed a suit on 28‑10‑1983 see

GOPAL SARDARversusKARUNA SARDAR

2004 INSC 1449 March 2004

The Supreme Court examined two civil appeals concerning applications under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for enforcement of a statutory right of pre‑emption. The respondents claimed that the applications were barred by limitation, while the appellants argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1

VASANTIBEN PRAHLADJI NAYAK AND ORS.versusSOMNATH JUIJIBHAI NAYAK AND ORS.

2004 INSC 1519 March 2004Dismissed

The appellants, Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak and others, sued the respondents, S.J. Nayak and others, for declaration of title, possession and injunction over ancestral land. The respondents claimed ownership by adverse possession, arguing the suit was barred by limitation. The lower courts held in favour of the responde

STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.versusMANAGING COMMITTEE OF NAMATARA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

2026 INSC 1489 February 2026Dismissed

The Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School obtained a grant‑in‑aid order from the State Education Tribunal, which the State of Odisha appealed to the High Court in 2015 without a certified copy of the tribunal order, rendering the appeal time‑barred. After an eight‑year delay, the State secured the certified

M/S. PUROHIT AND COMPANYversusKHATOONBEE AND ANR.

2017 INSC 1229 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents' daughter died in a motor accident on 02‑02‑1977. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 23‑02‑2005, more than 28 years after the accident. The Tribunal entertained the claim, and the High Court upheld it, holding that th

STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.versusMAMATA MOHANTY

2011 INSC 1139 February 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a group of appeals challenging High Court orders that granted UGC pay‑scale benefits to lecturers appointed in aided colleges without meeting the statutory eligibility of 54% marks in their Master's degree and without following the prescribed advertisement procedure. The Court held that appoi

M/S NAHAR ENTERPRISESversusM/S HYDERABAD ALLWYN LTD. AND ANR.

2007 INSC 1249 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent sued the appellant for recovery of money and issued a summons for appearance on 10‑Oct‑1988, which was served on 14‑Oct‑1988 without attaching a copy of the plaint. The trial court, without issuing a fresh summons, proceeded to an ex‑parte hearing and decreed on 13‑Dec‑1988. The appellant learned of the

SADASIVAMversusK. DORAISAMY

1996 INSC 2149 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Sadasivam sought a declaration that a sale deed executed by his father Marappa in favour of the respondent Doraisamy was a sham and that his interest in the joint family property remained unaffected. The lower courts had held the sale deed valid and the will of the grandfather Karuppanna, bequeathing half

THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY (LAND ACQUISITION) AND ANR.versusSHAH MANILAL CHANDULAL ETC.

1996 INSC 2179 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Government acquired land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) made an award under Section 11 on 28‑02‑1989. The respondents, who were present at the award, filed an application for reference under Section 18 on 10‑06‑1989, exceeding the six‑week period prescribed

NBCC (INDIA) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

2025 INSC 549 January 2025Matter referred to larger bench

NBCC (India) Ltd., a micro‑small enterprise, entered into several construction contracts with the State of West Bengal and later filed a memorandum under Section 8 of the MSMED Act, 2006 after the contracts were executed. The enterprise then referred a payment dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Cou

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusPAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2025 INSC 699 January 2025Dismissed

The State of West Bengal and other public authorities sued PAM Developments for alleged wrongful debarment arising from a road‑strengthening contract. After a series of debarment orders and procedural challenges, the respondent sought to amend its plaint to include later debarment orders, arguing that they formed a con

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KANDLAversusHARGOVIND JASRAJ & ANR.

2013 INSC 259 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Board of Trustees of Kandla Port terminated a lease of a 1891.64‑sq‑m parcel to Smt. Pushpa Shah after she defaulted on rent, issuing a termination order on 8‑Aug‑1977 effective 13‑Dec‑1978 and taking possession via a panchnama on 14‑Dec‑1978. The lessee’s own letter of 22‑Feb‑1979 admitted that possession had been

PATEL MOT!BHAI NARANBHAI AND ANR.versusDINUBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 359 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned ownership of certain properties and was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award on 26 February 1986. Neither party applied to file the award in court within the 30‑day period prescribed by Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Six years later, the arbitrator himself filed the award and s

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM. K. SARKAR

2009 INSC 12888 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

M.K. Sarkar, a railway employee who retired in 1976, did not exercise the option to shift from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to the pension scheme before the statutory deadline of 31 December 1978. After receiving his CPF lump‑sum, he filed a representation in 1998 seeking to switch to the pension scheme, which

M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

2024 INSC 8618 November 2024

The petitioner, Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., entered into two agreements to sell agricultural land with the respondents in 1997, paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and sought specific performance after the respondents refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, the High

MAHAVIR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 8778 September 2017Dismissed

Petitioners Mahavir and others claimed that compensation for 100 acres of land acquired in the Raisina‑Lutyens zone in 1911‑12 had never been paid and sought relief under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013, which deems acquisition p

VIJAY SINGHversusSHANTI DEVI AND ANR.

2017 INSC 8748 September 2017Dismissed

Vijay Singh, a co‑sharer, filed a pre‑emption suit against Shanti Devi after a sale of jointly owned land. An ex‑parte decree was passed in his favour in 1990, but the decree was later set aside on the ground that the defendant had not been properly served. The amendment to Section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 191

J. THANSIAMAversusSTATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.

2015 INSC 6518 September 2015Dismissed

J. Thansiama filed a suit for declaration of title against the State of Mizoram. The trial court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to Mizoram and allowed the suit. The Gauhati High Court reversed this, holding that the Limitation Act was applicable and dismissed the suit as time‑barred. On appeal, the Su

DAMODARAN PILLAI AND ORS.versusSOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.

2005 INSC 4108 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent (South Indian Bank Ltd) obtained a decree against the appellants (Damodaran Pillai & ors.) and filed an execution petition which was dismissed for default on 1 November 1990 under Order 21 Rule 105(2) of the CPC. The appellants filed a restoration application on 4 April 1998, claiming they learned of the

KISHUNDEO ROUT & ORS.versusGOVIND RAO & ORS.

2025 INSC 9568 August 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a title suit in 1999 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed; the First Appellate Court, however, introduced a new issue of adverse possession—never pleaded in the plaint—and decreed in favour of the plainti

BALWANT SINGH (DEAD)versusJAGDISH SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 3888 July 2010Dismissed

The landlord Balwant Singh filed an eviction suit which was appealed up to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the sole appellant died on 28 November 2007. The legal representatives filed applications on 15 April 2010, 778 days after the death, seeking to be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSHRI HANUMAN INDUSTRIES & ANR.

2015 INSC 3948 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and the North Eastern Council (NEC) implemented the Scheme of Promotion of Industries in North East (SPINE) to provide financial assistance to new industries. Several applicants obtained a court order in 2007 directing the authorities to process their applications, a decision later affirmed by the Su

PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. & ORS.versusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)

2024 INSC 2868 April 2024Dismissed

Sixteen claimants filed a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for compensation on land acquired in 1989. Three claimants, including Pathapati Subba Reddy, died during the pendency of the reference and their heirs were not impleaded. After the reference was dismissed in 1999, the heirs of the deceased claiman

VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2024 INSC 2848 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who founded a society that obtained AICTE approvals for several business schools, were charged under Sections 420 and 120B IPC for allegedly cheating the AICTE by concealing that the leased land was mortgaged. After a Special Judicial Magistrate discharged them, the CBI approached the Allahabad High Cou

K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL)versusGYANENDRA PRATAP & ORS.

2024 INSC 2818 April 2024Dismissed

The appellant, K.B. Lal, sought to set aside a 2006 ex-parte order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Barabanki by filing applications under Order IX, Rule 7 of the CPC, first in 2017 and again in 2020, after a delay of about 14 years. The delay was explained by the appellant as due to non-receipt of summons and neglige

KATARI SURYANARAYANA & ORS.versusKOPPISETTI SUBBA RAO & ORS.

2009 INSC 4678 April 2009Dismissed

The dispute concerned the right of two neighbouring parties to use a lane connecting their houses. Respondents filed a suit for injunction which was dismissed, and the order was appealed; the appellants then filed a second appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of that appeal, respondents No.2 and No.3 died,

IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATIONversus.

2021 INSC 1688 March 2021Disposed off

In a suo motu writ petition, the Supreme Court examined the extension of limitation periods granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier orders had excluded the period from 15 March 2020 to a date to be fixed, allowing litigants extra time to file suits, appeals and other proceedings. Observing that the pandemic situa

UMMERversusPOTTENGAL SUBIDA & ORS.

2018 INSC 2198 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an elderly man, was served with an ex parte decree by a family court for alleged non‑payment of gold ornaments and maintenance. He applied under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree and sought condonation of delay, but both applications were dismissed. He then filed a miscellaneous appeal

SANTOSH HAZARLversusPURUSHOTTAM TIWARL (DEAD) BY LRS

2001 INSC 808 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Santosh Hazari filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and a permanent injunction against Purushottam Tiwar, alleging dispossession of a portion of his land. The trial court decreed in favour of Hazari, rejecting the defendant's claim of adverse possession and the defence of limitation. The Additi

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHERversusR.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 488 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

R.K. Pandey, a former lab assistant of a state‑run medical college, claimed that his superannuation age should be 60 years and sought relief through arbitration, relying on an alleged 1957 arbitration agreement between the municipal board and the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. He unilaterally appointed two arbitrators who

BOGIDHOLA TEA AND TRADING CO. LTD. AND ANR.versusHIRA LAL SOMANI

2007 INSC 12497 December 2007Disposed off

The appellants, Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. and others, were contractually obliged to supply made tea for the 1984 and 1985 seasons but delivered only a fraction of the quantity. The respondent sued for the price of the remaining tea, and the defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. The trial cour

ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKHversusASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2024 INSC 8497 November 2024

The petitioner, a non‑resident Indian, claimed entitlement to 400,000 and 200,010 equity shares under a 2011 Shareholders Agreement and sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 after the respondents failed to issue share certificates. The respondents argued tha

M/S HPCL BIO-FUELS LTD.versusM/S SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD

2024 INSC 8517 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, HPCL Bio‑Fuels Ltd., entered into turnkey contracts with the respondent, Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, for equipment supply. After a dispute over unpaid dues arose in 2014, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause and filed a Section 11(6) application in the Bombay High Court in February 2018, which he unc

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.versusM/S. NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION LTD.

2006 INSC 7987 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the filing of an arbitration award by M/s Little & Co., acting as the arbitrator's agent, constituted statutory notice to Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and when the limitation period for setting aside the award under Articl

DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERSversusSYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

2025 INSC 11877 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, claimed ownership of 24 acres of agricultural land on the basis of being the sole daughter of Khadijabee and of an oral gift (hiba) of 10 acres made by her mother. The trial court rejected the oral gift but granted her a 3/4 share of the remaining land, while the Karnataka High Court

ONGC LTD.versusM/S. MODERN CONSTRUCTION AND CO.

2013 INSC 6837 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, ONGC Ltd., challenged a High Court order that allowed the respondent, M/s Modern Construction, to claim interest on a decree from the date the suit was originally filed in 1986 before a court that lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that when a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule

SAROOP SINGHversusBANTO AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5007 October 2005Dismissed

The appellant, Saroop Singh, claimed ownership of suit properties that had been gifted to him by the widow, Indira Devi, who possessed only a life interest under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The respondents, Banto and others, were reversioners who sued for possession, asserting that the widow's gift did not affect t

MD. MOHAMMAD ALI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSRI JAGADISH KALITA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 5277 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The original owner transferred land to two brothers who partitioned it; one brother's son amalgamated the holdings, sold one portion and leased the other to a cooperative society (respondent No.3). The heirs of the other brother and the original owner's heirs later transferred their possessory rights in the leased port

PRABHAKARversusJOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT &ANR.

2015 INSC 10147 September 2015Dismissed

The petitioner, a former clerk of the Karnataka Sericulture Department, was terminated in 1985 but only raised an industrial dispute in 1999, fourteen years later, alleging illegal termination under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement without back wages, which the management challenged;

SHYAM BABUversusSTATE OF U.P.

2012 INSC 3827 September 2012Dismissed

The case concerns a 1978 incident in which seven accused, including Shyam Babu, were alleged to have fired on a group of villagers, resulting in five deaths and one injury. The trial court acquitted all seven, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted three of the accused; four had died during the penden

BRAHAMPAL @ SAMMAY AND ANR.versusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

2020 INSC 4837 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased died in a road accident and his parents claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, which awarded Rs.2.24 lakh. They filed an appeal to the High Court for enhancement 45 days after the 90‑day limit, citing the illness of the appellant's wife as the reason for delay. The High Court dismis

RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORSversusMANJIT KAUR & ORS.

2019 INSC 9307 August 2019Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined whether a plaintiff who has acquired title by adverse possession can file a suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a declaration of title and injunction, i.e., use adverse possession as a "sword" rather than merely a defence. The Court overruled its earlier decisions in Gurudwa

K. RAMACHANDRANversusV.N. RAJAN & ANR.

2009 INSC 8717 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

K. Ramachandran was acquitted by a Sessions Court of murder and related offences. The victim's father filed a criminal revision, while the State later filed an appeal against the acquittal but sought condonation of an 801‑day delay, which the High Court Division Bench rejected, effectively dismissing the appeal. A Sing

TATA STEEL LTD.versusRAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS.

2025 INSC 6397 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tata Steel Ltd., had its resolution plan for Rohit Ferro‑Tech Ltd. approved by the NCLT on 7 April 2022. A minority shareholder, Respondent No. 1, filed an appeal to the NCLAT on 23‑24 May 2022, seeking condonation of delay beyond the 30‑day statutory period. The dispute centered on when the limitation p

BHIVCHANDRA SHANKAR MOREversusBALU GANGARAM MORE & ORS.

2019 INSC 6437 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bhivchandra Shankar More, challenged an ex‑parte decree passed in a partition suit. After an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree was dismissed, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC, withdrew it, and later filed a fresh appeal with a condonation of delay applica

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHIversusSMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND ORS.

1999 INSC 2327 May 1999Dismissed

The deceased was killed when a dead neem tree branch, standing on municipal property, fell on his scooter. The claimants sued the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for negligence, seeking compensation. The High Court held MCD liable and awarded Rs. 90,000, which was later enhanced to Rs. 1,44,000 with interest by th

UITAM NAMDEO MAHALEversusVITHAL DEO AND ORS.

1997 INSC 4937 May 1997Dismissed

The respondent, who owned a parcel of land, served a notice to the appellant to vacate and obtained a final order of eviction, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Execution proceedings were later initiated, but the appellant objected, arguing that more than twelve years had elapsed and the order could not be enfo

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusGOPU & ANR.

2025 INSC 5117 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, a junior public health nurse, died in a 2000 motorbike accident. Her husband and two minor children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,53,000. After ten years, the children alone appealed to the Kerala High Court,

PADMAKUMARI & ORS.versusDASAYYAN &ORS.

2015 INSC 2887 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Padmakumari & ors., entered into an unregistered agreement to purchase 2.08 acres of land from defendants 1‑11, agreeing to pay the balance consideration of Rs 63,000 within nine months. The plaintiff failed to make this payment within the stipulated period, while defendants 12‑15 subsequently purchased

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusPRAVIN JETHALAL KAMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS.

2000 INSC 1247 March 2000Dismissed

The plaintiff, the legal heirs of the deceased Pravin Jethalal Kamdar, had entered into a sale agreement for his urban land within the ceiling limit and applied for permission under Section 27(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The competent authority rejected the application and exercised its pre

M/S WIZAMAN IMPEX PVT. LTD.versusKEDRION BIOPHARMA INC.

2022 INSC 1597 February 2022Case Partly allowed

M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt Ltd, the corporate debtor, challenged a Section 9 application filed by Kedrion Biopharma Inc., an operational creditor, which sought to initiate corporate insolvency proceedings. The NCLT rejected the application, holding it was time‑barred under the three‑year limitation period. On appeal, the NC

THE PROPERTY COMPANY (P) LTD.versusROHINTEN DADDY MAZDA

2026 INSC 337 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a beneficiary of shares bequeathed by his mother, sought registration of the transmission of those shares after the company refused to register them. The refusal triggered an appeal under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, which the respondent failed to file within the prescribed two‑month period; he la

MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJIversusSAKEENA BEEVI

2026 INSC 357 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff‑appellant, Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji, sought specific performance of a 2007 agreement to purchase a 1/11th share of a three‑acre school property from the defendant‑respondent, Sakeena Beevi, who was one of nine heirs. After the death of the father, the heirs executed an unregistered power of att

INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusSRI BALA & CO.

2025 INSC 427 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed an unnumbered suit in 1993 for specific performance of a 1991 sale agreement, which was rejected in 1998 for non‑payment of court fees. The plaintiff then filed a second suit in 2007 seeking the same relief, invoking Order VII Rule 13 of the CPC to avoid the effect of the earlier rejection. The defe

DAYA SINGH & ANR.versusGURDEV SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 187 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents entered into a written compromise on 26 October 1972 concerning the division of land shares. On 21 August 1990 the appellants filed a suit for declaration of ownership and correction of revenue records, alleging that the respondents refused to acknowledge their claim and that a wrong entr

HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 67 January 1998Dismissed

Hindustan Times Ltd., the employer, delayed remitting Employees' Provident Fund contributions for several periods between 1965 and 1968. The Department issued a notice in 1971 and, after a long lapse, a show‑cause notice in 1979, finally levying damages under Section 14‑B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellane

RAGHUNATH RAI BAREJA AND ANR.versusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.

2006 INSC 9656 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a guarantor and director of a liquidated company, challenged the Punjab National Bank's attempt to recover a debt by filing execution petitions. The High Court transferred the third execution petition, filed in 1999, to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) invoking inherent powers. The Supreme Court held tha

VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12836 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a legal heir of the original plaintiffs, sought execution of a 2006 decree that declared an agricultural land allotment to the defendants illegal. The defendants (Nos. 4 and 5) had appealed the decree, but both died before the appeal was heard, and their legal heirs were never brought on record. The firs

M/S ALCHEMIST HOSPITALS LTD.versusM/S ICT HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 12896 November 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a private hospital, entered into a software implementation agreement with the respondent, a digital health‑technology firm, which contained Clause 8.28 purportedly providing for arbitration. After repeated technical failures, the appellant invoked the clause and sought appointment of a sole arbitrator un

VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 6396 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a licensed drug manufacturer, challenged an order of blacklisting issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 8 September 2009, alleging that it had never supplied the disputed veterinary injection under the tender and that the show‑cause notice did not specifically propose blacklisting. The

SRI. K.M. KRISHNA REDDYversusSRI. VINOD REDDY & ANR.

2023 INSC 8776 October 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, K.M. Krishna Reddy, filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming ownership of a family property inherited from his father and alleged interference by the respondents. The respondents counter‑claimed that they had acquired title by adverse possession since 1978 and also asserted an agreement for sale by

DHARMENDRA SHARMAversusAGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2024 INSC 6676 September 2024Disposed off

The appellant, Dharmendra Sharma, purchased an apartment from the Agra Development Authority (ADA) and sought possession after paying the agreed price, but ADA's offer of possession on 4 December 2014 was made without a completion certificate or firefighting clearance certificate. The appellant filed a consumer complai

K. HYMAVATHIversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2023 INSC 8116 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant K. Hymavathi loaned Rs 20 lakh to respondent No.2, who executed a promissory note on 25 July 2012 promising repayment by December 2016. The respondent later issued a cheque for Rs 10 lakh on 28 April 2017, which was dishonoured, leading the appellant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusSUDERA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 9286 September 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (appellant) and Sudera Realty Private Ltd. (respondent) over a lease of three floors in a Kolkata building. It held that the 1968 agreement and the 1969 supplementary deed constituted a valid 21‑year lease, with possession of the 2nd and 3rd floor

L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD.versusFAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 4986 September 2004Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals by L.S. Synthtics Ltd. against orders of the Special Court under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, which had directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs 34,99,900.68 with interest to the Custodian on behalf of the notified party,

STATE OF M.P. & ANR.versusANSHUMAN SHUKLA

2014 INSC 5256 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a civil revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, challenging an arbitral award dated 18 June 2003, but the revision was filed 80 days after the statutory three‑month period. The State also sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of

HABBAN SHAHversusSHERUDDIN

2026 INSC 4516 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Habban Shah, had agreed to sell agricultural land to the respondent, Sheruddin, for a stipulated price, receiving an advance but requiring the balance payment before execution of the sale deed. The trial court decreed specific performance, directing the appellant to execute the deed within three months o

CLP INDIA PVT. LTD.versusGUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR.

2020 INSC 3836 May 2020Dismissed

The Gujarat Electricity Board (Gujarat Urja) and CLP India entered into a 1994 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for 635 MW of electricity. A 1995 Central Government notification amended the 1992 tariff notification, removing the deemed generation incentive for naphtha‑based plants. Gujarat Urja sought recovery of incenti

EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.versusSANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY & ANR.

2009 INSC 7476 May 2009Disposed off

Eastern Coalfields Ltd., a public sector undertaking, entered into an excavation contract with Sanjay Transport Agency, a private party. When a dispute arose, the contractor invoked Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Calcutta High Court appointed an arbitrator. The employer appealed, a

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.versusSRI KARTICK CHANDRA DAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6246 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal and others directed the appellant to grant registration and subsidy under the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, a direction issued by a single High Court judge under Article 226. While the appeal against that direction was pending, contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellant

MRS. A. KANTHAMANIversusMRS. NASREEN AHMED

2017 INSC 2026 March 2017Dismissed

The appellant, owner of a Chennai property, entered into a sale agreement with the respondent on 5 March 1989, received more than 50% of the purchase price and promised to execute the sale deed by 31 December 1989. The appellant later refused to execute the deed, prompting the respondent to file a suit for specific per

ABDUL RAHIM & ORS.versusSK. ABDUL ZABAR & ORS.

2009 INSC 3316 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The father, Haji Sk. Abdullah, executed a registered gift deed on 21‑02‑1973 in favour of his younger son Abdul Razak, transferring a house that was let out to tenants. After the father's death, Razak died and his heirs (the appellants) succeeded to his interest. The elder son (respondent No.1) filed a suit in 1980 see

GUNWANTBHAI MULCHAND SHAH AND ORS.versusANTON ELIS FAREL AND ORS

2006 INSC 1366 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, successors of a predecessor who had entered into a 1964 agreement to purchase a property, filed a suit on 4 April 1994 for specific performance of that agreement and a perpetual injunction, after a public notice and objections in November 1993. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limita

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusJAI HIND PVT. LTD.

2026 INSC 1326 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal sought to overturn a High Court order that allowed Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. to retain about 211 acres of land under Section 6(1)(j) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The company had previously been denied the benefit because it failed to prove it was exclusively engaged in agricultura

JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHERversusBADRI NATH AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 866 February 2024Dismissed

The respondents, who had been tenants of an urban immovable property (a rolling mill) since 1949, filed a suit for pre-emption after the owners sold the property to the appellants in 1983, invoking the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The appellants contended that a State Government notification dated 08‑10‑1985, issued u

VUNDAVALLI RATNA MANIKYAM &versusV.P.P.R.N. PRASADA RAO

2020 INSC 1416 February 2020Dismissed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell land with the original vendor in 1981, paid earnest money and was given possession, but the sale deed was not executed before the time limit expired and the land was subjected to a government acquisition. The acquisition was later set aside after the plaintiff’s writ peti

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.versusINTNL. SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE AGENCY LTD.

2003 INSC 676 February 2003Dismissed

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others entered into a contract with International Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd. containing an arbitration clause. A non‑speaking award was made and later declared a rule of court, leading to a decree. Various objections, a review petition, and multiple appeals were filed. Th

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusMANAGER, M/S JAIN AND ASSOCIATES

2001 INSC 756 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and others appealed against a decree passed by the High Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 after an arbitrator's award, where the appellants had not filed objections within the prescribed 30‑day period. The High Court had held that such a decree was not an ex‑parte decree and therefo

K.S. VIDYANADAM AND ORS.versusVAIRAVAN

1997 INSC 1206 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff K.S. Vidyanadam entered into a sale agreement on 15‑December‑1978 to purchase a house for Rs.60,000, paying only Rs.5,000 as earnest money and agreeing to complete the purchase within six months. He failed to purchase stamp papers, pay the balance or demand execution of the sale deed for more than two and

M.M. THOMASversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR

2000 INSC 56 January 2000Dismissed

M.M. Thomas claimed that 20 acres of his private forest were exempt from vesting in the State of Kerala under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The Forest Tribunal rejected his claim and the Kerala High Court, while upholding the Tribunal’s view on Section 3(3), entertained

T.L. MADDUKRISHANA AND ANR.versusSMT. LALITHA RAMCHANDRA RAO

1997 INSC 26 January 1997Dismissed

The appellants entered into a sale agreement for a plot of land with the respondents, fixing May 28, 1989 as the date for performance. The respondents repudiated the contract after the appellants had issued a notice to obtain tax clearance and urban ceiling authority permission. The appellants filed a suit for mandator

M/S SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTDversusUNION OF INDIA

2018 INSC 11585 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Simplex Infrastructure Ltd entered into a contract with the Union of India for construction of shelters, which led to arbitration and an award dated 27 October 2014 in favour of Simplex. The Union of India filed a Section 34 application before the District Judge on 30 January 2015, which was dismissed for lack of juris

BALWANT VITHAL KADAMversusSUNIL BABURAOI KADAM

2017 INSC 11705 December 2017Dismissed

The respondent sued the appellants for specific performance of two agreements to sell a share of land, having paid earnest money but no deed was executed. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside that decree and ordered specific performance. The appellants appealed, arguing that the a

SANKAR DASTIDARversusSHRIMATI BANJULA DASTIDAR AND ANR.

2006 INSC 9505 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Respondent No.1, Shrimati Banjula Dastidar, sued her brother Sankar Dastidar for declaration of title to a residential house. The brother had locked a room containing her almirah on 16 March 1987, and an inventory of the goods was later made. In the same proceeding she filed a counter‑claim on 24 June 1992 for damages

M/S PREM COTTEXversusUTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.

2021 INSC 6175 October 2021Dismissed

M/S Prem Cottex, a cotton yarn manufacturer, was issued a short assessment notice by Uttarakhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. alleging that the multiply factor (MF) used in its electricity bills was incorrectly applied, resulting in short billing of about Rs.1.35 crore. The appellant filed a consumer complaint under the Con

N. BALAJIversusVIRENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

2004 INSC 5755 October 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant, N. Balaji, challenged the election of directors of the National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Ltd., alleging irregularities in the voters list. After multiple representations to the Minister and the Central Registrar and a writ petition, the Delhi High Court directed the Central Registrar to

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. POPULAR CONSTRUCTION CO.

2001 INSC 4875 October 2001Dismissed

An arbitral award dated 29 August 1998 was forwarded to the Union of India with a request to file it in the Bombay High Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Union filed the award on 29 March 1999 and challenged it on 19 April 1999, initially invoking sections of the 1940 Act, later amending the petition to refer

SAMAR KUMAR ROY (D) THROUGH LR (MOTHER)versusJHARNA BERA

2017 INSC 8605 September 2017Disposed off

Samar Kumar Roy filed a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (and Section 38 for injunction) seeking a declaration that his alleged marriage under the Special Marriage Act was void. The plaintiff died during the proceedings and his mother was substituted as his legal representative under Order 22 Rule

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAversusMADAN MOHAN PRASAD & ORS.

2011 INSC 6525 September 2011Disposed off

The respondent, a former Munsif in the Bihar State Judicial Service, was dismissed, reinstated, and later suspended, after which he was posted as an Additional Munsif. He repeatedly sought promotion to higher judicial posts on the basis that his juniors had been promoted between 1971 and 1978, filing numerous writ peti

ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusVIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 9285 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC) financed a bleaching powder unit that defaulted, leading to its possession of the unit and subsequent litigation. Respondent Vigyan Chemical Industries sued the defaulting borrower and later impleaded OSFC, claiming repayment with interest calculated under the repealed Inte

USHA DEVI & ORS.versusRAM KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 5995 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed in September 1993, based on an agreement dated 17 December 1989 that required execution of the deed within one month (by 16 January 1990). The trial court dismissed the suit as time‑barred, but the first appellate court set aside that order and decree

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusKEW PRECISION PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 8005 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a financial creditor, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd. after the debtor defaulted on loans. The debtor had offered a one‑time settlement on 20 December

BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWALversusBANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 5455 August 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act could condone a delay in filing an appeal under Section 18(1). It held that Section 18(2) incorporates the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, including the proviso to Section 20(3) which

BALJINDER SINGHversusRATTAN SINGH

2008 INSC 9075 August 2008Disposed off

The case concerned the alienation of undivided co‑parcenary property by a Hindu coparcener through a gift deed, two sale deeds and a will. The Supreme Court held that a gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in joint family property is void, and that the validity of the sale deeds must be examined on the factua

RAMESHWAR DUBEY AND ORS.versusMASOMAT ASHA KAUR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8255 August 1996Dismissed

Rameshwar Dubey and others filed a suit on 15 February 1973 under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act seeking declaration that two sale deeds (dated 12 July 1966 and 14 December 1970) were void because fraud had been perpetrated on the plaintiff. The trial court and the Patna High Court held that the fraud rendered t

AJAY GUPTAversusRAJU @ RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV

2016 INSC 4995 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff was required to file a suit by 31 December 2010, the last day of the court's winter vacation. 1 January 2011, a Saturday, was a non‑working day for judges but the registry remained open. The suit was filed on 3 January 2011. The trial court and the High Court held that the filing was within the limitation

STATE OF GOAversusM/S. WESTERN BUILDERS

2006 INSC 4005 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa challenged an arbitral award granted to Mis. Western Builders. After the award, the State filed a petition under the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was dismissed on the ground that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governed the matter. The State then sought condonation of delay under Section 14

SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD.versusTHE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

2020 INSC 4135 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. filed a suit on 23 February 2005 seeking true accounts and refund of excess interest/commission charged by the Central Bank of India. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, holding the suit barred by the three‑year limitation period in Article 113 of the Lim

SAROJ SALKANversusHUMA SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 6325 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Saroj Salkan, filed a partition suit under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act seeking division of five properties inherited from her father, Major General Budh Singh, against the legal heirs of her brother and sister. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 o

STATE OF ORISSAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2010 INSC 2705 May 2010Dismissed

The State of Orissa filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Borra group of villages belonged to it, asserting that the area was part of the Jeypore (Imparible) Estate transferred to Orissa in 1936. The State of Andhra Pradesh contested the suit, arguing that the disputed area w

RAM BACHAN RAI AND ORS.versusRAM UDAI RAI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 2945 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, judgment debtors, sought to set aside an ex parte decree dated 3 May 1976 and later faced an execution application filed by the decree holders on 5 April 1991. The executing court held that the 12‑year limitation period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act began from the dismissal of a civil revision

RAMESH CHAND ARDAWATIYAversusANIL PANJWANI

2003 INSC 2765 May 2003Case Partly allowed

Anil Panjwani purchased a vacant plot from Shri Niwas Vaidhya under a sale agreement dated 1‑Dec‑1985 and took possession, erecting a boundary wall. The defendant, R.C. Ardawatiya, later attempted to erect a hut on the plot. Panjwani sued for declaration of title, restoration of possession and injunctions. The trial co

ASHIS KUMAR HAZRAversusRUBI PARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.

1997 INSC 4775 May 1997Dismissed

Ashis Kumar Hazra filed a suit against Rubi Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. after a notice for arbitration was issued on 26 October 1974 under Section 95(3) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which requires a claim to be laid within two months. The suit was filed on 10 September 1975, and the H

NARAYANversusBABASAHEB & ORS.

2016 INSC 2965 April 2016Dismissed

The plaintiffs, children of a deceased father, filed a partition suit in 1989 seeking to set aside two sale deeds executed by their mother, the natural guardian, in 1982 and 1988. The mother had sold the ancestral property without court permission, allegedly in contravention of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,

MILK FOOD LTD.versusM/S. GMC ICE CREAM (P) LTD.

2004 INSC 2325 April 2004

Milk Food Ltd. entered into a contract with GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd. containing an arbitration clause that referred disputes to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification. A suit for injunction was filed, and Milk Food obtained a stay under Section 34 of the 1940 Act. The parties later agre

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusWEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 845 February 2004

The Railway Rates Tribunal declared the freight rates charged by the Union of India unreasonable. The Union filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was eventually dismissed after an interim order. The respondents then filed writ petitions and suits for refund of excess freight charges. The Unio

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S. BABULAL AGRAWAL

2004 INSC 135 January 2004

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) invited tenders to hire plinths for grain storage and awarded the contract to Mis. Babulal Agrawal, who constructed the plinths and handed them over on 24‑Jan‑1987. The agreement provided that FCI would lease the plinths for three years (extendable by one year) and that a formal leas

SANJAY PANDURANG KALATEversusVISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 10634 December 2023Disposed off

The appellant, a former director of Evirant Developers Private Ltd, challenged an interlocutory order of the NCLT dismissing his application alleging unauthorized filing of a reply in a Section 7 proceeding. The NCLT heard the matter on 17 May 2023 but did not pronounce a substantive order until it was uploaded on 30 M

JAYESH DHANESH GORAGANDHIversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

2012 INSC 5664 December 2012Dismissed

The appellants, heirs of a plot of land in Borivali, challenged the reservation of their land for a municipal office under a Town Planning Scheme prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). After the scheme was finalized, an arbitrator determined compensation, which was paid, and the

SHYAM SUNDAR SARMAversusPANNALAL JAISWAL AND ORS.

2004 INSC 6374 November 2004Dismissed

The plaintiff obtained an ex‑parte decree in a title suit. The defendant filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to set aside the decree, and subsequently filed an appeal against the decree with a condonation application. Both the petition

RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWATversusDR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE

2019 INSC 11224 October 2019Dismissed

Antoinette Bhagwat's will was probated in California and, in ancillary proceedings, letters of administration were granted by the Bombay High Court in 1994 to Dr. Surendra Parakhe. Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat, a relative of the deceased's husband, claimed he had no notice of this grant and filed a petition in 1999 seeking

FULMATI DHRAMDEV YADAV & ANR.versusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2023 INSC 7904 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Ramakant Yadav, a driver, died while tying logs on a trailer, and his mother and wife claimed compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner awarded a lump‑sum compensation of ₹3,94,120 and a penalty of ₹1,97,060 against the insurer, but the High Court set aside this order, holdi

SANDU (D) BY LRS.versusGU LAB (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 6394 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned land originally owned by a tribal person that had been sold to a non‑tribal transferee. The Assistant Collector initially dropped restoration proceedings under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, because the tribal transferor was unwilling to repurchase th

MANJIT SINGH SODHIversusTHE CUSTODIAN & ORS.

2022 INSC 7924 August 2022Disposed off

The appellant, Manjit Singh Sodhi, as trustee of Raviraj Housing Corporation, was sued for repayment of a short‑term loan of Rs 25 lakhs taken from Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd (FFSL) which resulted in a decree of Rs 63.86 lakhs in 2003. The custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating t

DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA)versusC. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR.

2021 INSC 3804 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Bank (Dena Bank, now Bank of Baroda) filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in 2018 to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor, C. Shivakumar Reddy, after the debtor defaulted in 2013. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ad

AMARENDRA KUMAR PAULversusMAYA PAUL & ORS.

2009 INSC 10094 August 2009Dismissed

The husband appealed against a magistrate's order granting maintenance to his wife and three children under Section 125 of the CrPC. The children, who were minors when the order was made, later attained majority or married, and the wife filed execution applications seeking arrears for periods after those events. The lo

STATE OF GOAversusPRAVEEN ENTERPRISES

2011 INSC 4234 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa contracted Praveen Enterprises for construction work and included an arbitration clause that referred all disputes to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, CPWD. After terminating the contract, the contractor filed claims and the State filed counter‑claims; the State failed to appoint an a

MANGLURAM DEWANGANversusSURENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 4284 July 2011Case Partly allowed

In a suit for declaration, possession and damages, the sole plaintiff died and the appellant sought to be added as the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, claiming entitlement under a will. The trial court rejected the application, found the will unproved and dismissed the suit for lack of a legal he

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusY. MOIDEEN KUNHI (DEAD) BY LRS.

2009 INSC 6644 May 2009Hearing Adjourned

The State of Karnataka challenged a Karnataka Land Reforms Tribunal order that declared a partnership firm to be holding 368.16 acres of agricultural land in excess of the ceiling limit. The State alleged fraud by the declarants and the Tribunal's secretary (Tahsiladar) and filed a review petition more than 14 years af

A. RAJENDRAversusGONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO & ORS.

2025 INSC 4474 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a shareholder and suspended managing director of a corporate debtor, filed two appeals under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) without first applying for condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the limitation perio

T.N. GENERATION & DISTBN. CORPN. LTD.versusPPN POWER GEN. CO. PVT. LTD.

2014 INSC 2484 April 2014Dismissed

The appellant, a power distribution company, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the respondent, a power generator, and disputed accounting details and rebate claims arising from monthly invoices. The dispute was taken before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) which adjud

SEENIVASANversusPETER JEBARAJ & ANR.

2008 INSC 4574 April 2008Dismissed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale and later sought to implead a third party, SA, who had already purchased the suit property. SA subsequently sold the property to the respondents, and an ex‑parte decree was passed against the appellant before SA was served with summons. The respondents later

HARI SHANKAR SINGHANIA AND ORS.versusGAUR HARI SINGHANIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1974 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Three brothers dissolved their partnership in 1987 but later disagreed over the division of immovable assets. After numerous letters seeking an amicable settlement, the last correspondence was dated 29 September 1989. The appellants filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on 8 May 1992 to refer t

HARIHAR NATH AND ORS.versusSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 2004 April 2006Dismissed

The appellants, directors of Nalanda Ceramic & Industries Ltd., had secured a loan from State Bank of India by mortgaging the company's assets and providing personal guarantees. The bank filed a title mortgage suit against the company and the directors, but the High Court later ordered the winding up of the company. Th

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERSversusSADHU SINGH

2022 INSC 1494 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Sadhu Singh, a former conductor who was compulsorily retired in 2003, filed a suit in 2010 seeking the benefit of first, second and third Selection Grades as per a 1992 office order that granted such grades after 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The trial court partially decreed in his favour and the lowe

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTAversusSUGAULI SUGAR WORKS {P) LTD.

1999 INSC 424 February 1999Dismissed

SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) Ltd., a private limited company, transferred Rs 3,45,000 from a suspense account to its capital reserve account for the assessment year 1965‑66. The Income Tax Officer included Rs 2,56,529 in the assessee's total income under Section 41 of the Income‑Tax Act, treating the transfer as a benefit o

SABARMATI GAS LIMITEDversusSHAH ALLOYS LIMITED

2023 INSC 104 January 2023Dismissed

Sabarmati Gas Ltd. entered into a gas‑sale agreement with Shah Alloys Ltd., which later defaulted on payments. The respondent was declared a 'sick company' by the BIFR, invoking a moratorium under SICA that barred legal recovery until the Code came into force on 1‑Dec‑2016. After issuing a demand notice under Section 8

M/S. PATEL BROTHERSversusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

2017 INSC 244 January 2017Dismissed

Patel Brothers, a registered dealer, faced reassessment orders after providing false exemption claims and subsequently filed revision petitions under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, more than 335 days after the prescribed 60‑day limit. The petitions sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the

SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TR.LRS. & ORS.

2012 INSC 5553 December 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a suit for specific performance of a 1970 agreement to sell a Delhi bungalow. The plaintiffs argued they were ready to fulfil their obligations, while the defendant claimed the suit was time‑barred and that the plaintiffs breached clause 7 by not paying an additional Rs 1 lakh. The Court held

PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS.versusEXE. ENG. JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR.

2008 INSC 12313 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of land acquired for a public project, obtained a compensation award which was later enhanced by a Reference Court. The State Government communicated its decision to acquiesce in the enhanced award to the beneficiary (respondent No.1), who nevertheless failed to file an appeal within the prescrib

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S TEJPARAS ASSOCIATES EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 11123 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Oriental Insurance filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Jaipur District Court to set aside an arbitral award, but the court returned the petition for presentation before the Jodhpur court, fixing 2 April 2008 as the date of re‑presentation. The appellant r

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