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…
HANSRAJversusMEWALAL AND ORS.
2019 INSC 419 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Hansraj, was the original bhumidhar of Plot No.677 in Village Bahria, Basti, and a co‑sharer with respondents who had acquired a half‑share by sale. Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the Assistant Consolidation Officer initially proposed chaks for all co‑sharers on the pitch road that r…
INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusB.P.L. LIMITED
2015 INSC 199 January 2015Dismissed
B.P.L. Ltd., facing severe financial distress, sought approval of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (the appellant) was a secured creditor with a hypothecation charge registered against B.P.L. but later argued that a consent arbitratio…
C.N. PARAMSIVAN & ANR.versusSUNRISE PLAZA TR. PARTNER & ORS.
2013 INSC 229 January 2013Dismissed
The appellants purchased a mortgaged property at a public auction conducted by a Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB Act). The auction was later set aside by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the appellants were not bona‑fide purchas…
ASHOK KUMAR MITTALversusRAM KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.
2009 INSC 129 January 2009Dismissed
Ashok Kumar Mittal filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement. The trial court dismissed the suit and the Delhi High Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that both parties had lied on oath and deserved prosecution for perjury. Instead of ordering prosecution, the High Court imposed exemplary co…
ALKAPURI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusJAYANTIBHAI NAGINBHAI (DECEASED) THR.LRS.
2009 INSC 139 January 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Alkapuri Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd., filed a 1985 suit against Surat Municipal Corporation challenging a town‑planning scheme. The deceased respondent, an allottee of plot No.29‑B, filed a separate suit for a permanent injunction which was rejected, and later, in 2003, sought to amend his plaint t…
K.S. KRISHNA SARMAversusKIFAYAT ALI
2008 INSC 309 January 2008Disposed off
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of agricultural land. During the suit, one of the defendants died and his daughter, a legal representative, was not initially impleaded. The trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiff, but the High Court set aside the decree, directing that the daug…
FIRM ASHOK TRADERS AND ANR. ETC.versusGURUMUKH DAS SALUJA AND ORS. ETC.
2004 INSC 299 January 2004Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a dispute among partners of the unregistered liquor‑trading firm Mis Ashok Traders, where a partner of Group A sought an interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of a receiver. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that …
PREM BAKSHI AND ORS.versusDHARAM DEV AND ORS.
2002 INSC 119 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, legal heirs of mortgagees, filed a suit for declaration of joint ownership of mortgaged land and an injunction against the respondent who had his name entered in revenue records. They later sought to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to include facts about a prior pre-emption suit and non‑payme…
GORIE GOURI NAIDU (MINOR) AND ANR.versusTHANDROTHU BODEMMA AND ORS.
1997 INSC 129 January 1997Dismissed
The Supreme Court dismissed a civil appeal filed by the heirs of a defendant challenging a Division Bench judgment that declared four deeds of gift executed by Gowramma void. The earlier suit before a Subordinate Judge and the subsequent High Court appeal had held those deeds invalid under Hindu law. The appellants arg…
SYAM SUNDER AGARWAL AND CO.versusUNION OF INDIA
1996 INSC 369 January 1996Dismissed
Syam Sunder Agarwal & Co. entered into a contract with the Union of India, which later gave rise to an arbitration award of Rs. 6,72,645.56 in favour of the appellant. The award was made a rule of court by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, and the Union of India appealed the award under Section 39 of …
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusM/S. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BOMBAY AND ANR.
1996 INSC 399 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Maharashtra entered into a construction contract with National Construction Co. and obtained a performance guarantee from the Central Bank of India. When the contractor abandoned the work, the State sued the bank alone for the guaranteed amount; the suit was dismissed for non‑joinder of the contractor and …
PREETAM SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.
1996 INSC 439 January 1996Remitted to Lower Court
The dispute involved Bhoomidari rights over 38.25 acres in a village undergoing consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, where the Gaon Sabha objected to the appellants' entries in revenue records. The Consolidation Officer ordered expunction of the appellants' names, and the Settlement Officer reman…
OM PRAKASH AND ANR.versusJAI PRAKASH
1992 INSC 39 January 1992Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff claimed ownership of agricultural land purchased through four sale deeds in which the defendants were named only as benamidar, alleging the defendants held the property benami. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, and the High Court upheld the dismissal …
NEPA LIMITED THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL)versusMANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL
2022 INSC 12638 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The arbitral award dated 14‑04‑2000 directed Nepa Ltd to pay Rs 14,49,300 to Manoj Kumar Agrawal with 18% interest from the award date. The High Court, on a stay order, required Nepa to deposit 50% of the amount (Rs 7,78,280) which the respondent withdrew on 08‑11‑2001 after giving a personal undertaking. The responden…
SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS.versusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
2021 INSC 8428 December 2021Dismissed
The appellants, sons of M. Krishna Reddy, claimed that 8 guntas of land in Survey No.13, which they alleged was left out of a 1971 acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), had been illegally allotted to other parties. They filed writ petitions seeking cancellation of those allotments, while earlier hav…
SRI LANKAPPA & ORS.versusKARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
2021 INSC 8418 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, owners of agricultural land since 1929, sued for declaration of title and injunction against Karnataka Industrial Corporation (KIC). KIC claimed title based on a 1968 government grant and filed a separate suit for injunction, which was dismissed along with the appellants' suit, the courts holding the gr…
A. ANDISAMY CHETTIARversusA. SUBBURAJ CHETTIAR
2015 INSC 9008 December 2015Disposed off
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction over a disputed property and lost at trial. He appealed, and during the pendency of the appeal filed an application seeking scientific examination of a will's signature. The first appellate court allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27, but the defendant obtain…
VIRENDER NATH GAUTAMversusSATPAL SINGH AND ORS.
2006 INSC 9788 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a defeated candidate in a Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, filed an election petition alleging several irregularities including votes cast by dead persons, double voting, voting in multiple constituencies, and double postal ballots, which he claimed materially affected the result. The High…
SATHI VIJAY KUMARversusTOTA SINGH AND ORS.
2006 INSC 9728 December 2006Disposed off
Sathi Vijay Kumar, a losing candidate in the 2002 Punjab Assembly election, filed an election petition alleging that the returned candidate, Tota Singh, had committed corrupt practices, including the wrongful deletion of 586 voters' names and the assistance of a gazetted officer. The High Court dismissed several paragr…
SANJAY VERMAversusMANIK ROY AND ORS.
2006 INSC 9798 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Sanjay Verma, filed a suit for specific performance of a contract concerning a property in 1991. During the suit's pendency, the property was transferred to the respondents, Manik Roy and Ahilya Jha, without obtaining the court's permission. The respondents sought to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10(2)…
DESA SINGHversusAJIT SINGH AND ORS.
2006 INSC 9808 December 2006Disposed off
The appellant filed a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, but due to unforeseen circumstances—retirement and death of counsel—no representative appeared on the scheduled date. Despite the appellant's non‑appearance, the High Court proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits and dismissed it. The ap…
AJENDRAPRASADJI N. PANDE AND ANR.versusSWAMI KESHAV PRAKESHDASJI N. AND ORS.
2006 INSC 9818 December 2006Dismissed
The petitioners sought to amend their written statement in a civil suit after the trial had already begun, invoking Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the amendment was permissible under the proviso to that rule, which bars amendments after trial commencement unless the party shows lack of …
CHALLAMANE HUCHHA GOWDAversusM.R. TIRUMALA AND ANR.
2003 INSC 6948 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The judgment debtor’s immovable property was put up for auction in execution of a decree. The debtor paid the entire decretal amount with costs to the decree holder and filed a memorandum of objection seeking to set aside the sale. The execution court treated the memorandum and the deposit as an application under Order…
SMT. ANOKHAversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
2003 INSC 6958 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The widowed mother, Smt. Anokha, consented to the adoption of her infant daughter Alka by an Italian couple who had known the family for years. The couple filed a petition under Sections 7, 10 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, submitting extensive evidence of their suitability. The District Judge and the Raj…
CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATIONversusM/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY
2024 INSC 8578 November 2024Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined whether arbitration clauses that allow one party, especially a government entity, to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or control the composition of a three‑member tribunal are valid. It held that such unilateral appointment provisions create a real risk of bias, violate the principle of…
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 …
STATE BANK OF PATIALAversusMUKESH JAIN & ANR.
2016 INSC 10078 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed
The State Bank of Patiala had advanced a term loan of Rs.8 lakh to Mukesh Jain, who defaulted and the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act, issuing a notice under Section 13(2). Jain challenged the SARFAESI proceedings by filing a civil suit, prompting the bank to move an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC asserti…
AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
2012 INSC 5128 November 2012Disposed off
The appellant, Aymubkhan Noorkhan Pathan, was appointed as a senior clerk in the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation under a Scheduled Tribe reservation based on a caste certificate that declared him a member of the Bhil Tadvi tribe. Respondent No.5, a general‑category citizen, alleged that the appellant, being a Muslim, …
PANKAJAKSHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusCHANDRIKA AND ORS.
2010 INSC 7608 November 2010Hearing Adjourned
The appeal challenged a Kerala High Court Division Bench order that dismissed an appeal against a trial court decree on the ground of a difference of opinion between the two judges on the genuineness of a will. The bench relied on Section 98(2) of the CPC, which the appellant argued should not apply because the disagre…
INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD.versusMARSHALS POWER & TELECOM (I) LTD. AND ANR.
2006 INSC 8038 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The Industrial Investment Bank of India (IIB) advanced money to a second defendant, secured by a hypothecation and charge created by the plaintiff, Marshal's Power & Telecom (I) Ltd. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction to prevent interference with capacitor banks installed for APTRANSCO and also a…
MAHAVIR SINGH AND ORS.versusNARESH CHANDRA AND ANR.
2000 INSC 5108 November 2000Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which was dismissed by the trial court. During trial the agreement was sent for forensic examination, revealing interpolations, and the respondents sought to have the original and a copy examined by a forensic laboratory through an application u…
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…
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusMAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS.
2021 INSC 6448 October 2021Dismissed
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) appealed against the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) which had ordered it to pay Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) to power generators based on the State Bank of India Prime Lending Rate (SBAR…
MILKHI RAMversusHIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
2021 INSC 6388 October 2021Dismissed
The appellant, a daily‑wage employee of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, challenged his termination by filing a civil suit invoking Sections 25B and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking reinstatement, regularisation and back wages. The civil court entertained the suit, held that the appellant had …
AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD.versusMRS. NISCHINT BHALLA & ORS.
2015 INSC 7538 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The suit concerned the administration of the estate of the deceased Durga Devi Hitkari, wherein a property at Chembur was to be sold. The appellant, Avenue Supermart Ltd., submitted the highest bid of Rs.20,15,00,000, which was accepted by all parties and an order dated 10‑02‑2009 by the single judge of the Bombay High…
HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMAM CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2010 INSC 7008 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased Har Narain, entered into an agreement for sale of eight kanals of land with the owner, Mam Chand, who later executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 2‑6 on 2 August 1971. The deed was registered on 3 September 1971, after the appellant had filed a suit for s…
OMPRAKASH VERMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
2010 INSC 6918 October 2010Dismissed
The appellants challenged the validity of the State's allocation of land in Survey No. 83 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, arguing that the land was agricultural and that the earlier High Court judgments declaring the proceedings void should stand. The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine…
R.V.F VENKATACHALA GOUNDERversusARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V.P. TEMPLE AND ANR.
2003 INSC 5328 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a hereditary trustee of a temple, claimed ownership of a shop adjoining the temple and sued for declaration of title, possession and three years' rent arrears. The trial court and first appellate court upheld his claim based on oral testimony, rent agreements, ledger books and a charity commissioner’s or…
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
1999 INSC 4678 October 1999
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (HCCL) entered into a dam construction contract with the State of Bihar and furnished two bank guarantees – a Performance Guarantee to the Chief Engineer and a Mobilisation Advance Guarantee to the Executive Engineer. The State invoked both guarantees, prompting HCCL to seek an injunctio…
SMT. YALLAWWversusSMT. SHANTAVVA
1996 INSC 11638 October 1996Disposed off
Basappa filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i‑b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and obtained an ex‑parte decree on 15‑12‑1989. Basappa died on 26‑05‑1990; the wife, Shantavva, claimed she only learned of the decree on 31‑03‑1990 and was not properly served, filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set as…
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…
HARYANA POWER PURCHASE CENTRE (HPPC) AND OTHERSversusGMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LIMITED AND OTHERS
2025 INSC 10798 September 2025Dismissed
The Supreme Court considered two civil appeals challenging the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's (APTEL) dismissal of appeals that upheld the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission's (CERC) orders directing Haryana utilities to pay supplementary bills for change‑in‑law adjustments. The disputes centered on whethe…
VIJAY SINGHversusSHANTI DEVI AND ANR.
2017 INSC 8748 September 2017Dismissed
Vijay Singh, a co‑sharer, filed a pre‑emption suit against Shanti Devi after a sale of jointly owned land. An ex‑parte decree was passed in his favour in 1990, but the decree was later set aside on the ground that the defendant had not been properly served. The amendment to Section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 191…
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.versusRAM DEO PRASAD SINGH & ORS.
2011 INSC 6638 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents, former security guards of the Patratu Thermal Power Station, were dismissed in 1975 and filed a civil suit in Patna in 1979 seeking reinstatement, which the trial court allowed. The Bihar State Electricity Board appealed, and the appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Patna, and later by th…
MAYA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSMT. RAJ KUMARI BATRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
2010 INSC 5858 September 2010Dismissed
The appellant, Maya Devi, sought to enforce a decree for recovery of Rs.60,000 against the judgment debtor, Raj Kumari Batra, whose property was attached and sold at auction in 1978. The parties later entered a compromise whereby the decree‑holder would deposit Rs.35,000 and receive vacant possession, and the executing…
DAMODARAN PILLAI AND ORS.versusSOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
2005 INSC 4108 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent (South Indian Bank Ltd) obtained a decree against the appellants (Damodaran Pillai & ors.) and filed an execution petition which was dismissed for default on 1 November 1990 under Order 21 Rule 105(2) of the CPC. The appellants filed a restoration application on 4 April 1998, claiming they learned of the…
PRATAP RAI TANWANI AND ANR.versusUTTAM CHAND AND ANR.
2004 INSC 5038 September 2004Dismissed
The landlord filed an eviction suit under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 alleging default in rent, illegal sub‑letting and a bona‑fide requirement for the premises. The trial court and the first appellate court upheld the landlord’s claim of genuine need and decreed eviction. On second appeal, the t…
BALRAJ TANEJA AND ANR.versusSUNIL MADAN AND ANR.
1999 INSC 3858 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed
Balraj Taneja and others appealed against a Delhi High Court decree granting specific performance to Sunil Madan. The High Court had passed the decree under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC solely because the defendants failed to file a written statement, without examining a material factual dispute concerning an Income‑Tax …
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusBAKSHISH SINGH
1998 INSC 3538 September 1998Case Allowed
B. Singh, a police constable, was dismissed for alleged unauthorized absence. The trial court held that the absence had been regularised as leave without pay, so the misconduct charge did not survive, and also found that Singh was denied a personal hearing and that his signatures were obtained under duress. The lower a…
SATYANARAIN BAJORIA AND ANR.versusRAMNARAIN TIBREWAL AND ANR.
1993 INSC 2918 September 1993
Satyanarain Bajoria, the judgment debtor, claimed that a decree against him had been satisfied, but the decree-holder later filed a fresh execution proceeding more than two years after the original decree and auctioned Bajoria's land for a fraction of its market value. The sale was conducted without proper service of n…
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…
DLF LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF UNIVERSAL LTD) AND ANR.versusKONCAR GENERATORS AND MOTORS LTD.
2024 INSC 5938 August 2024Case Partly allowed
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by DLF Ltd. and another Indian company against a Croatian generator firm concerning the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award expressed in euros. The key issues were the appropriate date for fixing the foreign exchange rate to convert the award into rupees and the treatment of a…
SAU RAJANIversusSAU SMITA & ANR
2022 INSC 8058 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed
S. Rajani, the appellant, owned a residential tenement and alleged that S. Smita, the first respondent, had constructed illegal rooms on an open vacant site in the same building, infringing Rajani's easements of light, air, privacy and water supply. Rajani filed a regular civil suit seeking removal of the unauthorized …
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.versusS. K. SHARMA & ORS.
2016 INSC 5788 August 2016Appeal(s) allowed
The petitioners were temporary employees of PEPSU Roadways who, by a government order dated 16‑10‑1956, were transferred and merged into the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (PRTC). The corporation then operated under a Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme and did not provide pension. After PRTC introduced a pensio…
KAMLESH VERMAversusMAYAWATI AND ORS.
2013 INSC 5268 August 2013Disposed off
The Supreme Court reviewed a petition filed by Kamlesh Verma seeking a review of its July 6, 2012 order that quashed FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 against Mayawati, finding that the order was correctly based on the earlier judgment that the 18 September 2003 direction did not authorize a separate FIR on disproportionate asse…
RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED AND ANR.versusM/S VERMA TRANSPORT COMPANY
2006 INSC 4958 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed
Rastriya Spat Nigam Ltd. entered into a consignment agency contract with Verma Transport Company that contained an arbitration clause. The appellant terminated the contract and issued a show‑cause notice to blacklist the respondent. The respondent filed a suit for a permanent injunction against termination and blacklis…
UTTAM SINGH DUGAL AND CO. LTD.versusUNITED BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
2000 INSC 3808 August 2000Dismissed
The petitioner, a construction company, entered into a project financed by a consortium of banks. The first bank filed a suit for recovery and, within that suit, sought a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, relying on a board resolution and minutes that admitted liability for a specified sum. The p…
M/S. AVIJIT TEA CO. PVT. LTD.versusM/S. TERAI TEA CO. AND ORS.
1996 INSC 8548 August 1996Case Partly allowed
The dispute arose from an agreement for the sale of green tea leaves in which Avijit Tea Co. advanced Rs. 20 lakh, later deposited with a court receiver. Avijit Tea filed a suit for specific performance, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, and the Bench ordered a refund of Rs. 19,33,873.…
SHRI BHAJANLAL, CHIEF MINISTER, HARYANAversusMIS JINDAL STRIPS LTD. AND ORS .
1994 INSC 3038 August 1994
The Chief Minister of Haryana challenged a writ petition alleging that the High Court had transferred his case from a Tax Bench to a bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice, S.S. Sodhi, and later back again, claiming this indicated bias. The appellant sought a transfer of the case on the ground of malafide…
DILBAGRAI PUNJABIversusSHARAD CHANDRA
1988 INSC 2088 August 1988Dismissed
In a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the plaintiff claimed personal necessity and ownership of a shop. The trial court and the Additional District Judge rejected his claim for lack of a partition deed proving ownership. The High Court reversed these findings, ho…
SMT. SAROJ RANIversusSUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA
1984 INSC 1348 August 1984Dismissed
The wife filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and a consent decree was passed. After a year, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 for divorce, claiming that no cohabitation had occurred following the decree. The trial court held that the husband …
BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI
2024 INSC 4788 July 2024Case Partly allowed
The dispute arose from a slum redevelopment project where the respondent, Samir Narain Bhojwani, alleged default by the appellant, Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited, leading to arbitration and an award in favour of the respondent. The appellant challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitratio…
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…
FUERST DAY LAWSON LTD.versusJINDAL EXPORTS LTD.
2011 INSC 4798 July 2011Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a batch of Special Leave Petitions arising from orders of the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts that refused to enforce foreign arbitral awards or to award interest. The central question was whether an order that is not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 co…
NANDIESHA REDDYversusMRS. KAVITHA MAHESH
2011 INSC 4808 July 2011Dismissed
In the 2008 Karnataka Assembly election, the returned candidate Nandiesha Reddy's election was challenged by Kavitha Mahesh, who alleged that her nomination paper, signed by ten electors, was illegally rejected by the Returning Officer. The petitioner filed an election petition and the returned candidate sought to stri…
RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC.versusU.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
2010 INSC 3848 July 2010Dismissed
The appellants Rakesh Kumar Goel and others purchased two government plots in Ghaziabad through an auction purportedly held under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. The High Court set aside the auction on the ground that the appellants failed to deposit the required 25% of the bid immed…
BALWANT SINGH (DEAD)versusJAGDISH SINGH & ORS.
2010 INSC 3888 July 2010Dismissed
The landlord Balwant Singh filed an eviction suit which was appealed up to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the sole appellant died on 28 November 2007. The legal representatives filed applications on 15 April 2010, 778 days after the death, seeking to be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and …
RAMESH CHANDRA SANKLA ETC.versusVIKRAM CEMENT ETC.
2008 INSC 7808 July 2008Disposed off
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.versusRISHI RAM AND ORS.
2002 INSC 2868 July 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The appeal concerned a suit for recovery of rent arrears and eviction filed by landlords against a tenant under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The trial court held that the first hearing was on 20 May 1980 and dismissed the tenant’s claim of having paid arrears on the fir…
DHANNALALversusKALAWATIBAI AND ORS.
2002 INSC 2898 July 2002Dismissed
The Supreme Court considered appeals by two tenants who were evicted from two shops in Indore after the widow of the former owner and her two sons filed eviction applications before the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA) under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming bonafide requirement for their bus…
UNION OF INDIAversusSWARAN SINGH AND ORS.
1996 INSC 7028 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a compensation award made in 1978 and a decree confirming the award in 1981, which became final. After the 1984 amendment to the Act increased the solatium to 30% and interest rates, the respondents filed applications under CPC sections 151 and…
SUSHILA NARAHARI AND ORS.versusNANDA KUMAR AND ANR.
1996 INSC 7038 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a land sale, which was decreed ex‑parte against the appellants after their advocate withdrew his vakalatnama without notifying them. The appellants filed an application to set aside the ex‑parte decree, seeking condonation of a 40‑day delay caused by the advocate…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusRAJ SINGH AND ANR. ETC.
1996 INSC 7048 July 1996Disposed off
The State of Rajasthan acquired land under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 and the Land Acquisition Court awarded compensation by an award and decree dated 28 July 1992. The respondents applied for certified copies of the judgment and decree; the judgment copy was supplied and an appeal under Section 54 of the…
ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLAversusJAGAT DHARI
2026 INSC 4638 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant sought specific performance of a sale deed for 3.75 acres of land, and the trial court decreed payment of the balance consideration within a month or deposit in court. The appellant failed to pay or deposit until November 2020, while the respondent filed an appeal that was dismissed for non‑prosecution in…
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…
NILESH LAXMICHAND AND ANOTHERversusSHANTABEN PURUSHOTTAM KAKAD (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS
2019 INSC 6508 May 2019Dismissed
The landlords sued the tenants for eviction under sections 16(1)(c), 16(1)(e) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, alleging illegal sub‑letting, nuisance from a food‑stuff business and non‑use of the premises as a book‑shop for more than six months before the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, but t…
MR. VIKRAM BAKSHI & ORS.versusMS. SONIA KHOSLA (DEAD) BY LRS.
2014 INSC 3818 May 2014Disposed off
Two business groups that had entered into a joint venture fell out over shareholding and director appointments, leading to a cascade of more than 80 proceedings, including company law petitions, contempt suits and criminal complaints under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court noted the deadlock and, rather than adjudi…
M/S BEST SELLERS RETAIL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusM/S ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. & ORS.
2012 INSC 2148 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. (and A.C. Thirumalaraj), challenged a temporary injunction granted to respondent Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. that restrained the defendants from leasing or encumbering a suit property pending a suit for specific performance. The trial court and High Court had held a prima…
PATRICK JJ. SALDANHAversusANTONY M. SALDANHA
2007 INSC 5318 May 2007Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a civil appeal (No. 414 of 2001) challenging a Karnataka High Court order that allowed a second appeal without formulating any substantial question of law as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court reiterated that under Section 100(3) the memorandum of appeal m…
HERO VINOTH (MINOR)versusSESHAMMAL
2006 INSC 3058 May 2006Dismissed
The case arose from a dispute over a right of way granted in a 1950 partition deed among five brothers. The plaintiff (appellant) bought one brother's share and sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant (respondent), the widow of another brother, from obstructing his property with a compound wall. The tria…
S.D.S. SHIPPING PVT. LTD.versusJAY CONTAINER SERVICES CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
2003 INSC 2858 May 2003Disposed off
The plaintiff, a container leasing company, sued the defendant for non‑return of 92 leased containers and for arrears of rent after the lease expired and was extended by one month. The Bombay High Court rejected a motion for a receiver but later directed the defendant to deposit Rs 82 lakhs as interim security for the …
AMBA BAI AND ORS.versusGOPAL AND ORS.
2001 INSC 2638 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance which was dismissed by the trial court, but the first appellate court decreed in his favour. The defendant appealed this decree, and while the second appeal was pending both parties died; the plaintiff's legal representatives were brought on record, but the defendant'…
UNION BANK OF INDIAversusKHADER INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND ORS.
2001 INSC 2668 May 2001Dismissed
The respondent, a public limited company, filed a suit as an indigent (in forma pauperis) plaintiff under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant, Union Bank of India, challenged the suit, arguing that the term "person" in the Order refers only to natural persons and that a company could not …
K.S. BHOOPATHY AND ORS.versusKOKILAAND ORS.
2000 INSC 3008 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction to stop the defendants from operating a flour mill and to claim exclusive user rights over a pathway. The trial court granted an injunction and exclusive user rights; the first appellate court modified the decree, holding the pathway was common. Before the second appeal was ad…
B.R. VEERABASAVARADHYAversusTHE DEVOTEES OF LINGADGUDI MUTT AND ORS.
1996 INSC 6448 May 1996Dismissed
In OS No. 22/62, the appellant (defendant 1) entered into a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, and a decree was passed based on that compromise, granting him continued occupation as manager, possession of shops, and refunds. The suit was later remanded to consider defendants 2‑4, and after their own compromis…
GANPAT SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusKAILASH SHANKAR & ORS.
1987 INSC 1608 May 1987Disposed off
The decree‑holder, who had purchased a mortgaged property at a court auction, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC for delivery of possession more than a year after the sale was confirmed. The judgment‑debtors opposed, arguing that the application was barred by the one‑year limitation in Article 134 of the …
M/S CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusHARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.
2026 INSC 3358 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited (the appellant) owned a property whose building plan was affected by an interim order dated 24‑12‑2025 issued in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, which kept certain provisions of the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025 in abeyance. The High Court refused to implead the appellant in that writ pro…
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…
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…
FORESHORE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITEDversusPRAVEEN D.DESAI (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS
2015 INSC 2968 April 2015Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined whether an objection to limitation can be raised as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977, and how that provision interacts with Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC. The Court held that Section 9A, by virtue of its non‑obstante clause, c…
LAKSHMI & ANR.versusCHINNAMMAL @ RAYYAMMAL & ORS.
2009 INSC 4668 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, co‑sharers, filed a suit to cancel a partition deed and also lodged an FIR alleging the deed was forged. The deed and the appellant’s signatures were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which produced reports on the signature and on the thumb impression. While the trial court allowed the applicatio…
KATARI SURYANARAYANA & ORS.versusKOPPISETTI SUBBA RAO & ORS.
2009 INSC 4678 April 2009Dismissed
The dispute concerned the right of two neighbouring parties to use a lane connecting their houses. Respondents filed a suit for injunction which was dismissed, and the order was appealed; the appellants then filed a second appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of that appeal, respondents No.2 and No.3 died,…
MGMT OF M/S DEVI THEATREversusVISHWANATH RAJU
2004 INSC 2458 April 2004Leave Granted & Allowed
The Management of M/s Devi Theatre filed a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against a decree, and the Karnataka High Court admitted the appeal on the condition that the appellant deposit Rs. 75,000 within eight weeks, otherwise dismissing the appeal. The appellant failed to make the deposit …
UNITED BANK OF INDIAversusTHE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
1999 INSC 1678 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed
United Bank of India filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court for recovery of a debt from one defendant and ancillary relief against two others. While the suit was pending, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force and, under Section 31, the suit was transferred to a Debts R…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusSWAIKA PROPERTIES & ANR.
1985 INSC 778 April 1985Appeal(s) allowed
The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 authorized the acquisition of land in Jaipur for a public development scheme. A notice under s.52(2) was served on the respondents at their Calcutta office, and the land was later vested in the State of Rajasthan by a notification under s.52(1). The respondents filed a writ pet…
RAKESH & ORS.versusBOARD OF REVENUE U.P. & ORS. ETC.
2019 INSC 3368 March 2019Case Partly allowed
Pursottam, a Sirdar, deposited twenty times the land revenue and applied for Bhumidhari rights for three plots, subsequently executing a sale deed. His applications for two plots were rejected and a revision petition was pending when the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (la…
ABDULRASAKHversusK. P. MOHAMMED & ORS.
2018 INSC 2208 March 2018Dismissed
The appellant, Abdulrasakh, was elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in May 2016. Two voters filed an election petition under Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 alleging corrupt practices, and presented the petition on 1 July 2016. The High Court Registry returned the petition for defects; i…
UMMERversusPOTTENGAL SUBIDA & ORS.
2018 INSC 2198 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, an elderly man, was served with an ex parte decree by a family court for alleged non‑payment of gold ornaments and maintenance. He applied under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree and sought condonation of delay, but both applications were dismissed. He then filed a miscellaneous appeal …
G.M. SIDDESHWARversusPRASANNA KUMAR
2013 INSC 1428 March 2013Dismissed
The case concerned an election petition challenging the 2009 Lok Sabha election of G.M. Siddeshwar, wherein the petitioner Prasanna Kumar alleged corrupt practices. The petitioner filed an affidavit in the form prescribed by Rule 94‑A (Form No.25) but the affidavit was not in exact format and the verification was defec…
CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS.versusPEDDA JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR.
2010 INSC 1308 March 2010Dismissed
The case concerned a 29‑acre property originally owned by Pedda Jeeyangar Mutt, which was subject to a permanent lease patta dated 11‑03‑1931 in favour of Mandaram Munikannaiah and subsequently sold to the appellants. The Mutt sought eviction of the appellants on the ground of non‑payment of rent under the Andhra Prade…
INDIA HOUSEHOLD AND HEALTHCARE LTD.versusLG HOUSEHOLD AND HEALTHCARE LTD.
2007 INSC 2698 March 2007Dismissed
The petitioners, India Household and Healthcare Ltd., entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and a licence agreement with the respondents, LG Household and Healthcare Ltd., which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose over the use of the LG logo and the respondents obtained an interim injunction restraini…
VEDIC GIRLS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR, JHAJJARversusSMT. RAJWANTI AND ORS.
2007 INSC 2688 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed
Respondent No. I, a science teacher, sued Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School for regularisation of her services, salary by crossed cheques and related benefits. The trial court decreed regularisation and payment of salary but did not specify the salary scale on which arrears were to be calculated. In execution proceed…
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…
A. SUBRAMANIAN & ANR.versusR. PANNERSELVAM
2021 INSC 658 February 2021Dismissed
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession of a property he claimed to have purchased from the heirs of a former owner. The trial court upheld the injunction, finding the plaintiff in possession, but the First Appellate Court set aside the decre…
MAHANTH SATYANAND @ RAMJEE SINGHversusSHYAM LAL CHAUHAN AND OTHERS
2018 INSC 1178 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The case arose from a civil suit in which the original defendant, Swami Sheo Dharmanand, died during the pendency of a second appeal before the Patna High Court. Two rival claimants each filed applications under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC, seeking to be recognized as the legal representative of the deceased and to be…
THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusBRIJESH REDDY & ANR.
2013 INSC 868 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had acquired certain lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1995 Brijesh Reddy purchased a portion of such land and later filed a suit in a civil court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the BDA from interfering with his possession. The tr…
PARIMALversusVEENA @ BHARTI
2011 INSC 1108 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed
Parimal filed a divorce suit against his wife Veena. The wife repeatedly refused to accept the court's notice, after which the trial court proceeded ex‑parte and granted a decree of divorce. Four years later she applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, alleging improper service, fraud and lack of suf…
B.K. SRI HARSHA (D) BY L.R. & ANR.versusM/S BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD
2008 INSC 1558 February 2008Disposed off
MIS Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd filed two suits for specific performance of contracts for sale of certain properties against the appellants, B.K. Sri Harsha and others. The trial court held that the respondent was in adverse possession, ready to perform, and that the agreements were valid and within the limitation pe…
SANTOSH HAZARLversusPURUSHOTTAM TIWARL (DEAD) BY LRS
2001 INSC 808 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed
Santosh Hazari filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and a permanent injunction against Purushottam Tiwar, alleging dispossession of a portion of his land. The trial court decreed in favour of Hazari, rejecting the defendant's claim of adverse possession and the defence of limitation. The Additi…
SETH BANARASI DASS (DEAD) BY LRS.versusTHE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR, MEERUT AND ORS.
1996 INSC 2058 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed
Seth Banarasi Dass, the lessee of a sugar mill, was subject to a recovery certificate for government dues. Shares he owned were attached and put up for public auction, but he raised objections that the shares were pledged to banks and that the amount claimed was incorrect. The auction proceeded, the purchasers deposite…
KANTA RANI © KANTI DEVI & ANR.versusRAMA RANI
1988 INSC 348 February 1988Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff tenant Kishan Chand claimed a customary right of pre-emption over a portion of a building that had been sold to the respondent. He filed a suit for pre-emption, but died during the proceedings. His legal representatives applied under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC to be substituted as parties. The respondent …
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 …
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…
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…
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.versusAMBER BUILDERS
2020 INSC 168 January 2020Disposed off
The State of Gujarat awarded a contract to Amber Builders for highway work, which the contractor completed but later faced a claim of defective repair and a demand for Rs.1.09 crore. The State issued a notice seeking payment, which the contractor challenged in the Gujarat High Court, leading to a writ petition that was…
MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC THRU THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MS. NATALIA VORUZ & OTHERSversusNUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. THRU THE DIRECTOR & OTHERS
2019 INSC 358 January 2019Disposed off
Monsanto Technology LLC sued Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. for permanent and temporary injunctions alleging infringement of its patented cotton biotechnology (patent No. 214436) and misuse of its trademarks. The defendants filed a counter‑claim under Section 64 of the Patents Act seeking revocation of the patent on the ground t…
NAGAIAH AND ANOTHERversusSMT. CHOWDAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER
2018 INSC 68 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, two brothers, filed a suit in 1985 seeking a declaration that they were entitled to two‑thirds of a family property and that a sale deed executed by their father in favour of the second defendant was not binding on their share. The suit was filed on behalf of the younger brother, who was a minor at the …
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.
2016 INSC 328 January 2016Case Partly allowed
The Supreme Court had earlier held that there is no reservation in promotion by selection for Group‑A posts (salary up to Rs 5700) in banks, only a concession, but the judgment also contained a contradictory paragraph stating that reservation applies to posts with salary less than Rs 5700 (pre‑revised) and thus directe…
M/S. GIAN CHAND & BROTHERS AND ANOTHERversusRATTAN LAL @ RATTAN SINGH
2013 INSC 188 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, a partnership firm, sued the defendant for recovery of advances allegedly given to him, relying on entries and the defendant's signatures in their cash book. The defendant denied ever borrowing and contested the signatures, but offered no specific denial in the pleadings and produced no documentary evid…
PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS.versusDUWADA PARSURAM CHOWDARY & ORS.
2010 INSC 228 January 2010Dismissed
The tenants (Pinninti Kistamma and others) claimed tenancy rights over 19.80 acres of land and obtained a permanent injunction against the landlords (Duwada Parsuram Chowdary and others). The landlords filed cross‑suits for a larger 181.90 acres and challenged the Tehsildar's order that declared the tenants as cultivat…
SUNIL PODDAR AND ORS.versusUNION BANK OF INDIA
2008 INSC 218 January 2008Dismissed
The appellants, former directors and guarantors of Adhunik Detergent Ltd., were joined as defendants in a civil suit filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a loan. They appeared in the civil court, filed a written statement and raised preliminary objections, but the suit was later transferred to a Debt Recovery T…
M/S. SIFY LTD.versusM/S. FIRST FLIGHT COURIERS LTD.
2008 INSC 248 January 2008Case Partly allowed
Sify Ltd., a network services provider, filed a summary suit under Order 37 Rule 2 of the CPC to recover unpaid dues from First Flight Couriers Ltd. The respondent sought unconditional leave to defend, but the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granted conditional leave, requiring a deposit of Rs 15 lakh, which the …
KAMALNATHversusSUDESH VERMA
2002 INSC 68 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed
Kamalnath, who was elected from the Chhindwara Lok Sabha constituency, was challenged by Sudesh Verma through an election petition alleging a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for exceeding the prescribed expenditure ceiling. The Madhya Pradesh High Court struck several…
KOTAK & CO.versusSTATE OF U.P.
1987 INSC 38 January 1987Disposed off
The appeal concerned whether, under Order 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, the monies earmarked for rateable distribution become the property of the decree‑holder as soon as the executing court issues its distribution order, irrespective of actual payment, and whether the State can assert a statutory priority thereafter…
MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.
2021 INSC 8367 December 2021Case Partly allowed
The builders Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt Ltd and TDI Infrastructure Ltd appealed orders of the State Consumer Commission directing them to refund home‑buyers, arguing that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDC) should not require deposit of the entire decretal amount as a condition …
RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS.versusDWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
2018 INSC 11677 December 2018Disposed off
Nineteen allottees of a housing project filed a collective consumer complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging delayed possession and various deficiencies, but they did not obtain the permission of the District Forum as required by Section 13(6) and Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC. The Na…
GOPAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSWARAN SINGH & ORS.
2018 INSC 11687 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The land in question was sold under a restricted auction pursuant to the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and later the sale was cancelled by an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28 March 1985, which became final. The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming they were bonafide purchasers and seeking a d…
ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusEIH LIMITED & ORS.
2016 INSC 11077 December 2016Disposed off
EIH Ltd. entered into a Technical Services Agreement with Balaji Hotels (BHEL) for operating a hotel, and paid Rs 15.21 crore as financial accommodation. BHEL later obtained financial assistance from IFCI and TFCI, which sold the hotel unit to Robust Hotels under SARFAESI proceedings despite an interim injunction that …
MOTI RAM (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusASHOK KUMAR & ANR.
2010 INSC 8597 December 2010Hearing Adjourned
In a landlord‑tenant dispute, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Chandigarh Mediation Centre. The mediation did not result in an agreement, and the mediator submitted a report that disclosed the parties' settlement offers. The Court held that mediation proceedings are strictly confidential under CPC s.89(2) a…
M/S. MADNANI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (P) LTDversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
2009 INSC 12867 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed
Madnani Construction Corporation entered into a contract with the North Eastern Railway for bridge work. Disputes arose over alleged manipulations in measurement books, leading the contractor to seek arbitration. The arbitrator, after examining the level book, graph sheets and log books, found that the railway had alte…
BOGIDHOLA TEA AND TRADING CO. LTD. AND ANR.versusHIRA LAL SOMANI
2007 INSC 12497 December 2007Disposed off
The appellants, Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. and others, were contractually obliged to supply made tea for the 1984 and 1985 seasons but delivered only a fraction of the quantity. The respondent sued for the price of the remaining tea, and the defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. The trial cour…
DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICERversusDHANANJAI KUMAR SHUKLA AND ANR.
2007 INSC 12507 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent was appointed headmaster of a recognised school despite being the son of the school's manager, which is prohibited by Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Rules, 1978. The manager had taken temporary leave, but the Supreme Court held that this did not terminate his s…
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTAversusENGINEERS-DE-SPACE-AGE
1995 INSC 8617 December 1995Dismissed
The Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta contracted with Engineers‑de‑Space‑Age, including a clause (13(g)) that barred the Commissioners from entertaining any claim for interest on delayed payments. An arbitrator, however, awarded interest pendente lite. The Board appealed, contending that the clause prohibited …
JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI HINDversusUNION OF INDIA
1994 INSC 5797 December 1994Directions issued
The Central Government declared Jamaat‑e‑Islami Hind an unlawful association under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, based on alleged statements questioning India's sovereignty. The declaration was referred to a Tribunal, which, relying on a résumé of intelligence reports and affidavits from officials who…
DHANI RAM GUPTA & ORS.versusLALA SRI RAM & ANR.
1979 INSC 2637 December 1979Appeal(s) allowed
Rattan Lal sold land to Sri Ram and later agreed to reconvey it for a price. Sri Ram sued for specific performance and obtained a decree, which Rattan Lal assigned to Dhani Ram Gupta and another. The assignees filed an execution application under Order XXI‑Rule 16, giving notice to both the judgment‑debtor and the orig…
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusTHE CONSORTIUM OF MR. MURARI LAL JALAN AND MR. FLORIAN FRITSCH & ANR.
2024 INSC 8527 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined the dispute between State Bank of India and other creditors (petitioners) and the consortium of Murari Lal Jalan and Florian Fritsch (respondent SRA) over the implementation of the approved resolution plan for Jet Airways. The core issue was whether the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) of Rs.…
M/S HPCL BIO-FUELS LTD.versusM/S SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD
2024 INSC 8517 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, HPCL Bio‑Fuels Ltd., entered into turnkey contracts with the respondent, Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, for equipment supply. After a dispute over unpaid dues arose in 2014, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause and filed a Section 11(6) application in the Bombay High Court in February 2018, which he unc…
E. BAPANAIAHversusSRI K.S. RAJU ETC.
2014 INSC 7657 November 2014Disposed off
E. Bapanaiah, a depositor, filed a contempt petition against K.S. Raju, promoter director of Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., alleging wilful breach of an undertaking given to the Company Law Board (CLB) to repay deposits. The High Court division bench set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by a single judge, finding Raj…
SACHIDA NAND LAL @ SACHIDA NAND SHAHversusSTATE OF BIHAR, (NOW JHARKHAND)
2008 INSC 12757 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Sachioa Nano Lal (also known as Sachioa Nano Shah), challenged the compensation awarded in a land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After a reference court fixed compensation, the appellant obtained a partial enhancement of the 'ka' category land from a Single Judge of the Patn…
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.versusM/S. NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION LTD.
2006 INSC 7987 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined whether the filing of an arbitration award by M/s Little & Co., acting as the arbitrator's agent, constituted statutory notice to Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and when the limitation period for setting aside the award under Articl…
BHAVNESH MOHANLAL AMIN AND ANR.versusNIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS LTD. AND ANR.
2005 INSC 5477 November 2005Disposed off
The respondents, Nirma Chemicals Works Ltd., owned the registered trademarks "NIRMA" and "NIMA" for soaps, detergents and other consumer items. The appellants, Bhavnesh Mohanlal Amin and others, began using the mark "NIMA" for electric flour mills (Class 7) and were served notice to cease. The respondents filed a suit …
HAMDA AMMALversusAVADIAPPA PATHAR AND 3 OTHERS
1990 INSC 3417 November 1990Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant purchased a suit‑property from the vendors by a sale deed executed on 9 September 1970 and registered it on 26 October 1970. Before the registration, the respondent filed a money suit on 13 September 1970 and obtained attachment before judgment of the property on 17 September 1970, later obtaining a decre…
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…
V. PRABHAKARAversusBASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. & ANR.
2021 INSC 6267 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant sought declaration and possession of a house based on a registered Will (Exhibit P4) executed by the deceased in his favour, which was attested by his brother and witnessed by his sister. The respondents admitted the existence of Exhibit P4 but contested it by producing an unregistered Will (Exhibit D1) a…
NITABEN DINESH PATELversusDINESH DAHYABHAI PATEL
2021 INSC 6297 October 2021Case Partly allowed
The wife (Nitaben Dinesh Patel) filed a counter‑claim in her husband’s divorce suit seeking a declaration that his alleged second marriage to Hinaben Manubhai Panchal was void and that their child was illegitimate. The trial court allowed amendment of her written statement to include facts about the second marriage (pa…
ONGC LTD.versusM/S. MODERN CONSTRUCTION AND CO.
2013 INSC 6837 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, ONGC Ltd., challenged a High Court order that allowed the respondent, M/s Modern Construction, to claim interest on a decree from the date the suit was originally filed in 1986 before a court that lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that when a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule …
SURYA BAKSH SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
2013 INSC 6817 October 2013Hearing Adjourned
Surya Baksh Singh, a convicted offender, appealed his conviction before the High Court, which affirmed the conviction ex parte without his presence or counsel and rejected his request for remand. The Supreme Court examined the growing misuse of the appellate process whereby convicts obtain bail or exemption from surren…
ALLAHABAD BANK ETC. ETC.versusBENGAL PAPER MILLS CO. LTD. AND ORS. ETC.
2004 INSC 5847 October 2004
The Supreme Court considered applications filed by the purchaser of Bengal Paper Mills' assets seeking clarification of its earlier judgment that ordered a refund of the Rs.2 crore purchase price but denied interest. The Court examined whether interest could be awarded under Order XXI Rule 93 of the CPC and whether res…
P.S. SATHAPPAN (DEAD) BY LRSversusANDHRA BANK LTD. AND ORS.
2004 INSC 5837 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The petitioners challenged a Madras High Court judgment that a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable against an order of a single High Court judge hearing an appeal. The Supreme Court examined the interplay between Section 104(1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the saving provision in Secti…
MD. MOHAMMAD ALI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSRI JAGADISH KALITA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 5277 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The original owner transferred land to two brothers who partitioned it; one brother's son amalgamated the holdings, sold one portion and leased the other to a cooperative society (respondent No.3). The heirs of the other brother and the original owner's heirs later transferred their possessory rights in the leased port…
SRI HANUMANTHAPPAversusSRI MUNINARAYANAPPA
1996 INSC 11517 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Sri Hanumanthappa, filed a partition suit in 1966 and obtained a compromise decree in 1990 granting him a share of 39 guntas of land, for which he was put in possession by the Tehsildar in 1993. The respondent, Sri Muninarayanappa, had purchased the same land from a co‑sharer in 1986, before the decree. …
JOGINDER TULIversusS.L. BHATIA AND ANR.
1996 INSC 11527 October 1996Dismissed
The appellant, Joginder Tuli, occupied a premises under a lease dated 21 December 1990 at a rent of Rs.6,000 per month. The respondent, S.L. Bhatia, terminated the tenancy on 15 March 1993 and instituted suit No.133/1993 for possession, valuing the suit at Rs.72,000. The respondent later amended the plaint to claim dam…
DR. SHIVDEV SINGH GREWAL THROUGH DR. AMRIK SINGH SANDHUversusHARGURBACHAN SINGH GREWAL
1996 INSC 11537 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, residing in Malaysia, was served summons for a suit seeking declaration of title and possession of property. The suit was decreed ex‑parte on 22 July 1986. Upon learning of the decree on 13 November 1986, the appellant filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 24 Dece…
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.versusNILMANI SAHU AND ANR.
1996 INSC 11587 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Bihar acquired 43.14 acres of land with trees under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Land Acquisition Officer valued the trees at Rs 2,466, a valuation upheld by the reference court and embodied in a decree dated 27 March 1980. The State paid compensation and the respondents appealed under Section 5…
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA AND ANR.versusBOMBAY FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
1994 INSC 4587 October 1994Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent imported 63 cases of rolling mills at the Port of Calcutta, which were unloaded at the appellant's Netaji Subhas Docks, and after paying demurrage failed to clear the goods. Seeking a waiver of port charges, the respondent was refused and consequently filed a suit in the District Court, Bharatpur, Rajast…
STATE OF MIZORAMversusBIAKCHHAWNA
1994 INSC 4597 October 1994Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Mizoram acquired land in Aizawl under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and awarded compensation to the landowner, BiaKchhawna, who received it under protest and filed an application for higher compensation but the Collector failed to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act. BiaKchhawna then instituted a…
PRECISION STEEL AND ENGINEERING WORKS AND ANOTHERversusPREM DEVA NIRANJAN DEVA TAYAL
1982 INSC 697 October 1982Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord, a Hindu Undivided Family, sought eviction of the tenant, Precision Steel & Engineering Works, under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming bona‑fide personal need for the premises. The tenant filed an affidavit seeking leave to contest, denying the landlord's cl…
BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS & ANR.versusKOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY & ORS .
2017 INSC 8677 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed
Bhargavi Constructions filed a civil suit for specific performance of a land sale, which was later settled by a written compromise and an award was passed by a Lok Adalat on 22‑08‑2007. The plaintiffs later alleged fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining that award and instituted a suit seeking its declaration as void…
M/S VIRGO INDUSTRIES (ENG.) P.LTD.versusM/S.VENTURETECH SOLUTIONS P.LTD.
2012 INSC 3837 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed
Virgo Industries (Eng.) Ltd filed two suits in 2005 seeking a permanent injunction against VentureTech Solutions Ltd to prevent alienation of two parcels of land. In 2007, while those suits were still pending, Virgo filed two additional suits for specific performance of the same sale agreements. The High Court held the…
STATE OF HARYANAversusSATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND ANOTHER
2010 INSC 5737 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed
Satish Kumar Mittal, an Assistant District Attorney, discovered an error in his recorded date of birth nine years after joining the Haryana government service and sought correction. The service rules required any application for correction of date of birth to be filed within two years of entry, a deadline he missed. Af…
COAL LINKERversusCOAL INDIA LIMITED
2009 INSC 11117 September 2009Dismissed
Coal Linker entered into a work contract with Coal India and, after disputes, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded the appellant a sum and granted interest for the pre‑reference period and for the pendency of the arbitration, but expressly omitted any interest from the date of the award to the…
M/S ASIAN TECHS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
2009 INSC 11137 September 2009Appeal(s) allowed
Asian Techs Ltd. entered a construction contract with the Union of India, but the work was delayed due to material alterations and extensions granted by the respondents. The contractor claimed additional payment and invoked the arbitration clause; the arbitrator issued a non‑speaking award in its favour. The Kerala Hig…
Y.A. AJITversusSOFANA AJIT
2007 INSC 9027 September 2007Disposed off
In Civil Appeal No. 4110 of 2007, the Supreme Court examined the High Court's order allowing a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, moving a suit from the District Court, Kanyakumari to the Family Court, Chennai. The appellant contended that the transfer was improper because the "cau…
UNION OF INDIAversusPRAMOD GUPTA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2005 INSC 4097 September 2005Disposed off
The case concerned the acquisition of about 5,000 bighas of land in Masoodpur for the construction of Jawaharlal Nehru University. The Union of India appealed against the Delhi High Court’s award of compensation based on questionable valuation methods, the grant of interest during a stay, and the allowance of amendment…
HARI SINGHversusKANHAIYA LAL
1999 INSC 3817 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord (Hari Singh) sued his tenant (Kanhaiya Lal) for eviction on grounds of rent default, sub‑letting and nuisance, and also sought fixation of standard rent under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial court decreed eviction finding default, sub‑letting and nuisance; the app…
PAVITRI DEVI AND ANR.versusDARBARI SINGH AND ORS.
1993 INSC 2867 September 1993Appeal(s) allowed
Brahmadeo Singh, a coparcener in a Mitakshara joint family, filed a suit for partition of his share. The suit was dismissed and while the appeal was pending he died. His alleged daughter, Pavitri Devi, filed an application for substitution, claiming she was his heir and that a registered gift deed dated 5 August 1980 c…
K. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI(DEAD)versusK. SUMATHI@ JESIS JESSIE JACQUILINE & ANR.
1993 INSC 2877 September 1993Dismissed
The case concerned a usufructuary mortgage created in 1947 and a second mortgage in 1966, where the mortgagee filed a redemption suit and obtained a preliminary decree requiring payment by May 6, 1970. The mortgagee later withdrew an earlier interlocutory application and, after the mortgagor purchased the property, fil…
ORIENT TRANSPORT CO. GULABRA AND ANOTHER.versusJAYA BHARAT CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD. AND ANR.
1987 INSC 2397 September 1987Appeal(s) allowed
Orient Transport Co. and another sued Jaya Bharat Credit & Investment Co. Ltd., seeking a declaration that eight agreements were loan contracts, not hire‑purchase agreements, and an injunction against enforcement. The trial, appellate and High Courts dismissed the suit, holding that Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1…
M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANYversusTHE UNION OF INDIA
2024 INSC 5877 August 2024Dismissed
The petitioner, M/s D. Khosla & Co., obtained an arbitration award in 1997 that granted simple interest of 12% for the pre‑award period and 15% for the post‑award period, both described as payable on the "amount awarded" (the principal compensation of Rs.21,56,745). The petitioner later claimed that the 15% post‑award …
NAWAL KISHORE SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
2014 INSC 5347 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a former seaman of the Shipping Corporation of India, was declared medically unfit and his registration was cancelled by the Shipping Department in Mumbai. He filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking disability compensation, claiming that a refusal letter was sent to his residence in Gaya, B…
JITENDRA KUMAR KHAN AND OTHERSversusTHE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
2013 INSC 5237 August 2013Disposed off
The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that they were entitled to commissions and incentives from the defendant company. The defendants filed a written statement in 1994 and, in 1998, sought to amend it to claim a decree of Rs 4,19,509.43 and interest, essentially raising a set‑off claim. A single High Court jud…
M/S. GAIL (I) LTD.versusBAL KISHAN AGARWAL GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.
2008 INSC 9157 August 2008Disposed off
GAIL (I) Ltd. entered into a gas‑supply agreement with Bal Kishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., but the gas meter was repeatedly found tampered, leading to successive disconnections. The respondent filed a civil suit seeking reconnection of gas without any payment or security, even though arbitration proceedings under…
SURYA DEV RAIversusRAM CHANDER RAI AND ORS.
2003 INSC 3747 August 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant sought a permanent and ad interim injunction on title and possession of agricultural land, but both the trial court and the appellate court rejected his claim. He then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which the High Court dismissed on the ground that the relief sought was against pr…
BALDEV SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR
1996 INSC 8417 August 1996Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Baldev Singh and others challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s reduction of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector had fixed Rs 16,000 per acre, the Additional District Judge raised it to Rs 30,000 per acre, and the High Court re…
JHANDOO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA
1996 INSC 8477 August 1996Dismissed
The appellant’s land, measuring one bigha and 14 biswas, was acquired under a 1957 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference court awarded compensation at Rs 10 per square yard, relying on the decision in A.N. Bhandari v. Union of India, which the High Court affirmed. The appellant argued that the m…
RAM SINGH & ORS.versusCOL. RAM SINGH
1985 INSC 1697 August 1985Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined an election petition challenging the election of Col. Ram Singh on allegations of corrupt practice, including booth‑capturing and intimidation at two polling stations in the 1982 Haryana Assembly election. The petitioners relied heavily on oral testimony and tape‑recorded statements taken by …
RIJU PRASAD SARMA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
2015 INSC 4877 July 2015Dismissed
The case concerned the management of the Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple in Assam, where the traditional custom allowed only male members of the four Bordeori families to elect the head priest (Doloi), excluding women and Deuris. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 25A of the Assam State Acquisition of …
BALWINDER SINGHversusNATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. & ORS.
2014 INSC 9817 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed
Balwinder Singh and Ram Swaroop, employees of National Fertilizers Ltd., obtained declarations from the trial courts confirming their appointments and salary entitlements. The employer appealed the decrees in second appeals before the High Court. The High Court admitted the appeals and reversed the lower courts' judgme…
K. NAINA MOHAMED (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusA.M. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
2010 INSC 3727 July 2010Dismissed
The testator’s 1951 Will gave life interest in two houses to her sisters and, after their deaths, vested absolute title in the male heirs, subject to a clause that any sale must be to the other male heirs at market price and not to strangers. After a partition, Rukmani Ammal and her son sold one house (property B) to K…
OLYMPIC INDUSTRIESversusMULLA HUSSAINY BHAI MULLA AKBERALLY & ORS.
2009 INSC 8797 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord filed a petition for fixation of fair rent and the tenant filed a counter‑statement. After the trial began, the tenant sought permission to file an additional written statement raising a new plea about the extent of his lease. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the amendment, but the Hi…
M/S. SHAKTI TUBES LTD.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
2009 INSC 8857 July 2009Dismissed
Mis. Shakti Tubes Ltd., a small‑scale supplier, entered into a 1992 supply order with the State of Bihar for pipes. The state withheld Rs 38,13,480, prompting the supplier to sue for the amount with compound interest at 24% per annum. The trial court awarded the compound interest; the Patna High Court reduced it to sim…
DEVAKI ANTHARJANAMversusSREEDHARAN NAMBOODIRI & ANR.
2009 INSC 8877 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant-landlady filed a suit for recovery of possession of a property and the respondents claimed compensation for improvements they had made. The trial court, based on a commissioner’s report, awarded Rs 1,35,500 as compensation and decreed possession in favour of the appellant. After the decree, the respondent…
G. RAMAversusT.G. SESHAGIRI RAO (D) BY LRS.
2008 INSC 7717 July 2008Dismissed
The suit property was a house jointly purchased in 1963 by T.G. Seshagiri Rao and his uncle T.K. Vasudeva Murthy. The uncle later relinquished his interest to Rao by a release deed in 1989, making Rao the absolute owner. After the death of her husband (Vasudeva Murthy's son), the appellant, G. Rama, occupied the house …
SHRI DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.versusB.D. AGARWAL AND ORS.
2003 INSC 3007 July 2003Disposed off
The case involved a partnership firm that owned a newspaper, which was allegedly transferred to a newly incorporated company. A settlement deed purporting to resolve private disputes among the partners was recorded by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition, even though the deceased appellant, Dwarka Prasad Ag…
DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.versusRAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL AND ORS.
2003 INSC 3017 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved a dispute between the heirs of the late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and his partner Ramesh Chandra Agarwal over control of the printing press and newspaper business of Dainik Bhaskar. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal allegedly forged a lease, altered the partnership settlement, and took forcible possession of the pre…
SMT. AMIYHA BALA PAULversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHILLONG
2003 INSC 3047 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed
Sm. Amiya Bala Paul constructed a house and disclosed investment amounts in the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The Assessing Officer rejected the second disclosure and, invoking Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, referred the valuation of the house's construction cost to a Valuation Officer appointed under the W…
FENNER (INDIA) LTD.versusPUNJAB AND SIND BANK
1997 INSC 5237 July 1997Appeal(s) allowed
Fenner (India) Ltd entered into an agreement with Vijay Exports for a purchase advance of up to Rs 30 lakh, secured by a bank guarantee issued by Punjab and Sind Bank. Fenner advanced Rs 20 lakh, but Vijay Exports defaulted on repayment, prompting Fenner to sue the bank for the amount advanced plus interest. The trial …
SHRI IRSHAD ALI AND ORS.versusHAZI ABDUL SUKHUR MOZUMDAR AND ORS.
1997 INSC 5287 July 1997Dismissed
The appellants, owners of a one‑third share in land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, were awarded compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was later enhanced by the Reference Court under Section 18. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which further increased the compensation. The appellants th…
NIRANKAR NATH WAHI AND OTHERSversusFIFTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD AND ORS.
1984 INSC 1147 June 1984
The landlord appellant sought an adjournment of his appeal before the Additional District Judge, Moradabad, because his senior counsel was unavailable. The judge refused the request, granted only three days to make alternative arrangements, and then pronounced a judgment that had been prepared in advance, dismissing th…
DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSIONversusTATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
2026 INSC 4617 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed
The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) approved a power purchase agreement (PPA) for the Rithala Combined Cycle Power Plant with a six‑year operational period, after which the plant ceased supplying electricity in March 2018. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) later sought to recover the re…
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…
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…
HEMAREDDI (D) THROUGH LRS.versusRAMACHANDRA YALLAPPA HOSMANI AND ORS.
2019 INSC 6337 May 2019Dismissed
The appellants, brothers Hemareddi and his late sibling, sued the wife of Basavareddi for a declaration that the first defendant was not an adopted son and had no right to the joint family property. The trial court dismissed the suit, upholding the adoption, and the brothers appealed. During the pendency of the appeal …
BHIVCHANDRA SHANKAR MOREversusBALU GANGARAM MORE & ORS.
2019 INSC 6437 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Bhivchandra Shankar More, challenged an ex‑parte decree passed in a partition suit. After an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree was dismissed, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC, withdrew it, and later filed a fresh appeal with a condonation of delay applica…
ARULMIGHU NELLUKADAI MARIAMMANversusTAMILARASI (DEAD) BY LRS.
2019 INSC 6427 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction which was decreed by the District Munsif and affirmed by the first appellate court. The defendant appealed to the High Court under Section 100 CPC, which set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff challenged this on a special leave petition, arguing that the High …
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORSversusB.D. KAUSHIK
2012 INSC 2037 May 2012Disposed off
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had been directed by the Supreme Court in 2011 to identify regular practitioners for voting rights under the "One Bar One Vote" principle. While the Implementation Committee was carrying out this task, the SCBA held a General Body Meeting on 16 January 2012 that passed resolutio…
M/S. JEEVAN DIESELS & ELECTRICALS LTD.versusM/S JASBIR SINGH CHADHA (HUF) & ANR.
2010 INSC 2967 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the tenant, alleging that the lease had expired and a termination notice had been served. The tenant denied that the tenancy had been terminated and contested the landlord's claim of admission. The landlord sought a judgment on admission under Order 12 …
SRI BUDHIA SWAIN AND ORS.versusGOPINTH DEB AND ORS.
1999 INSC 2317 May 1999Dismissed
The appellants, twelve villagers, sought review of a 1966 settlement order passed by the Orissa Estates Abolition Collector in favour of a deity (respondent No.1) alleging that the public notice was not served as required. The Collector invoked Section 151 of the CPC to review the order, but the High Court held that th…