Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3,093 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1,801–2,000.

SAGAR MAHAVIDYALAYA, SAGARversusPANDIT SADASHIV RAO HARSHE AND ORS.

1991 INSC 14912 July 1991Appeal(s) allowed

Govind Rao Harshe mortgaged his house and land, and a decree for sale was obtained by the mortgagees. The property was auctioned on 20 August 1942 and the bid was knocked down in favour of Gopal Rao Mutatkar, who was a member of Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya. The auction sale was confirmed on 10 April 1943 under Order XXI Rul

SMT. PUJARI BAIversusMADAN GOPAL

1989 INSC 19812 July 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Smt. Pujari Bai, a displaced person, was allotted agricultural land and on 29 April 1963 received a permanent Sanad under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, conferring absolute title. Later, during consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Pr

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.versusJAGDEV SINGH AND ORS.

2008 INSC 75012 June 2008Disposed off

The respondents, Jagdev Singh and others, filed a suit seeking promotion as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) after their juniors were promoted on 23 May 1991, claiming they had qualified earlier. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court held the respondents were entitled to promotion from the da

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

SURESH PRASAD SINGHversusDULHIN PHULKUMARI DEVI AND ORS.

2010 INSC 31412 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Suresh Prasad Singh, holding that he was a co‑sharer of the transferors in the land sold to the respondent and therefore entitled to a mandatory right of pre‑emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961

DADU DAYALU MAHASABHA, JAIPUR (TRUST)versusMAHANT RAM NIWAS AND ANOTHER

2008 INSC 63512 May 2008Disposed off

The Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, a registered public trust, and Mahant Ram Niwas were involved in a long series of suits concerning the entitlement and management of a religious Gaddi. The Supreme Court, in the first round of litigation, held that the respondent was not entitled to the Gaddi and granted him liberty to file a

STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.versusANSHUMAN SHUKLA

2008 INSC 64312 May 2008Matter referred to larger bench

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a revision application before the High Court under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, but the application was 80 days late. The issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows condonation of delay, applies to such revision appl

R.K.SHUKLAversusSUDHRIST NARAIN ANAND (DEAD) BY L.RS.

2008 INSC 64412 May 2008Dismissed

The appellant, R.K. Shukla, obtained an allotment of a premises after the Rent Control & Eviction Officer (RC&EO) declared it vacant, despite the landlord Sudhrist Narain Anand (deceased) asserting physical occupation. The landlord challenged the allotment and the vacancy declaration in a writ petition before the Allah

BHOGADI KANNABABU AND ORS.versusVUGGINA PYDAMMA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 32212 May 2006Dismissed

The appellant tenants, nephews of the deceased landowner Suryanarayana, occupied several acres of land in Vishakhapatnam district. After the death of Suryanarayana's first wife Chilakamma, the second wife Pydamma claimed ownership and filed an eviction suit under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act alleging default and sub‑

CHANDRA KANTA SINHAversusORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 28012 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, owner of a truck involved in a fatal accident, challenged an interim compensation order of Rs. 50,000 passed by the trial court. The High Court Single Judge allowed the appellant's appeal, prompting the respondents to file a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) under Clause 10 of the Patna High Court Letters Pate

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2000 INSC 33112 May 2000

Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) advertised several schemes for allotment of developed plots, collected deposits from allottees, and then failed to deliver possession within a reasonable time. The aggrieved allottees obtained orders from the MRTP Commission, Consumer Forum and High Court directing refund of their

G.C. KANUNGOversusSTATE OF ORISSA

1995 INSC 37812 May 1995Case Allowed

The petitioners, contractors who had contracts with the State of Orissa, obtained arbitral awards from Special Arbitration Tribunals which were later made "Rules of Court" by civil courts. The State subsequently enacted the Arbitration (Orissa Second Amendment) Act, 1991, which retrospectively nullified those awards, e

B. GANGADHARversusB.G. RAJALINGAM

1995 INSC 37912 May 1995Dismissed

The petitioner, a judgment‑debtor, constructed shops on a suit property and let tenants occupy them while a suit for title and possession was pending. The trial court declared the respondent the owner and ordered the petitioner to hand over vacant possession; the decree became final. When the execution warrant was issu

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.versusUTILITY USERS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2018 INSC 32912 April 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 84(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 obliges a High Court Judge to be appointed as Chairperson of a State Electricity Regulatory Commission and whether a member of law is required on the Commission. By interpreting the statutory language, the Court held that Section 84(2) is mer

KUSUM HARILAL SONIversusCHANDRLKA NANDLAL MEHTA AND ANR.

2016 INSC 31012 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landlord, obtained an eviction order and a decree for monthly compensation against the tenant (respondent No.1) under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. After possession was handed over, the tenant failed to pay the compensation and purportedly transferred the flat to her daughter (respondent

KEDAR MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2016 INSC 30412 April 2016

Kedar Mishra, a co‑sharer and raiyat, claimed right of pre‑emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act for three parcels sold by his brother. He deposited the required ten percent of the purchase price, but the treasury challan recorded the deposi

SMT. NEENA VIKRAM VERMAversusBALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM & ORS.

2013 INSC 25112 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

In the 2008 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Neena Vikram Verma was declared elected by a single vote over Balmukund Singh Gautam, who filed an election petition alleging irregularities in postal ballot counting. Verma responded with a recrimination petition under Section 97 of the Representation of People

RAJ KUMAR SHIVHAREversusASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANOTHER

2010 INSC 20612 April 2010Dismissed

Raj Kumar Shivhare was penalised under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) for receiving unauthorized foreign payments and was ordered to deposit a penalty of Rs.2 crore. He appealed the Appellate Tribunal's order refusing dispensation of the pre‑deposit of penalty, but the Tribunal upheld the requirement.

BEGUM SAHIBA SULTANversusNAWAB MOHD. MANSUR ALI KHAN AND ORS.

2007 INSC 41112 April 2007Dismissed

Begum Sahiba Sultan, the daughter of the deceased, filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration that an alleged oral will made by her mother was never made, a declaration that a sale deed was void, and a decree of partition of immovable properties situated in Village Pataudi, Gurgaon, Haryana. The Delhi C

RAMA NARANGversusRAMESH NARANG AND ANR.

2006 INSC 22212 April 2006Hearing Adjourned

The petitioners, father and half‑brothers, entered into a "Minutes of Consent Order" that settled a series of family and corporate disputes and was incorporated into a court decree. The respondents later allegedly breached specific clauses of that consent order concerning the control of a company. The petitioners filed

STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRAversusM/S. ASHIT SHIPPING SERVICES (P.) LTD. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 19212 April 2002Disposed off

The State Bank of Saurashtra (appellant) sought leave to defend a summary suit filed by Ashit Shipping Services (respondent No.1) under Order 37 of the CPC, which claimed payment on a bond that the bank alleged was an indemnity, not a guarantee. The bank alleged fraud and collusion involving the respondent and a second

VIKAS AGGARWALversusANUBHA

2002 INSC 19312 April 2002Dismissed

The appellant and respondent married and later separated, with the appellant filing for divorce in a U.S. court while the respondent returned to India and filed a suit for judicial separation and maintenance. The Delhi High Court, through a Single Judge, initially restrained the appellant from proceeding in the U.S. co

JAGDISH DUTT AND ANR.versusDHARAM PAL AND ORS.

1999 INSC 17512 April 1999Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for ejectment against the respondents for arrears of rent and sub‑letting, and obtained a decree for possession of the premises. In the execution proceedings the second respondent claimed to have purchased the undivided interest of certain coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family of the dec

MRS. JOYCE PRIMROSE PRESTORversusMISS VERA MARIE VAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 51312 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Joyce Primrose Prestor, sought letters of administration for her mother’s estate, relying on a holograph will dated 19 June 1964 that bequeathed equal shares to her three daughters. The husband and two other daughters contested the will, alleging undue influence by the plaintiff. The trial court held the

BALRAM & OTHERSversusTHE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT. JUDGE & ANR.

1983 INSC 3712 April 1983Dismissed

The appellants sought substitution of the deceased sole appellant's legal representatives, setting aside of abatement, and condonation of delay in a ceiling appeal under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The Additional District Judge dismissed the application, and the High Court upheld the dism

TANUKU TALUK VILLAGE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATIONversusTANUKU MUNICIPALITY & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 34912 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tanuku Taluk Village Officers’ Association, filed two civil suits against the respondents concerning a piece of land, both of which were decreed on 14 August 1996. It also obtained a decree from the Rent Controller ordering the handover of the land, but subsequent applications and appeals led to the Seni

SIVAKAMI & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2018 INSC 22612 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, owners of 1.52 acres of land, challenged a 1985 acquisition of their land by the State of Tamil Nadu under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition but gave no reasons or discussion of the issues. The Division Bench

JOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDYversusVERONICA THOMAS RAJKUMAR & ANR

2013 INSC 15612 March 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Joseph John Peter Sandy, sought a decree of rectification of a 1981 settlement deed that had transferred a house to his sister, Veronica Thomas Rajkumar, alleging a mistake and that the parties intended to exchange the properties. The sister contested, claiming the alleged agreement of 1 June 1982 was fo

MOHANversusSMT. ANANDI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 36712 March 1996Dismissed

Mohan (appellant) claimed title to a property he had purchased from Bhiwa, who had earlier gifted the same land to the respondents. The respondents filed suit for declaration of title and possession. The trial court allowed attachment of the property, but the appellant challenged this in a separate suit (No. 42-A of 19

SH. BAKSHISH SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusARJAN SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 36912 March 1996Dismissed

A suit for dissolution of a partnership and rendition of accounts was filed by one partner against the other partners of the Modern Ice Factory. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appeal was also dismissed. While the second appeal was pending, two of the partners died and their legal representatives were

SMT. AMBEY DEVIversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

1996 INSC 37112 March 1996Dismissed

The State of Bihar acquired 25 acres of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and awarded compensation equally to four co‑owners, each receiving a one‑fourth share. One co‑owner filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, leading the civil court to enhance his compensation. The appellant, another co‑owner, did n

YASHPAL SINGHversusVIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

1992 INSC 7412 March 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Respondent No.3 obtained a permanent injunction against the State of U.P. and its Forest Department to prevent interference with his right to cut trees on his land. Later, Smt. Lagan Devi secured a temporary injunction restraining Respondent No.3 from cutting trees on her plot, invoking the earlier decree. She reported

VISHESH KUMARversusSHANTI PRASAD

1980 INSC 4612 March 1980Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered five civil revision petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) that were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court examined whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC ove

R. SAVITHRI NAIDUversusM/S THE COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 15012 February 2026Dismissed

The dispute arose from a sale of cotton bales between CCI and M/s Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles Ltd, which led to an arbitral award for recovery of money in 2001. The award was challenged but the challenge was dismissed in 2013. Subsequently, ICICI Bank, as a secured creditor, attached the debtor's properties under the SARFA

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

GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusPRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR.

2024 INSC 10212 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) claimed that it had submitted a claim of Rs 43.40 crore as a financial creditor against JNC Construction Ltd., but the resolution professional treated it as an operational creditor and the resolution plan approved by the NCLT omitted its claim and undervalued i

RAVINDER NATH AGARWALversusYOGENDER NATH AGARWAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 8612 February 2021Disposed off

The petitioners, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal and his sister Lily Nath, sought transfer of a partition suit and a testamentary case involving a Will dated 06‑04‑2011 of their father. The first petition asked to move the partition suit from the Additional District Judge, Saket, Delhi to the District Court, Nainital, whil

H. S. GOUTHAMversusRAMA MURTHY AND ANR. ETC.

2021 INSC 8212 February 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff H.S. Goutham sued the defendants for repayment of a mortgage loan and a consent decree was passed in 1995 ordering the defendants to pay the amount in instalments. The defendants objected in the execution petition, alleging the decree was obtained by fraud, but the executing court overruled the objection

MALLURU MALLAPPA (D) THR. LRS.versusKURUVATHAPPA & ORS.

2020 INSC 17312 February 2020Directions issued

Malluru Mallappa filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30 March 2000, alleging the defendants had breached the contract. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was not ready to perform his part. The trial court dismissed the suit on both grou

M/S SCG CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD.versusK. S. CHAMANKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 18712 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

In a commercial suit, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 6.94 crore. The defendant was served on 14 July 2017 but failed to file a written statement within the statutory 120‑day period. The trial court initially extended time to 15 December 2017 on condition of payment of costs, and later, despite the amendment to th

U.P.S.R.T.C.versusKM. MAMTA & ORS

2016 INSC 16412 February 2016

The appellant corporation’s bus collided with a motorcyclist, leading to a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded Rs.24,73,252, which the corporation appealed to the Allahabad High Court under Section 173 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal witho

RAVEESH CHAND JAINversusRAJ RANI JAIN

2015 INSC 11112 February 2015Dismissed

The mother (respondent) sued her son (appellant) for possession of a property she claimed to have purchased with her own funds and for damages. The son contended the property was a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) asset bought with ancestral money. An earlier partition suit filed by the son was dismissed, which the mother

TAPAS KUMAR SAMANTAversusSARBANI SEN & ANR.

2015 INSC 11012 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Tapas Kumar Samanta filed an eviction suit against Sarbani Sen and others alleging non‑payment of rent, personal necessity to demolish the existing building for his own residence and business, waste, nuisance and unauthorized construction, invoking Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court dismissed

NASIB KAUR AND ORS.versusCOL SURAT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS & ORS.

2013 INSC 9512 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a dispute over ownership and possession of land sold by Col. Surat Singh, the plaintiff, to Col. Girdhar Singh, who later sold it to the defendants. The plaintiff filed suits for declaration of title and permanent injunction, but the trial courts and the first appellate court found that the plaintiff

RUR SINGH (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.versusBACHAN KAUR

2009 INSC 15612 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a Will executed by a villager, Kehar Singh, bequeathing his agricultural lands to his sons, which was challenged by his daughter Bachan Kaur on the ground that the Will was not duly executed and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The trial court and the first appellate court held the Will ge

PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR.versusREPAKA VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS.

2009 INSC 17812 February 2009Dismissed

The appeal arose from a partition suit concerning a joint family property where the appellants had purchased undivided shares from certain defendants. A preliminary decree and a final decree were passed, both attaining finality. After the final decree, the decree holder sought to amend the decree to correct a clerical

NARAYANAN RAJENDRAN & ANOTHERversusLEKSHMY SAROJINI & OTHERS

2009 INSC 18012 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs sued for a share in a property claiming it was a sub‑tarward asset governed by the marumakkathayam customary law. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the property was not partible, the parties were governed by the makkathayam law and the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim. The Hig

JAGADEESH & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2008 INSC 17512 February 2008Dismissed

The appellants, Jagadeesh and others, claimed tenancy and occupancy rights over a scheduled agricultural land and filed Form‑7 before the Karnataka Land Tribunal. The Tribunal and the Appellate Authority granted occupancy rights, but the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 121A of the Karnataka

BOKKA SUBBA RAOversusKUKKALA BALAKRISHNA & ORS.

2008 INSC 17612 February 2008Case Partly allowed

The plaintiffs‑respondents filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of a specific property and a perpetual injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit and the decision was upheld on appeal. The High Court, however, in a second appeal, reversed the lower courts and decreed in favour of the plaintiffs‑responden

STAR CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORT CO. AND ORS.versusTHE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.

2001 INSC 8412 February 2001Dismissed

Star Construction and Transport Co. and others appealed against The India Cements Ltd. after a non‑speaking arbitration award of Rs. 65,00,000 was reduced to Rs. 49,00,000 by the respondent, who claimed a set‑off of Rs. 16,00,000 arising from two suits pending before the High Court. The respondent sought to treat the a

PANCHUGOPAL BARUA AND ORS.versusUMESH CHANDRA GOSWAMI AND ORS.

1997 INSC 13812 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff allowed the defendant to use a plot of land in Assam for two years (June 1963‑June 1965) to raise a temporary structure, with the understanding that the structure would be removed and possession returned after the period. The defendant failed to vacate and also claimed he was a prospective purchaser under

BALKRISHAN GUPTA AND ORS.versusSWADESHI POLYTEX LTD. AND ANR

1985 INSC 2412 February 1985Dismissed

The Collector of Kanpur appointed a receiver over Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. and ordered the seizure, attachment and pledge of its 10 lakh shares in Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. The Cotton Mills Company, together with four other shareholders, requisitioned an extraordinary general meeting of Polytex under s.169 of the Compani

KISHORILAL (D) THR. LRS & ORS.versusGOPAL & ORS.

2026 INSC 4812 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff Gopal sued the deceased vendor Kishorilal for specific performance of a sale agreement; the vendor's heirs and the purchasers (appellants 2 and 3) were joined in the suit which was decreed in Kishorilal's favour. An appeal (F.A. No.213 of 2000) was filed, but Kishorilal died and his four legal heirs were

ASMA LATEEF & ANRversusSHABBIR AHMAD & ORS

2024 INSC 3612 January 2024Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction over a property, alleging an oral gift, while the defendants contested the suit's maintainability under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The trial court, ignoring the written statement of one defendant and the pending jurisdictional objecti

RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTAversusPRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS.

2011 INSC 3412 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed suit No.1301 of 1997 and subsequently lodged an application to withdraw the suit. Before the court could rule on that application, he filed a second application seeking to withdraw the earlier withdrawal application. The Allahabad High Court held that the filing of a withdrawal application automatic

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusM/S. UNIVERSAL PETROL CHEMICALS LTD.

2009 INSC 1612 January 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) entered into two purchase orders and agreements with Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd. for transformer oil, each containing an arbitration clause and an ouster clause confining jurisdiction to the courts at Jaipur, Rajasthan. Disputes arose over defective oil and the Board sou

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION --I & ANR.versusBAL MUKUND BAIRWA

2009 INSC 1412 January 2009Reference answered

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (a State corporation) terminated several employees and the employees filed civil suits alleging violation of natural‑justice principles and statutory regulations. The Supreme Court was asked to resolve a conflict between earlier judgments on whether civil courts have juris

S. NAZEER AHMEDversusSTATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ORS.

2007 INSC 3412 January 2007Dismissed

The appellant, S. Nazeer Ahmed, had borrowed Rs.1,10,000 from State Bank of Mysore for a bus, securing the loan by hypothecating the bus and equitably mortgaging two immovable properties. The bank first obtained a money decree, but could not sell the hypothecated bus and later sued for enforcement of the equitable mort

MAHARASHTRA VIKRIKAR KARAMCHARI SANGATHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2000 INSC 1512 January 2000Disposed off

Two direct recruits challenged a seniority list of Sales Tax Inspectors issued by the State of Maharashtra, which was quashed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) and upheld by the Supreme Court on res judicata grounds. The State issued a fresh seniority list in 1992, which the promotees again challenged; t

BANK OF BARODAversusR.M. PATWA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6312 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda obtained a money decree against R.M. Patwa for Rs 55,000 with interest and filed an execution application. Patwa sought, under Section 151 CPC, to have amounts crediting a third‑party, G.K. Kakkani, adjusted against his decree debt. The Additional District Judge ordered such adjustment, and the High

SMT. RAJNIBAI @ MANNUBAIversusSMT. KAMLA DEVI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6512 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title to a property and simultaneously applied under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for a temporary injunction to protect his possession. The trial court granted the injunction, but the High Court reversed the order, holding that where there is no dispute as to the corpo

BHANWAR LALversusSMT. PREM LATA & ORS.

1990 INSC 512 January 1990Appeal(s) allowed

A joint family house was auctioned to satisfy an ex‑parte money decree of Rs 5,557.10. The coparceners objected, the sale was confirmed, and they filed a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 CPC to set aside the sale, valuing the property at Rs 15,000. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Court allowed the appea

DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.

2024 INSC 104911 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit in 2017 seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 04‑12‑2004, alleging fraud and claiming they only became aware of the deed on 31‑03‑2017 when a revenue notice was issued. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the thre

MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRAversusROOP RANI MEHRA & ORS.

2017 INSC 121211 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a partition suit for a family property and later sought to amend the plaint to claim a share in the sale proceeds of another family property sold in 2000. The amendment application was filed on 17 January 2011, before any evidence had been led, although issues had been framed and a date for recordin

TRILOK SINGH CHAUHANversusRAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.

2017 INSC 121311 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed a suit in the Small Causes Court for recovery of rent and eviction of the tenant, claiming a rent of Rs.1500 per month. The trial court upheld this claim and decreed eviction, but the tenant obtained a revision from the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which

PURNO AGITOK SANGMAversusPRANAB MUKHERJEE

2012 INSC 57311 December 2012Dismissed

In the 2012 presidential election, petitioner Purno Agitok Sangma challenged the election of Pranab Mukherjee on the ground that Mukherjee held two "offices of profit" – Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) and Leader of the House in the Lok Sabha – at the time of filing his nomination, which would disqua

AJAY MAKENversusADESH KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

2012 INSC 57711 December 2012Disposed off

The Delhi High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the 2009 Lok Sabha election of Ajay Maken on grounds of alleged corrupt practices. The appellant argued that the petition should be thrown out for (i) the copy served on him not being a true copy under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act,

DHARMARAJAN AND OTHERSversusVALLIAMMALAND ORS.

2007 INSC 126111 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff Muthuswamy Gounder sued for declaration and injunction claiming title to a land parcel based on a sale deed and alleged adverse possession of over 60 years. The defendants claimed ownership through purchase from members of the Iyer family and argued that the alleged occupants, K and her foster son DO, wer

GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR & ORSversusNAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND & ORS.

2007 INSC 126311 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others sued Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and others for permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that the defendants had encroached upon land they claimed to own by deed of sale dated 7‑Nov‑1984. The trial court decreed the suit, and the Karnataka High Court upheld the decree, holding tha

BHIMASHYA AND ORS.versusSMT. JANABI @JANAWWA

2006 INSC 99011 December 2006Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a partition suit claiming a half‑share in the ancestral properties of her father Fakirappa, who died leaving two daughters. The husband of the other daughter (Defendant No.1) contended that he was the adopted son of Fakirappa and that the suit‑house property (item 3 of the schedule) was his self‑acq

UMA DEVI NAMBIAR AND ORS.versusT.C. SIDHAN (DEAD)

2003 INSC 70511 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, daughters of the deceased, filed an application under Sections 192‑195 of the Indian Succession Act seeking possession of their ancestral house, alleging illegal occupation by the respondent who claimed title under a purported joint will. The District Judge, in a summary proceeding, examined the will i

AJAY KUMAR POEIAversusSHYAM AND ORS.

2003 INSC 70411 December 2003Dismissed

In a Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election for a seat reserved for Scheduled Castes, the appellant challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that the respondent was not a member of a Scheduled Caste. The election petition relied on various statements about the respondent's caste certificates and all

RATAN SINGHversusVIJAY SINGH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 58311 December 2000Appeal(s) allowed

Ratan Singh obtained a decree for possession of his property in 1970, but did not file an execution petition. The respondent filed a first appeal, dismissed in 1973, and later a second appeal which the High Court rejected as time‑barred. Ratan Singh later relied on the High Court order to revive the decree and filed an

MARTIN AND HARRIS LTD.versusVLTH ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS.

1997 INSC 80811 December 1997Dismissed

Martin and Harris Ltd., a long‑standing tenant, was served a notice by a retired Major General who purchased the premises and claimed a bona‑fide residential requirement. The landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act within six months of the notice and before three years had

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusM/S SURINDER KUMAR AND CO. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147011 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who held licences to sell Indian-made foreign liquor in Ludhiana, had their licences cancelled by the Excise Department on grounds of illegalities. They filed writ petitions alleging that the Minister for Excise acted mala fide in the cancellation. The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the responden

PROF. RAMCHANDRA G. KAPSE ETC.versusHARIBANSH RAMAKBAL SINGH ETC

1995 INSC 87011 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition that had declared the Lok Sabha election of Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse void on the ground of alleged corrupt practices involving speeches by Sadhvi Reethambara and Pramod Mahajan. The Court held that a noticee under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act has an

BANWARI LALversusSMT. CHANDO DEVI (THROUGH L.R.) AND ANR.

1992 INSC 34111 December 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Banwari Lal filed a suit which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the basis of a petition of compromise filed on his behalf. Banwari Lal later alleged that the petition was fraudulent, unsigned by the respondent and filed through a colluding advocate. The Subordinate Judge, after finding the compromise unlawful,

PANKAJ BHARGAVA AND ANR.versusMOHINDER NATH AND ANR.

1990 INSC 38511 December 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords and tenants jointly obtained permission for a five‑year limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. After the tenancy expired, the landlords sought possession, but the tenants argued that a prior tenancy already existed and that the permission was obtained by fraud, rendering it

CHHAGANLAL KESHAVLAL MEHTAversusPATEL NARANDAS HARIBHAI

1981 INSC 20411 December 1981Dismissed

Motibhai created two mortgages on his property; after his death the mortgagor's heirs and successive mortgagees transferred their interests, and the plaintiff, Narandas Haribhai Patel, purchased the equity of redemption from the heir Taralaxmibai and sued the mortgagees for redemption. The issues were whether a co‑mort

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

S.D. JOSHI & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY & ORS.

2010 INSC 76911 November 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, who are Judges of Family Courts in Maharashtra, sought elevation to the Bombay High Court, arguing that they hold a "judicial office" under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether Family Courts qualify as courts in the constitutional sense, whether their judges are par

HARYANA VIDYUT PARASARAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusM/S. SUPER STAR GRIT UDYOG

2008 INSC 128611 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Vidyut Parishan Nigam Ltd. demanded a penalty of Rs. 11,37,222 from Super Star Grit Udyog for alleged theft of electricity. The consumer filed a suit for declaration and a permanent injunction, while the board raised a preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable under the Electricity (Haryana A

JAGDISH KUMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF H. P. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 56211 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were recruited as Tracer Draftsmen between 1974‑76 under a government relaxation of the qualification requirements in Rule 6(i) of the Himachal Pradesh PWD Draftsmen and Tracers Rules, 1961. They were placed in the seniority list in 1977 before passing the departmental examination, qualified in 1980, and

VIRENDRA KASHINATH RAVAT AND ANR.versusVINAYAK N. JOSHI AND ORS.

1998 INSC 42411 November 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords (appellants) let a building to Ms. Shanta Sabnis, who died leaving her daughter (second respondent) as the alleged heir. The landlords sued for eviction on the ground that the premises had been unlawfully sub‑let to the first respondent and his sister, invoking Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel

UNION OF INDIAversusUZAIR IMRAN & ORS.

2023 INSC 90111 October 2023Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against the Tribunal and High Court orders that directed the appointment of Ankur Gupta (the third respondent) as Postal Assistant, after he was excluded from training on the basis of his vocational‑stream intermediate qualification. The dispute centered on whether the amendment to the 1990

MALTHESH GUDDA POOJAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2011 INSC 75111 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged a notification and the handling of a review petition concerning a writ appeal that had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The review petition was heard by a different Division Bench under a 29‑December‑2008 notification and was allowed on 17 December 2009, thereby r

DAYARAMversusSUDHIR BATHAM & ORS.

2011 INSC 73711 October 2011Disposed off

The case concerned the validity of the fifteen directions issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil for verification of caste certificates and the procedural rights of parties challenging the orders of the State Level Screening Committee. Dayaram, the President of the Scheduled Caste Employees Association, ch

MOHANNAKUMARAN NAIRversusVIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR

2007 INSC 104311 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant borrowed Rs 6,02,000 from the respondent in Saudi Arabia and executed a promissory note there. The respondent filed a suit for recovery in the Subordinate Court at Attingal, Kerala. The appellant contended that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the CPC because the cause of acti

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

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusM/S. RANJAN CHEMICALS LTD. AND ANR.

2006 INSC 69011 October 2006Case Allowed

The State Bank of India (bank) had granted a term loan and a cash‑credit facility to M/s. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. (company). The company defaulted, prompting the bank to file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for recovery o

COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusK.S. NARAYAN

2006 INSC 69311 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents K.S. Narayan purchased land in 1985 after the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had issued a notification for acquisition under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. They filed civil suits seeking injunctions against the BDA, claiming that no notice under Section 17(5) of the Act had been s

KRISHNA GOPAL CHAWLA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2001 INSC 50111 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, claiming landlord rights, obtained a decree for eviction, arrears of rent and damages against the State of U.P. and its agency U.P. Jal Nigam. After the decree was confirmed by the Supreme Court without alteration, the appellants sought to continue the pending execution proceedings. The respondents cont

MRS. NALINI NAVIN BHAGWATI AND ORS.versusMR. CHANDRAVADAN M. MEHTA

1996 INSC 120011 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Manvantrai Mehta died leaving property and a will of his wife Kamlaben. The sons, including Chandravadan Mehta, obtained probate of Kamlaben’s will in 1987. The other children, led by Nalini Navin Bhagwati, filed an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act to revoke that probate. The trial court refus

R.M. NARAYANA CHETTIAR AND ANOTHERversusN. LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR AND OTHERS

1990 INSC 31711 October 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a representative suit against the respondents for framing a scheme of a public charitable trust, which required leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The subordinate court granted the leave on the same day without issuing any notice to the respondents. The respondents applied to ha

HEMAVATHI AND ORS.versusV. HOMBEGOWDA AND ANR.

2023 INSC 84811 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants obtained a decree for partition of property in 2012. The defendants filed a regular appeal after a delay of 2,945 days, which the first appellate court dismissed. They then filed a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC before the Karnataka High Court, which condoned the delay, remanded the m

NARAYANA GRAMANI & ORS.versusMARIAMMAL & ORS.

2018 INSC 80211 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction over a parcel of land, which the trial court decreed in their favour. The defendants appealed, first unsuccessfully, and then filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal by framing a single substantial questi

C. P. JOHNversusBABU M. PALISSERY & ORS.

2014 INSC 62511 September 2014Dismissed

C.P. John, a losing candidate, filed an election petition challenging the election of Babu M. Palissery on grounds of bribery, false pamphlet distribution and alleged suppression of criminal convictions. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding it lacked material facts and was non‑compliant with Section 83 of the

KRISHNANversusBACKIAM AND ANR.

2007 INSC 90811 September 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Krishnan filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming that a mortgaged land was sold to him by Ramayee (alias Lakshmi) through registered deeds, which the defendant alleged were forged. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that Ramayee and Lakshmi were

RACHAKONDA VENKAT RAO AND ORS.versusR. SATYA BAI (D) BY LR. AND ANR.

2003 INSC 47111 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit for partition of joint family property, which was settled by a compromise and a decree on 13 July 1978 allocating specific parcels and putting the parties in possession of their shares. Some parcels were left in joint possession, and in 1991 the respondents sought appointment of a commissio

N.D.M.CversusSATISH CHAND (DECEASED) BY LR. RAM CHAND

2003 INSC 47211 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) assessed property tax on a basement owned by Satish Chand, who argued that the basement was unusable due to water ingress and therefore had no rateable value. Chand filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against the tax demand. NDMC raised a preliminary objection, inv

BHOOP SINGHversusRAM SINGH MAJOR AND ORS.

1995 INSC 55311 September 1995Dismissed

The petitioners, heirs of a common ancestor, claimed a one‑third share in land, relying on a 1973 declaratory decree that had been obtained on the basis of the defendant’s written admission of their title. The decree was never registered. The trial court held the decree illegal; the appellate courts dismissed the petit

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

1987 INSC 24611 September 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bank of India obtained a decree against the State of Gujarat for a sum of Rs.59,69,422.59 with interest. While the State appealed the decree, the Bank levied execution and the State deposited the decretal amount in the executing court. The State then applied to the Gujarat High Court for a stay of execution

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

VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERINGversusSATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. AND ANOTHER.

2010 INSC 50111 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Venture Global Engineering, a US‑based company, entered into a joint‑venture with Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (the first respondent) and later obtained an arbitral award ordering it to transfer its shares in the joint venture to Satyam. After the award, Satyam’s chairman confessed to massive financial fraud, leading

ABDUL GAFUR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

2008 INSC 92111 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttarakhand acquired land for a public road to a hospital under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original owner later gifted part of the land to the appellants, who sued the hospital for a perpetual injunction to prevent it from erecting walls that would block the road. The trial court granted a tempora

KAMAL KUMAR DUTTA AND ANR.versusRUBY GENERAL HOSPITAL LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 50611 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved Dr. Kamal Kumar Dutta, a major shareholder of Ruby General Hospital Ltd., who alleged that the company’s board, led by his younger brother, fabricated board resolutions, denied him shares for equipment supplied, and ousted him as managing director, constituting oppression and mismanagement under Secti

SOVINTORG (INDIA) LTD.versusSTATE BANK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

1999 INSC 31911 August 1999Case Partly allowed

Sovintorg (India) Ltd. deposited a cheque for Rs 1 lakh with State Bank of India in June 1983; although the cheque was cleared, the proceeds were not credited to its account for seven years. The company claimed compensation, damages and 24% interest under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Consumer Disputes R

SYED DASTAGIRversusT.R. GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY

1999 INSC 31711 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Syed Dastagir entered into a sale agreement with T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty for Rs.9,500, paying most of the consideration but the defendant refused to accept the remaining Rs.120 and execute the sale deed. The plaintiff deposited the balance in court and sued for specific performance. The trial court and the appellate c

P.K. VASUDEVAversusZENOBIA BHANOT

1999 INSC 32111 August 1999Dismissed

The landlady, a widow of a retired government servant, sought eviction of four tenants under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as extended to Chandigarh. The Rent Controller initially ordered eviction of two tenants, but the High Court held that only one tenant could be evicted and allowe

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANYversusRENUSAGAR POWER COMPANY

1987 INSC 20411 August 1987Appeal(s) allowed

General Electric Company (GEC) and Renusagar Power Company entered into a contract for equipment supply, which later gave rise to disputes referred to ICC arbitration. Renusagar filed a suit in the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that the disputes were not arbitrable, while GEC applied for a stay of the suit un

ANWARversusIST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR & ORS.

1986 INSC 16811 August 1986Dismissed

The petitioner, a stage‑carriage permit holder, objected to a scheme published under section 68‑C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 that would grant the State Transport Undertaking exclusive rights on certain routes. Before the hearing authority under section 68‑D could approve the scheme, he filed a civil suit seeking a

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

HEMANTHA KUMARversusR. MAHADEVAIAH & ORS.

2022 INSC 69411 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement and, together with defendants 1 and 2, applied under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC for a consent decree, stating that the dispute was settled and the full consideration had been paid. The trial court referred the matter to a Lok Adalat, which, befo

MOHAMED ALIversusV. JAYA & ORS.

2022 INSC 69611 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Mohamed Ali sued for specific performance of a sale agreement. The trial court passed an ex‑parte judgment and decree in 2012. The defendants filed applications to set aside the decree after delays of 1,522 days (defendant 1) and 2,345 days (defendants 2‑4); the trial court refused to condone these delays. The defendan

ASHA RANI GUPTAversusSRI VINEET KUMAR

2022 INSC 68411 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Asha Rani Gupta, the plaintiff‑lessor, filed an eviction suit against Sri Vineet Kumar, the defendant‑lessee, for non‑payment of rent and damages. The trial court struck off the defendant’s defence under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC for failing to deposit the admitted rent, a decision affirmed by the revisional court. Th

HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITEDversusPRADEEP SHANTIPERSHAD JAIN & ORS

2022 INSC 68511 July 2022Directions issued

HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. invested USD 60 million in Avitel, a company owned by the respondents. The Supreme Court, affirming a 2014 order, directed the respondents to maintain a USD 60 million balance in a Corporation Bank account. The respondents failed to comply, repeatedly sought exemption, and claimed lack

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDIWAN CHAND ANAND & ORS

2022 INSC 66811 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a trial court decree that declared land acquisition notifications void and restrained DDA from dispossessing co‑owners of the land. The High Court dismissed the appeal as abated because several respondents had died and their legal representatives were not brought on record

NANDA DULAL PRADHAN & ANR.versusDIBAKAR PRADHAN & ANR.

2022 INSC 68111 July 2022Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and title, and the original defendants 2 and 3 failed to file a written statement despite several extensions, leading the trial court to pass an ex‑parte decree. The defendants applied under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree; the trial court dismissed the app

MATHAI M. PAIKEDAYversusC.K. ANTONY

2011 INSC 48211 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed two suits for recovery of money against the respondent, a retired Deputy Conservator of Forest drawing a pension of Rs 10,500, and obtained decrees in his favour. The respondent appealed the decrees before the Kerala High Court and sought to prosecute the appeals as an indigent person under Order 44

GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD AND ORSversusBRAHMA NAND SINGH

2008 INSC 81211 July 2008Dismissed

The appellants, Gauri Shankar Prasad and others, needed money and mortgaged their land to the respondent, Brahma Nano Singh, executing a sale deed and a separate deed of agreement to reconvey the land upon repayment of Rs.36,600. The agreement stipulated that reconveyance must occur within three years, making time the

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

PUSHPA DEVI BHAGAT (D) TH. LR. SMT. SADHNA RAIversusRAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

2006 INSC 41111 July 2006Dismissed

The landlords filed a suit for possession of a Delhi flat against the tenant. After years of adjournments, the tenant’s counsel recorded on oath a statement that the tenant would vacate the premises by 22‑Jan‑2002 and pay rent until then; the landlord’s counsel accepted the terms. The trial court entered a consent decr

MANJULAversusK.R. MAHESH

2006 INSC 41411 July 2006Disposed off

The husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Chennai, on fault grounds, while the wife filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to move the case to the Family Court in Mumbai. During the hearing, both parties agreed that the marriage had irretri

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

R.S.R.T.C. AND ORS.versusRAMDHARA INDOLIYA

2006 INSC 41711 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Ramdhara Indoliya, was employed as a daily‑wage conductor by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) and was terminated. He filed a suit in a civil court seeking reinstatement, back wages and other relief. The civil court and the High Court ruled in his favour, but RSRTC appealed to the S

N.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY AND ORS.versusMARIYAMMA (DEAD) BY PROPOSED LRS. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 28411 July 2005Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit in 1996 seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction over land allegedly transferred by a 1953 sale deed that they claimed was actually a loan secured by an oral agreement to reconvey the property upon repayment. They asserted that the loan was fully repaid on 25 March 1987

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIAversusMIS PRICE WATERHOUSE AND ANR.

[1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 26711 July 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (the Council) issued a notice to Price Waterhouse for alleged professional misconduct in preparing a booklet for EXIM Bank. After a written statement, the Council referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee, which reported a finding of "not guilty". The Council then

GURDEV SINGH AND ORS.versusMEHNGA RAM AND ANR.

[1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 69311 July 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, seeking to admit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(b) of the CPC, specifically the examination of a handwriting expert. The Additional District Judge ordered that such evidence be produced. The respondents obtained a revision orde

MRS. KAVITA TREHAN AND ANR.versusBALSARA HYGIENE PRODUCTS LTD.

1994 INSC 23511 July 1994

The appellants, clearing and forwarding agents for Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., obtained an ex‑parte injunction that allowed them to sell the respondent's goods, resulting in sales worth Rs 32.4 lakhs. The suit was later dismissed on the ground of non‑registration of the partnership under Section 69(2) of the Indian

MAKARDHWAJ RAMversusJAGDISH RAI (DEAD) TH. LRS. & ANR.

2026 INSC 63611 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 95.80‑acre family property originally transferred in 1960 to the appellant, Makardhwaj Ram, and his mother. Subsequent sales by a cousin acting under a General Power of Attorney were later cancelled, leading to multiple suits challenging those sales, all of which were dismissed. The appellant la

VIJAY ARJUN BHAGAT & ORS.versusNANA LAXMAN TAPKIRE & ORS.

2018 INSC 49111 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership of certain properties. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court set it aside in their favour. The respondents appealed to the High Court, which admitted the second appeal and framed six substantial questions of law under Section

SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS.versusN.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY (D) THR. LRS.

2018 INSC 50611 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant (defendant) sought to enforce a maintenance decree against her husband, during which the husband executed a sale deed of the disputed property to the plaintiff. The decree was later executed by a court auction, where the decree‑holder purchased the property, and the sale was confirmed after the plaintiff'

VIMALESHWAR NAGAPPA SHETversusNOOR AHMED SHERIFF & ORS.

2011 INSC 38111 May 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet, bought a dwelling house from several co‑sharers of a deceased owner but the agreement of sale did not include the minor grandson (Defendant No. 3). The minor did not join the sale and later offered to purchase the 9/11 share, prompting the High Court to fix a market value and di

AMAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 38211 May 2011Dismissed

Amar Singh filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging that his telephone conversations were intercepted by the Government of India and the Delhi administration at the behest of a political party, and sought an injunction and damages. The petition relied on annexes that were later shown to be forged and were obtain

VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 38311 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose under a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) between the Government of India and a consortium that included Videocon Industries Ltd. The PSC stipulated Kuala Lumpur as the seat of arbitration, but due to the SARS epidemic the arbitral tribunal held hearings in Amsterdam and London, recording a consent to

M.P. PETERversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2009 INSC 78611 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M.P. Peter, claimed ownership of 13.25 cents of land in Kizhakkambalam and was ordered by a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the CrPC to hand the property over to the respondent. The Sessions Court reversed that order, but the High Court restored it, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appe

SMRUTI PAHARIYAversusSANJAY PAHARIYA

2009 INSC 78311 May 2009Disposed off

The wife filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After the mandatory six‑month waiting period expired on 19‑Nov‑2007, the husband was absent on three successive dates (19‑Nov, 1‑Dec and 4‑Dec). The Family Court, without being satisfied that the husband was

ASHOK LANKA AND ANR.versusRISHI DIXIT AND ORS.

2005 INSC 27711 May 2005Disposed off

The State of Chhattisgarh invited applications for retail liquor licences and, after receiving over 2.6 lakh applications, selected candidates by computer‑drawn lottery. Several applicants challenged the process, contending that Rule 9(d) of the 2002 Rules required a notarised affidavit at the pre‑selection stage and t

RAJENDER SINGHversusRAMDHAR SINGH AND ORS.

2001 INSC 27711 May 2001Disposed off

The appellant, Rajender Singh, obtained a decree in a money suit and had the defendant's property attached and later purchased at a court auction. The respondents, who had earlier bought the same property under registered sale deeds, challenged the attachment and auction, arguing that the attachment order was not sent

DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWALversusRAJIV GANDHI

1987 INSC 16111 May 1987Dismissed

M.L. Agarwal challenged the 1981 Lok Sabha election of Rajiv Gandhi alleging various corrupt practices. The High Court struck out the petition as vague, frivolous and lacking a cause of action under Order VI Rule 16 and rejected it under Order VII Rule 11. Agarwal appealed, contending that the court had no jurisdiction

GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD.versusRAMANBHAI PRABHATBHAI & ANOTHER

1987 INSC 16211 May 1987Dismissed

The brothers of a 14‑year‑old boy who was killed in a bus accident filed an application under Section 110‑A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, seeking compensation as legal representatives of the deceased. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 32,000 and the Gujarat High Court dismissed the transport corporation

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRANVANCORE LTD. & ANR.versusGENERAL SECRETARY FACT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2019 INSC 51411 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Government directed the public sector undertaking FACT to reduce the retirement age of pre‑1978 employees from 60 to 58 years. Trade unions challenged the order in the Kerala High Court; the Single Judge and the Division Bench dismissed the petitions and the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitio

M/S KAUSHIK COOP. BUILDING SOCIETYversusN. PARVATHAMMA & ORS.

2017 INSC 33511 April 2017Disposed off

The Kaushik Cooperative Building Society claimed ownership of land in Survey No.129/68 Paiki based on a 1976 decree in a specific‑performance suit (CCCA No.14 of 1972). Subsequent land‑grabbing suits (LGC Nos.46/1989, 29/1992, 15/1996) were dismissed, confirming the same title. Later, a new land‑grabbing case (LGC No.4

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

RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL & ANR.versusGOPI KRISHAN (DEAD THROUGH L.RS.) & ORS.

2013 INSC 23911 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The land in question was jointly owned and was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. One co‑owner (the appellants) filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhanced compensation without impleading the other co‑owner (the respondent). The Reference Court awarded compensation to both parties, after whic

JITENDRA SINGHversusBHANU KUMAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 48711 April 2008Case Allowed

The appellant Jitendra Singh filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of a civil suit pending before the Additional District Judge, Alwar, to another court. The Rajasthan High Court ordered the transfer of the suit to the District Judge, Jaipur, relying on alleged lack of co

NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION, GORAKHPURversusBHAGWAN DAS (D) BY LRS.

2008 INSC 49011 April 2008Case Allowed

The respondent filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to protect his possession of land, which the trial court decreed in his favour, holding him to be the Bhumidhar. The appellant, North Eastern Railway Administration, appealed and claimed that the decree was obtained by fraud, asserting that the land had been transf

ACHAL MISRAversusRAMA SHANKER SINGH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 19611 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (Achal Misra) sought to set aside orders of allotment of two floors of a building to tenants under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, arguing that the earlier declaration of vacancy was erroneous and that the High Court erred in holding that the vacancy

DINESH MATHURversusO.P. ARORA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 41411 April 1997Leave Granted & Allowed

The dispute concerned a perpetual lease obtained in 1937 for premises used by the respondent to run a hotel. In 1991 the respondent sued the appellant alleging breach of a lease condition (clause 7(2)) and obtained an ad‑interim injunction restraining the appellant from continuing the hotel business. The Delhi High Cou

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMAJOR GENERAL SHRI KANT SHARMA & ANR.

2015 INSC 20611 March 2015Disposed off

The case concerned several writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The Union of India argued that Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, together with Articles 136(2) and 227(4) of the Constitution, bar High Court jurisdiction

CHANDER KANTA BANSALversusRAJINDER SINGH ANAND

2008 INSC 34311 March 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Chander Kanta Bansal, sought to amend her written statement 18 years after a 1986 suit for a right of passage was filed, invoking Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to introduce a 1982 partition agreement. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the Delhi High Court set aside that order, finding the amendmen

CHARANJIT LAL MEHRA AND ORS.versusSMT. KAMAL SAROJ MAHAJAN AND ANR.

2005 INSC 13411 March 2005Dismissed

The landlord, Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, leased a showroom to four brothers jointly under a lease deed dated 4 September 1977 for Rs. 2,500 per month, later increased to over Rs. 3,500, causing the Delhi Rent Control Act to cease applying. She served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating

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

BOLIN CHETIAversusJOGADISH BHUYAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 13611 March 2005

Bolin Chetia, a losing candidate in the Assam Legislative Assembly election, appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 after his election petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Court considered whether a statutory first appeal of right must automatically be ad

D.RAMACHANDRANversusR.V. JANAKIRAMAN AND ORS.

1999 INSC 9711 March 1999Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1996 Pondicherry Legislative Assembly election, D. Ramachandran filed an election petition alleging that R.V. Janakiraman, who was declared elected, committed multiple corrupt practices including falsifying voter lists, exceeding expenditure limits, and using government servants for canvassing. Janakiraman denie

DURGA PRASADversusNAVEEN CHANDRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 35611 March 1996Dismissed

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance which culminated in a decree on 14 January 1994. Respondent No.2 and others filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, while the appellant moved a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of those applications. The trial court

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusSHRI PRABHAKAR BHIKAJI INGLE

1996 INSC 35711 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a police officer, was removed from service by the Commissioner of Police under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and challenged the removal before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), which confirmed the removal on March 6, 1995. He filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136, w

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

THE STATE OF MEGHALAYAversusMELVIN SOHLANGPIAW

2020 INSC 17111 February 2020Disposed off

The respondent, a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe, was charged with murder and concealment of dead body under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and was initially ordered to stand trial before the Sessions Court. He filed a petition seeking transfer of the case to the District Council Court of the Khasi Hills Autonomo

ASHOK SHARMAversusRAM ADHAR SHARMA

2009 INSC 15111 February 2009Dismissed

The respondent, Ram Adhar Sharma, filed a suit for possession of a flat in a cooperative housing society against the appellant, Ashok Sharma, who was occupying the flat as a tenant. During trial, the President of the society (PW‑3) was summoned and, after his testimony, sought to produce a document establishing the dat

M. PURNACHANDER RAOversusSRI NAWAB MAZAHARUDDIN KHAN (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS.

2008 INSC 17011 February 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a bona‑fide purchaser of agricultural land in Raidurg, relied on a chain of title tracing back to the original estate holder. A suit filed in 1958 resulted in a preliminary decree that excluded certain items (including the appellant's land) from distribution because they were under revenue enquiry. After

CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD AND ANR.versusSMT. SANDHYA MITRA AND ORS.

1985 INSC 2111 February 1985Appeal(s) allowed

Md. Safiur Rehman, a dock worker, died leaving a widow and son. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board sought attachment of the gratuity payable to Rehman under its scheme to satisfy a decree against the heirs. The Small Causes Court ordered attachment, overruling the Board’s objection that gratuity was exempt. The High Court

VELAGACHARLA JAYARAM REDDY & ORS.versusM.VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. ETC

2022 INSC 3111 January 2022Dismissed

The dispute concerned a 3.25‑cent plot allotted in 2000 by the Jayanagar Housing Welfare Society, a cooperative society, to a member (defendant No.2, M. V. Ramana). Former office‑bearers of the society, a welfare association and a couple of shop owners (plaintiffs) claimed the plot was earmarked as a parking area in th

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

MR. JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.)versusJANEKERE C. KRISHNA & ORS. ETC.

2013 INSC 3111 January 2013Disposed off

The Karnataka Lokayukta post of Upa‑Lokayukta became vacant and the Chief Minister advised the Governor to appoint Justice Chandrashekaraiah without consulting the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, as required by s.3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The High Court quashed the appointment, holding th

GAYATHRI WOMEN WELFARE ASSOCIATIONversusGOWRAMMA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 3011 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Gayathri Women Welfare Association sued for a permanent injunction to protect its possession of land. The trial court granted the injunction, but the Karnataka High Court set aside the decree and remanded the case. After remand, the respondents amended their written statement to add a counter‑claim for demolition a

KULWINDER KAUR @ KULWINDER GURCHARAN SINGHversusKANDI FRIENDS EDUCATION TRUST AND ORS.

2008 INSC 4011 January 2008Case Allowed

The Kandi Friends Education Trust filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to transfer a civil suit from the Civil Judge, Ropar, to the Additional Civil Judge, Chandigarh. The High Court transferred the suit without recording any reasons, without considering the plaintiff's all

BRAJENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

2008 INSC 4311 January 2008Dismissed

Mishri Bai, a crippled Hindu woman married to Padam Singh, lived separately from her husband and in 1970 claimed to have adopted Brajendra Singh, seeking to treat them as a joint family to retain excess agricultural land under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. The trial court and first appellate

LABH SINGH & ORS.versusBACHAN SINGH

2008 INSC 4711 January 2008Case Allowed

Lash Singh and others filed a suit for pre‑emption of agricultural land, claiming a superior right as a co‑sharer under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913. The vendor, Singh Ram, had sold half of the land, part of which was owned jointly with his sister Angrezo, a female. The trial court upheld the plain

MANOJI RAOversusT. KRISHNA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 2211 January 2001Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of site No.20 in Bangalore, relying on an allotment letter (19‑July‑1973) and a possession certificate (18‑March‑1981) issued by the Bangalore Development Authority. The appellant claimed prior possession of a portion of the site and the trial court dismis

SH.MULKRAJversusSH. SUNDER DAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 5211 January 1996Disposed off

The appellant, who had obtained possession of certain plots in New Delhi, filed a suit for a mandatory injunction against the third respondent, which became final. Subsequently, the appellant and the first two respondents each purchased a one‑third share of the property, leading to a partition suit that resulted in a f

VINOD KUMAR CHOWDHRYversusNARAIN DEVI TANEJA

1980 INSC 111 January 1980Dismissed

The landlady (V. K. Chowdhry) sought eviction of her tenant (N. D. Taneja) under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming she needed the premises for her own residence. The Additional Rent Controller refused eviction, finding procedural deficiencies. The landlady appealed to th

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

MURTHY & ORS.versusC. SARADAMBAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 86210 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased E. Srinivasa Pillai executed a will bequeathing his house to his only son S. Damodaran, excluding his daughters. The will was produced fifteen years after the testator's death by the son’s widow, C. Saradambal, who sought Letters of Administration, while the daughters contested its validity alleging fabric

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S. VISAKHA INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 135210 December 2019Disposed off

The appellant, Google India Private Limited, was summoned under a criminal complaint alleging defamation (IPC ss.120B, 500, 501 r/w s.34) for articles posted in a Google Group hosted by it. It filed a petition under CrPC s.482 seeking to quash the summons, arguing it was not an intermediary and that Section 79 of the I

BGS SGS SOMA JVversusNHPC LTD.

2019 INSC 134910 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners BGS SGS SOMA JV sought to enforce an arbitral award concerning a hydro‑electric project, while the respondent NHPC Ltd filed a Section 34 petition in the Faridabad court to set aside the award. The petitioners applied under Section 151 CPC to have the petition returned to the appropriate court, and the

BALURAMversusP. CHELLATHANGAM & ORS.

2014 INSC 85810 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement entered into by the trustees of the Subbaiah Paniker Family Welfare Trust. The appellant, a beneficiary of the trust, applied to be impleaded as a defendant, alleging prejudice if the sale proceeded at the agreed price. The trial court allowed his impleadmen

CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM CO. & ANRversusHALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. & ORS.

2013 INSC 81710 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Co. invoked the arbitration clause in a restructuring agreement dated 12 January 2002, seeking ICC arbitration over a dispute with Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Haldia contended that a later agreement dated 8 March 2002, which granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Calcutta courts, nullifie

KEDAR SHASHIKANT DESHPANDE ETC. ETC.versusBHOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2010 INSC 87110 December 2010Dismissed

The appellants were elected as councillors of Bhor Municipal Council on the ticket of the NCP, later left the party and formed a new political front. Respondents filed a disqualification petition under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986, alleging that the appellants had voluntarily given

K.K. KANNAN (D) BY LRS.versusKOOLIVATHUKKAL KARIKKAN MANDI & ORS.

2009 INSC 129610 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, K.K. Kannan and others, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the High Court of Kerala's reversal of concurrent lower‑court decisions. The High Court had merely listed the grounds in the memorandum of appeal as "substantial questions of law" without ac

LAXMAN PRASADversusPRODIGY ELECTRONICS LTD. AND ANR.

2007 INSC 125410 December 2007

Prodigy Electronics Ltd., a Hong Kong company, employed Laxman Prasad as its India marketing manager. After resigning, Prasad allegedly breached the employment contract by soliciting customers, using the company's trade name at a Delhi trade fair, and registering a similar domain name. Prodigy filed a suit in the Delhi

M/S NOPANY INVESTMENTS (P) LTD.versusSANTOKH SINGH (HUF)

2007 INSC 125510 December 2007

M/S NOPANY INVESTMENTS (P) Ltd., the landlord, sought eviction of SANTOKH SINGH (HUF) tenant. The junior HUF member, Jasraj Singh, filed the suit claiming to be the Karta despite the senior brother being alive but residing abroad and having executed a power of attorney. The Supreme Court held that under such exceptiona

BINDHA PRASAD & ORS.versusBHAN DATT (DEAD) BY L.RS.

2007 INSC 125610 December 2007

The appeal concerned a sale deed executed by a tenant, Raghoram, who had deposited twenty times the land revenue to convert his sirdari rights into Bhumidhari rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The sale deed was executed on the same day as the deposit, but Raghoram died before a Bhumi

M/S. ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD.versusM/S. FEDERAL MOTORS PVT. LTD.

2004 INSC 70810 December 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Mis. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., filed an eviction suit under the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging illegal sub‑letting by the tenant, Mis. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which the tenant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 38. The Tribunal stayed the evicti

FAKIR MOHD. (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSITA RAM

2001 INSC 60210 December 2001Dismissed

The tenant occupied a shop in the landlord's building and fell into arrears of rent, prompting the landlord to file an eviction suit under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The tenant had previously deposited rent in court under Section 19A, and again attempted to do so afte

SULTANA BEGUMversusPREM CHAND JAIN

1996 INSC 145510 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The landlady Sultana Begum obtained a decree for eviction of her tenant Prem Chand Jain. The tenant claimed that possession had been handed over to the landlady's attorney, who then allowed him to remain as a licencee on payment of a licence fee, arguing that this amounted to an adjustment of the decree and rendered it

MAJOR SINGHversusRATTAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 146410 December 1996Dismissed

Daulat Singh executed a Will in 1974 bequeathing his property to his brother Rattan Singh, who died shortly thereafter. The appellant, a sister, challenged the Will and the respondents filed a suit for declaration based on it. The trial court dismissed the suit, a first appellate court affirmed, but the Punjab & Haryan

SHAM LAL (DEAD) BY LRS.versusATME NAND JAIN SABHA (REGD.) DAL BAZAR

1986 INSC 26410 December 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Sham Lal, a statutory tenant, was sued for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for alleged non‑payment of rent. The summons returnable date was 26‑06‑1969, on which the tenant appeared and sought an adjournment; the written statement and tender of arrears were filed on 02‑07‑19

RACHAPUDI SUBBA RAOversusTHE ADVOCATE-GENERAL, ANDHRA PRADESH

1980 INSC 23110 December 1980Dismissed

R. Subba Rao, having lost two suits before an Additional Sub‑Judge, issued a notice accusing the judge of bad faith, malice and bias and demanding damages. The judge referred the notice to the High Court, which, on the Advocate‑General's petition, convicted Rao of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of

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

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