Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

163 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.versusJHABUA POWER LIMITED AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 76830 September 2024Disposed off

The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) procured power through competitive bidding but accepted tariffs and quantities that deviated from standard bidding guidelines, leading to the execution of Power Supply Agreements (PSAs) for 865 MW. KSEB sought approval of these PSAs from the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory

GAYATRI BALASAMYversusM/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

2025 INSC 60530 April 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court was asked to resolve a long‑standing controversy over whether courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can modify an arbitral award. The issue arose from the earlier decision in Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem, where the Court held that

K. VALARMATHI & ORS.versusKUMARESAN

2025 INSC 60629 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased Kathiresan, filed suits seeking declaration of title and injunction over a suit land purchased by Kathiresan. The respondent, a relative, invoked Article 227 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court, seeking rejection of the plaints on the ground that they were barred

P. KUMARAKURUBARANversusP. NARAYANAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 59829 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABADversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 15029 February 2024Reference answered

The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, under its Article 142 powers, it could issue blanket directions that all interim stays granted by High Courts should automatically lapse after six months and that High Courts must dispose of such cases on a day‑to‑day basis. The Court examined the object of interim order

BASAVARAJversusINDIRA AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 15129 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit for partition of ancestral property in 2005, acknowledging an earlier compromise decree dated 14 Oct 2004. At the final stage of trial, they sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer that the compromise decree be declared null and void, alleging oversight and mistake. The trial court r

H. ANJANAPPA & ORS.versusA. PRABHAKAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12129 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed, while the defendants sold portions of the disputed land to Respondents No.1 and No.2 during the pendency of the suit, violating a temporary injunction and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents sought to be impleaded under Order I

IVAN RATHINAMversusMILAN JOSEPH

2025 INSC 11528 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ivan Rathinam, was alleged by the respondent and his mother to be the biological father of the respondent, who was born during the respondent's mother's marriage to Mr. Raju Kurian. The parties litigated in a Munsiff Court, a Sub‑Judge Court and a Family Court over a declaration of paternity, a DNA test,

ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYAversusSIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.

2024 INSC 45727 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya, was injured in a road accident and claimed Rs 10 lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded her Rs 2,41,745 with interest. She filed a Miscellaneous Application in the Gujarat High Court seeking permission to appeal the award as an indigent person, arguing

PAPPAMMAL (DIED) THROUGH LR R. KRSNA MURTIIversusJOTHI & ANR.

2025 INSC 27727 February 2025Dismissed

The mother, Pappammal, filed a suit for recovery of possession which was being prosecuted by her son as her power of attorney. After the mother died, the son applied to be substituted as the legal representative based on a registered will, and the Supreme Court later allowed his substitution. The daughter, another lega

ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 92026 November 2024Dismissed

Rohit Kochhar filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking specific performance and a permanent injunction for a commercial property situated in Gurgaon. The defendants contested the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the relief required execution and registration of a sale deed in Gurgaon, which would forc

DOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ANR.versusPILLA DURGA PRASAD & ORS.

2025 INSC 104626 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants owned a property that was leased to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship of Pilla Durga Prasad. After the lease expired, the appellants filed an eviction suit against the lessee and its assignees. The suit was later amended to substitute the proprietor, Pilla Durga Prasad, in place of the firm. The defen

NEK PAL & ORS.versusNAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD & ORS.

2024 INSC 57426 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellants challenged a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court admitted the appeal without formulating any substantial question of law at the time of admission and later, during the hearing, confined itself to three questions.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusDR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 89425 November 2024Disposed off

The case concerned several Government Orders (GoMs) issued by the Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) government that allotted public land at basic rates to a select class of persons – MPs, MLAs, All India Services officers, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and journalists – through cooperative societies. The pe

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusCORPORATION BANK & ORS.

2025 INSC 116125 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had allotted a plot to Sarita Vihar Club under a lease that gave DDA a pre‑emptive right to purchase and required Lieutenant Governor’s consent for any mortgage. The Club mortgaged the plot to Corporation Bank without such consent, defaulted on the loan and the Bank sought recovery

SRI R RAGHUversusSRI G M KRISHNA & ANR.

2025 INSC 104025 August 2025Dismissed

The Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) recovered a debt from Hoysala Thermo Farmers Pvt. Ltd. and, after default, auctioned agricultural land (Sy. No.67) belonging to the managing director, G.M. Krishna. The appellant, R. Raghu, purchased the land at the auction and later obtained a sale certificate as truste

CHOWDAMMA (D) BY LR AND ANOTHERversusVENKATAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 103825 August 2025Dismissed

The suit concerned the partition of ancestral lands belonging to the deceased Dasabovi, who had two wives – the plaintiffs' mother (first wife) and Chowdamma (second wife). The plaintiffs claimed that their mother was lawfully married to Dasabovi and therefore entitled to a share of the property, while the defendants d

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

2025 INSC 30125 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT LTDversusKAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED

2024 INSC 82724 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd entered into a dredging contract with Kamarajar Port Limited, a statutory undertaking, which later gave rise to disputes and arbitration. The arbitral tribunal awarded the appellant approximately Rs 21.07 crore with interest and costs, and the respondent sought correction under s.

DIVYANGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR (DEAD) AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 114524 September 2025Dismissed

The appellants, descendants of original Portuguese "Alvara" holders in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, claimed perpetual lease rights over agricultural lands granted under the Organizacao Agraria (OA). The Collector rescinded these grants on 30 April 1974 invoking Article 12 of the OA for non‑cultivation, leading to a protract

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

2025 INSC 38324 March 2025Disposed off

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

GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLCversusBYJU RAVEENDRAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 81123 October 2024

The appellant, GLAS Trust Company LLC, a financial creditor of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd (the corporate debtor), challenged the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) approval of a settlement between the corporate debtor and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the setting aside of the NCLT order

SATHEESH V.K.versusTHE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 114023 September 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a borrower, defaulted on a loan from The Federal Bank and the bank classified the loan as a Non‑Performing Asset, invoking SARFAESI provisions. The High Court ordered the appellant to pay Rs.2 crore immediately and the balance in twelve instalments, which the appellant challenged by a Special Leave Petit

VISHU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHANversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 88423 July 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned ownership of a 2‑18‑10 bigha parcel of land in NOIDA, jointly purchased in 1997 by Reddy, Sudhakar and Vishnu. Reddy later sought to establish sole ownership by filing separate suits and a writ petition, suppressing the earlier joint‑ownership litigation, and obtained a High Court order declaring

SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIMversusPRAKASAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 76423 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a grandson of the original defendant, was impleaded as a legal heir in execution proceedings after the original defendant died. He later filed an interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10 seeking deletion of his name, claiming he was not a legal heir and that he enjoyed tenancy rights under Section

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 77023 May 2025Dismissed

The dispute arose from a Coal India notification dated 19‑12‑2017 imposing Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) on coal dispatches, which the power generator (Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd.) claimed constituted a "change in law" under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Rajasthan distribution companies. The generator

RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS.versusPRASHANT GARG & ORS.

2025 INSC 55223 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS.versusK. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR.

2025 INSC 55723 April 2025Disposed off

The appellants and respondents were embroiled in a series of suits and appeals concerning a sale deed of land and the validity of a mutation register entry. The trial court dismissed the plaint on the ground of rejection under Order VII Rule 11, and subsequently, the respondents sought production of the mutation regist

SAKINA SULTANALI SUNESARA (MOMIN)versusSHIA IMAMI ISMAILI MOMIN JAMAT SAMAJ & ORS

2025 INSC 57023 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Sakina Sultanali Sunesara, challenged two consent decrees arising from compromises in suits concerning disputed land, alleging she had no notice of the compromises and that they were procured by fraud. She filed applications under Order XLIII Rule 1‑A to set aside the decrees, while the respondents argue

RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS

2024 INSC 91322 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, a group of brothers and their wives, sued the defendants, their brothers and sons, to cancel a sale deed and obtain a permanent injunction after the defendants allegedly transferred the jointly owned property to a son for a nominal consideration using a power of attorney that was not intended for sale.

IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.versusABDUL SHUKOOR

2025 INSC 102722 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court decreed specific performance of a sale agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant appealed and, during the pendency of the appeal, filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the CPC to lead additional documentary evidence. The High Court admitted this evidence without firs

TANKADHAR TRIPATHYversusDIPALI DAS

2025 INSC 101722 August 2025

The appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy, was elected from the Jharsuguda Assembly Constituency, after which the respondent, Dipali Das, filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices and EVM irregularities. The appellant challenged the petition's maintainability, arguing that the petition lacked a Form 25 affidavit as

VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD.versusMAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 77222 May 2025

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., the owner of agricultural land, sued Mahaveer Lunia and others for declaration, possession and injunction after the respondents executed sale deeds despite the appellant's revocation of a power of attorney and board resolution. The respondents filed an Order VII Rule 11 application seeking

ANGADI CHANDRANNAversusSHANKAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 53222 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned whether a 7‑acre suit property, purchased by Defendant No.1 from his brother after a 1986 partition of the joint Hindu family, was ancestral or self‑acquired. The plaintiffs (sons and daughters of Defendant No.1) sued for partition and possession, claiming the property remained ancestral because i

M/S J N REAL ESTATEversusSHAILENDRA PRADHAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 61122 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved multiple claims over the same property, with the original plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell and the appellant (original defendant No.8) seeking to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The trial court allowed the appellant’s impleadment, but the

AMRUDDIN ANSARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusAFAJAL ALI & ORS.

2025 INSC 56622 April 2025Dismissed

The petition arose from a series of suits concerning a land dispute in Chhattisgarh, where the original plaintiffs' father filed a suit that was dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 of the CPC and a subsequent application for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 was also rejected. The plaintiffs then instituted a fresh suit on

KANCHHUversusPRAKASH CHAND & ORS.

2025 INSC 54222 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2024 INSC 64421 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2025 INSC 87921 July 2025

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

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITEDversusPURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 52321 April 2025Dismissed

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

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

2025 INSC 52521 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2025 INSC 51421 April 2025Dismissed

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

VIPIN KUMARversusJAYDEEP & OTHERS

2025 INSC 16921 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2025 INSC 8821 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2024 INSC 71920 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

VIKRAM BAKSHI AND OTHERSversusR.P. KHOSLA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 102020 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

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

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

AMUTHAversusA.R. SUBRAMANIAN

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

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

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

2024 INSC 89019 November 2024Dismissed

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

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

K. PRABHAKAR HEGDEversusBANK OF BARODA

2025 INSC 99719 August 2025Disposed off

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

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

2025 INSC 100519 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SMT. SHAIFALI GUPTAversusSMT. VIDYA DEVI GUPTA & ORS.

2025 INSC 73919 May 2025

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

DOLLY RANIversusMANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL

2024 INSC 35519 April 2024Disposed off

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

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

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

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

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

2025 INSC 87318 July 2025Dismissed

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

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.

2024 INSC 21318 March 2024Dismissed

Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. filed a miscellaneous application seeking a direction that the Rajasthan distribution companies pay a late payment surcharge of Rs.1376.35 crore, alleging that the Supreme Court's earlier judgment on the matter was incomplete. The application was filed after the main appeals (Civil Appeals No

DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANRversusGOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.

2025 INSC 26218 February 2025Disposed off

The appellants purchased an e‑stamp paper for a property transaction which was subsequently lost, prompting them to seek a refund of the stamp duty of Rs 28,10,000. The Delhi High Court ordered a refund of the principal amount but declined interest, leading the appellants to file a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dism

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,

LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS.versusGURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 42916 May 2024

The case arose from a suit for perpetual injunction where the plaintiff claimed ownership of land by natural succession, while the defendants relied on a Will that the trial court held to be suspicious and invalid. The trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiff was set aside by the first appellate court, which gra

NAFEES AHMAD & ANR.versusSOINUDDIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 52016 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a High Court order that set aside a First Appellate Court judgment on the ground that it failed to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The central issue was whether non‑compliance with the rule—specifically the omission of "points for determination"—automatically vitia

ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD.versusTATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 33316 April 2024Dismissed

Bhushan Steel (now Tata Steel) filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against several parties, including Arcadia Shipping, alleging non‑payment under a Letter of Credit for galvanized steel shipped from Mumbai to Djibouti. The plaintiff claimed that the cause of action arose in Delhi because the supply order and payment

GANGUBAI RAGHUNATH AYAREversusGANGARAM SAKHARAM DHURI (D) THR. LRS AND ORS.

2025 INSC 35516 March 2025Disposed off

The plaintiff, Gangubai Raghunath Ayare, sued for administration of her father‑in‑law's estate and sought to declare a sale deed by her brother Vishnu null and void. The trial court dismissed the administration claim for lack of necessary parties but declared the sale deed void and ordered possession of half the proper

U. SUDHEERA & OTHERSversusC. YASHODA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 8016 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal heirs of certain defendants, challenged an interim order dated 20 September 2024 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a second appeal (SA No. 518 of 2023) that directed the parties to maintain the status quo without first formulating any substantial question of law as required under Section

ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMAversusDEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 70015 May 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a Special Leave Petition filed by Ishwar Chanda Sharma challenging a High Court order that directed the appointment of a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple in Mathura with a preference for a person from the Vaishnav Sampradaya rather than a practising advocate. The Court examined the long‑standing

RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.**

2025 INSC 50815 April 2025

The Supreme Court entertained a miscellaneous application seeking recall of its own judgment dated 03.01.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024 on the ground that the respondents had not been served and therefore did not appear. The Court held that non‑service justified recalling the judgment and ordered the appeal to be

CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 48315 April 2025Dismissed

The dispute arose when Inox India Ltd filed a trademark suit alleging that Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd and LNG Express infringed its proprietary engineering drawings and related literary works used in cryogenic semi‑trailers. LNG Express moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the drawings w

THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONversusB. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 49015 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution, a charitable trust in possession of a Bangalore property since 1905, was sued by respondents who claimed a right to prevent the institution from alienating the land based on an alleged 2018 agreement to sell and an advance cash payment of Rs.75 lakh. The institution filed an ap

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

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

SANJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.versusSARDAR INDERJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 98814 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents, both claiming to be trustees of a charitable trust, were involved in a dispute that led the respondents to file a suit for perpetual injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit under Section 92 of the CPC, prompting an appeal during which the parties agreed to arbitration and later ac

PANDURANGANversusT. JAYARAMA CHETTIAR & ANR.

2025 INSC 82514 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Pandurangan, purchased a property from Hussain Babu, who had earlier bought it from Jayam Ammal. He later discovered that Defendant No. 1, claiming co‑ownership, had obtained an ex‑parte decree in a 1996 partition suit that the appellant alleged was collusive and fraudulently obtained. The appellant file

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

DHANASINGH PRABHUversusCHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 83114 July 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, Dhanasingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of Rs.21 lakh to the respondents who were partners of the partnership firm “Mouriya Coirs”. The respondents issued a cheque in the name of the firm which was dishonoured, prompting the appellant to serve a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHERversusHAFEEZ UR RAHMAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 46014 June 2024Dismissed

The respondents filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC seeking recovery of Rs. 1,04,16,576 and later submitted a memo under Rule 3(6)(b) asking the trial court to decree the suit. The trial court rejected the memo, but the Karnataka High Court set aside that order and directed the trial court to accept the

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

M/S B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONSversusR N NADIGAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 21414 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons, had obtained a permanent injunction against the State of Karnataka in O.S. No.80 of 1978 concerning a parcel of land, and the decree became final after being upheld by appellate courts. Later, former students of a government school and other citizens filed a representative sui

CUDDALORE POWERGEN CORPORATION LTDversusM/S CHEMPLAST CUDDALORE VINYLS LIMITED AND ANR.

2025 INSC 7314 January 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff, Chemplast, entered into an agreement to sell a parcel of land to the appellant, Cuddalore Powergen, but registration of the sale deed was blocked by a Government Order (GO) that reserved the land for a power project. The plaintiff filed a first suit seeking a permanent injunction against the appellant an

KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHINGversusKENN RAIKHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 68913 September 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a Member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, was elected from the Saikul constituency in 2022. The respondent filed an election petition alleging that the appellant concealed assets worth about Rs. 2 crore and falsified her income, thereby committing corrupt practices. The appellant moved an application

KAMAL GUPTA & ANR.versusM/S L.R BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ETC.

2025 INSC 97513 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an oral family settlement reduced to a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) signed by Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG) but not by KG's son Rahul Gupta (RG). PG and others filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointme

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusSCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 66813 May 2025Rejected

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) alleged that Schott Glass India abused its dominant position in the neutral glass tubing market by offering volume‑based target rebates, functional "no‑Chinese" rebates, a long‑term supply agreement with its joint‑venture Schott Kaisha, and by allegedly tying clear and amber tu

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusMAHADEO KRISHNA NAIK

2025 INSC 21813 February 2025Disposed off

Mahadeo Krishna Naik, a bus driver for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), was dismissed after a fatal accident in 1996. The Labour Court upheld his dismissal, but the corporation later obtained a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award that placed sole blame on the lorry driver, a fact it failed

M/S TOMORROWLAND LIMITEDversusHOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 20713 February 2025Disposed off

M/s Tomorrowland Limited, the highest bidder for a 5‑star hotel site, paid the first instalment but argued that HUDCO (Housing and Urban Development Corporation) was obliged to obtain statutory approvals and execute a sub‑lease before demanding further payments. HUDCO failed to secure the necessary approvals and a perp

NAVRATAN LAL SHARMAversusRADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS.

2024 INSC 97012 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Navratan Lal Sharma, filed a suit for declaration and injunction which was dismissed, leading him to file a first appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties executed a compromise deed that provided for the restoration of the appeal if the respondents failed to honor payment obligations. The H

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

VANEETA PATNAIKversusNIRMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI & ORS.

2025 INSC 110612 September 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a faculty member of NUJS, filed a complaint on 26 December 2023 alleging sexual harassment by the Vice‑Chancellor, claiming the last incident occurred in April 2023. The Local Complaint Committee dismissed the complaint as time‑barred because the filing was beyond the three‑month statutory period and the

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

SUKHDEV SINGHversusSUKHBIR KAUR

2025 INSC 19712 February 2025Reference answered

The case arose from a decree of nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein the Punjab & Haryana High Court had held the marriage void. The appellant contested whether, despite the void status, the spouse could claim permanent alimony under Section 25 and interim maintenance under Section 24 of th

KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERSversusKAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 130711 November 2025Dismissed

The case concerned a long‑standing dispute between two sections of the Kuruba community over the performance of rituals and custody of idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy. A compromise decree dated 1 November 1933 required the respondents to pay half the pooja expenses, to rotate the idols every six months and to appoint tr

TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOWversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 96611 August 2025Disposed off

Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd filed Civil Suit No.447/2025 seeking an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) granted the injunction without recording reasons or complying with the proviso requiring delivery of the application, affidavit, plaint and supporting

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

CANARA BANKversusAJITHKUMAR G.K.

2025 INSC 18411 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The father of Ajithkumar G.K. died in service of Canara Bank in December 2001, and the son applied for a compassionate appointment under the bank's 1993 scheme. The bank rejected the claim on grounds of sufficient family pension, terminal benefits and the son's age exceeding the limit, prompting a writ petition that wa

JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSAHNULAL & ANR.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 71910 December 2024Disposed off

The case involved a suit for specific performance of a 1996 sale agreement concerning a half‑acre land in Bilaspur. The trial court granted specific performance, but the first appellate court set aside that part of the decree, ordering only a refund of earnest money, citing alleged hardship under Section 20(2)(b) of th

MITC ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.versusM/S RENUKA REALTORS AND ORS.

2025 INSC 130010 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.2.5 crore. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the mandatory pre‑institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant cha

GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD)versusK. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.

2025 INSC 113410 September 2025Disposed off

The heirs of cultivating tenant Govindappa Gounder sued the landowners K. Vijayakumar and others, who sought eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 alleging that the tenants had cut trees, dug pits and caused damage to the land. The Revenue Court, relying on a commissi

MRUGENDRA INDRAVADAN MEHTA AND OTHERSversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

2024 INSC 40110 May 2024Dismissed

The plaintiffs sued the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation seeking either compensation for the loss of 974 square metres of land or, alternatively, an allotment of land of that size in any town planning scheme. The trial court granted the alternative relief of land allotment but rejected the compensation claim, prompting

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC.versusANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2025 INSC 6569 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Wikimedia Foundation, as a defendant in a defamation suit filed by ANI Media, appealed a High Court order directing it to delete Wikipedia pages and discussion threads that commented on the court's proceedings, alleging that the order violated its freedom of speech and the sub judice principle. The High Court had h

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

RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENAversusDINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 559 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Dinesh Kumar Mahto, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Reena, in 2022, yet she continued to live apart, alleging mental cruelty, dowry demands, and a miscarriage. Reena filed a maintenance suit under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2019 and was awarded ₹10,000 per month. The

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

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

M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD.versusM/S AROUSH MOTORS & ANR.

2025 INSC 12028 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a commercial dispute where the plaintiff, Aroush Motors, sued Anvita Auto Tech Works for recovery of monies after terminating a dealership agreement. The defendant failed to file its written statement within the statutory 120‑day period and sought multiple extensions, eventually filing the statement

MALLEESWARIversusK. SUGUNA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 10808 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a daughter of a co-parcener, sought to amend a 2003 preliminary decree in a partition suit to claim a one‑third share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The trial court dismissed her application, the High Court set aside that dismissal, but the respondent obtained a review order that reman

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

HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS.versusCANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS.

2024 INSC 4678 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Har Narayan Tewari filed a title suit seeking declaration of his ownership and possession over 0.30 acres of land in Ramgarh village. The Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, contested the claim, while an earlier suit (Title Suit No. 8/64) filed by Maharani sought title over the entire 5.38 acres, including the disputed 0.30 acr

SHEIKH NOORUL HASSANversusNAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 3918 May 2024Dismissed

The election petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate on grounds of non‑disclosure of bank accounts, a vehicle, spouse's occupation and other material facts. The returned candidate’s written statement introduced explanations for these allegations, prompting the petitioner to seek leave to file a rep

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

KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYAversusAMINUL HAQUE LASKAR & ORS.

2024 INSC 2828 April 2024Case Allowed

The appellant, Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, contested the dismissal of his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of an election petition filed by Aminul Haque Laskar alleging false statements in the appellant's nomination affidavit and improper acceptance of his nomination. The Supreme Court examined whet

BALVEER BATRAversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.

2024 INSC 3618 February 2024Disposed off

The appellant, father of a deceased motor‑vehicle accident victim, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Nainital. The Tribunal, after hearing witnesses, held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and, on that basis alone, dismissed the cl

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.versusSMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 958 January 2025Disposed off

The plaintiff, Smt. Prabha Jain, inherited a one‑third share of a plot that was illegally partitioned and sold by her brother-in‑law; the buyer later mortgaged the plot to Central Bank of India, which took possession under the SARFAESI Act. Jain filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deed and mortgage dee

H. GURUSWAMY & ORS.versusA. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

2025 INSC 538 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a High Court order that condoned a six‑year delay in filing an application for recall under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, overturning a trial court decision that had rejected the application. The respondents had sought to revive a suit originally filed in 1977, which had been abated after repeated d

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

PREM AGGARWALversusMOHAN SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12147 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Prem Aggarwal, entered into an agreement to purchase a property in 1989, paid Rs.25,000 as earnest money and later sued for specific performance, which the Supreme Court dismissed on the ground of bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, but awarded her Rs.2 crore as compensation. The respondents deposited

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR.versusAMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2025 INSC 11907 October 2025Disposed off

Lifestyle Equities sued Amazon Technologies for alleged trademark infringement and obtained a money decree of Rs.336.02 crore. Amazon appealed and sought a stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3) of the CPC without depositing the decretal amount. The Delhi High Court granted an unconditional stay, prompting

MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS.versusM/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6467 May 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned 53 acres of land in Survey No.83/2, claimed by the original owners (appellants) and by M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (respondents) who relied on sale agreements dated 19 March 1982 that were never registered. The appellants argued that the unregistered agreements could not convey title an

M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. & ANR.versusM/S BANSAL INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6407 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants Jindal Steel issued a work order to Bansal Infra and obtained an unconditional bank guarantee to secure an advance payment. After alleged delays, quality deficiencies and termination of the contract, the appellants threatened to encash the guarantee unless a debit balance was paid. Bansal filed a Section

RAKESH KUMAR VERMAversusHDFC BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 4737 April 2025Disposed off

Rakesh Kumar Verma and Deepti were employees of HDFC Bank whose appointment letters contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause stating that any dispute would be decided by the courts in Bombay. Both were terminated for alleged fraud and filed civil suits in Patna and Delhi respectively challenging the termination. HDFC

M/S CHATHA SERVICE STATIONversusLALMATI DEVI & ORS.

2025 INSC 4687 April 2025Dismissed

An oil tanker carrying hazardous goods collided with a bicyclist and a pedestrian, killing both. The driver of the tanker did not have the statutory endorsement on his licence required under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The Motor Accidents Claims

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusRAM KISHORI GUPTA & ANR.

2025 INSC 4547 April 2025Disposed off

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued show‑cause notices to Vital Communications Ltd (VCL) and related entities for misleading advertisements, leading to a series of orders: a 2008 restraint order, a 2014 order imposing market bans, and a 2018 disgorgement order. The Securities Appellate Tribunal set

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

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

MOHIT SURESH HARCHANDRAI & ORS.versusHINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED

2025 INSC 8126 May 2025Disposed off

Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (HOCL) occupied a premises leased from the Harchandrai family for over three decades before the landlords served a notice of termination in 2000 and obtained an eviction decree. After a protracted litigation spanning more than 25 years, the Supreme Court examined the appropriate per‑squ

RAJIV GHOSHversusSATYA NARYAN JAISWAL

2025 INSC 4676 April 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff, the owner of a premises, sued the defendant, the son of the original tenant, for recovery of possession. In his written statement the defendant unequivocally admitted that his father was the sole tenant and that the plaintiff was the owner, and that rent had been paid till May 2021. Relying on these admi

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

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

PERIYAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.versusV. RAJAMANI & ANR. ETC.

2025 INSC 3295 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants obtained a decree for specific performance and possession of a suit property against the vendors, but the vendors failed to execute the sale deed. The appellants sought execution of the decree, while the respondents (nephews of the vendors) claimed to be cultivating tenants and objected to the delivery o

P.M. LOKANATH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 2025 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of a property in Bangalore, filed two civil suits to protect their possession and claim ownership. Respondent No.2, a rival heir, lodged an FIR under IPC sections 448 and 506 alleging threats by the appellants to withdraw the suits, leading to a criminal case. The appellants sought quashing of th

SADIQ B. HANCHINMANIversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. R1: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R2: CHNDRUMAL R3: SANJAY R4: NANDKUMAR R5: VIJAY

2025 INSC 12824 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, filed a private criminal complaint alleging that the accused had forged an e‑stamp rent agreement to illegally occupy his property and had committed offences under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and 420 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) referred the matter to the

OPERATION ASHAversusSHELLY BATRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 9324 August 2025Dismissed

Operation Asha, a not‑for‑profit society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, provides health services to the under‑privileged. After the society’s CEO terminated co‑founder Dr. Shelly Batra, she and her mother filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging financial impropriety

SHUBHKARAN SINGHversusABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 6284 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioner challenged the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's rejection of his application to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined the scope of that rule, noting that it confers a power exclusively on the court trying the suit to recall and re‑examine a witness, and that parties

SMT. LAVANYA C & ANR.versusVITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DESEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

2025 INSC 3254 March 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellants, originally defendants in a suit concerning a Joint Development Agreement, gave an undertaking through their counsel in 2007 not to alienate the subject property, which the trial court later incorporated into a court order. In 2011 the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A alleging br

THANGAM AND ANOTHERversusNAVAMANI AMMAL

2024 INSC 1644 March 2024Dismissed

The case concerned a registered Will dated 9 October 1984 executed by the deceased Palaniandi Udayar in favour of Navamani Ammal, the daughter of his brother. The widow (Thangam) and the minor daughter of the testator challenged the Will, alleging that the testator was ill‑health, that the Will was executed under suspi

ABHISHEK GUPTAversusDINESH KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 14063 December 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Abhishek Gupta, was allotted a fair‑price shop licence after the licence of respondent No.1 was revoked for breach of conditions. The revocation and its affirmation were challenged by respondent No.1 in a writ petition under Art.226, where the appellant was not impleaded. The Single Judge set aside the r

MMTC LIMITEDversusANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PVT. LIMITED

2025 INSC 12793 November 2025Dismissed

MMTC Limited entered a Long Term Agreement with Anglo American Metallurgical Coal for the supply of coking coal, but a dispute arose over the price and unlifted quantities, leading to an arbitral award in favour of Anglo. MMTC challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was reje

C.P. FRANCISversusC.P. JOSEPH AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 10713 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the succession to the suit‑schedule property of the deceased parents, C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius, who had executed a joint will bequeathing the property to the appellant C.P. Francis. The respondents, other children of the deceased, challenged the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capa

VAIBHAV JAINversusHINDUSTAN MOTORS PVT. LTD.

2024 INSC 6523 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Vaibhav Motors, was a dealer of Hindustan Motors and was sued for compensation after a Hindustan Motors employee died in a test‑drive accident involving a vehicle that had not been sold to the dealer. The key question was whether the dealer could be deemed the "owner" of the vehicle and thus jointly liab

KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSUKHI RAM & ORS.

2024 INSC 3743 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of a predecessor in interest, were decreed in a pre-emption suit to deposit a balance amount of Rs. 9,214 minus a fifth already paid, by 10 October 1988. Due to a clerical miscalculation, they deposited Rs. 7,600 instead of the correct Rs. 7,614, leaving a shortfall of Rs. 14, which they sought to

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusJAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR

2024 INSC 2623 April 2024Dismissed

The Union of India filed a civil appeal seeking restoration of a writ petition that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution in 2006, but the application for restoration was filed after a delay of 12 years and 158 days. The High Court declined to condone this delay, prompting the Union to challenge the order before the S

RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.

2024 INSC 123 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that a 2011 sale deed was void, claiming ownership of a parcel of land based on an alleged oral partition among four brothers and a will executed by one brother. The trial court and the subordinate appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the oral partition was

DR. VIMAL SUKUMARversusD. LAWRENCE & ORS.

2025 INSC 6222 May 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals challenging two Madras High Court orders that declared the 7‑3‑2022 Special Synod meeting of the Church of South India (CSI) invalid, set aside the amendments to the CSI Constitution, and ordered re‑election of all office bearers. The Court held that the Special Synod meeting was duly

PURNI DEVI & ANR.versusBABU RAM & ANR.

2024 INSC 2592 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant obtained a decree for possession in 1986, which became final on 9 November 2000. Seeking to enforce the decree, the appellant filed an execution application before the Tehsildar on 18 December 2000, which was rejected on 29 January 2005 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then filed a fre

M/S TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 10601 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, was ordered by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to pay Rs.18 crore as environmental compensation for alleged illegal discharge of untreated effluents and related violations. The appellant challenged the orders on the ground that it was n

K.R. SURESHversusR. POORNIMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 6171 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, K.R. Suresh, paid Rs.20,00,000 as advance under an agreement of sale that required the balance to be paid within four months, failing which the advance would be forfeited. He did not pay the balance on time, and the respondents forfeited the advance and later sold the property to third parties. The appel

SANTOSH DEVIversusSUNDER

2025 INSC 6271 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioner, Santosh Devi, filed a suit in 2012 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and related mutation, alleging that the deed was obtained through fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The petitioner contended th

I.K. MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 4181 April 2025Disposed off

The appellants, I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and others, sold their shares in a state-owned company in 1973 for Rs.11.50 per share and later sought a higher valuation, which was finally fixed at Rs.640 per share by a court-appointed valuer. The State of Rajasthan, as respondent, delayed payment for over five decades, leadi

SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS.versusSRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS.

2025 INSC 4341 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, grandchildren of Shivanna, filed a suit for partition of ancestral immovable property in 2023, alleging denial of their share. The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the property had been orally partitioned in 1968 and that registered sale deeds executed in

VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS.versusJAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS

2024 INSC 1591 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a consumer complaint alleging that the sole proprietor developer failed to complete construction and pay dues under a 1996 Development Agreement. The developer died during the pendency of the case, and the legal representatives were directed by the NCDRC to both pay monetary amounts and to perform

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