Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3,093 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 2,401–2,600.

DWARIKESH SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.versusPREM HEAVY ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD.

1997 INSC 4867 May 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. entered into a contract with Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. for supply of equipment, the latter furnishing two unconditional bank guarantees from State Bank of India. When the equipment was not delivered, Dwarikesh invoked the guarantees, but Prem obtained ex parte injunctions res

KSHITISH CHANDRA PURKAITversusSANTOSH KUMAR PURKAIT

1997 INSC 4877 May 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff purchased land from Kshirodamani Dasi, who had sole occupancy rights, and sued the defendants for declaration of title and possession. The defendants, after having trespassed on the land, raised a new plea in a second appeal before the Calcutta High Court, claiming that under the West Bengal Estates Acqui

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMIversusB. HIMANTHARAJA CHETTY AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6317 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Smt. VUAYALAKSHMI, was the foster child of Batchu Muniyappa Chetty, who along with his brother B. Himantharaja Chetty partitioned their joint family property under a registered deed that included a pre-emption clause. After the foster father and his widow died, the property was bequeathed to the appellan

THE III INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE - I, SALEM AND ANR.versusARUNAGIRI CHETTIAR

1996 INSC 6367 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Arunagiri Chettriar, retired from a partnership firm in 1963 and later the firm was dissolved. The Income Tax Officer issued a notice that the respondent was jointly and severally liable for tax arrears of the firm for assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, arguing that liability attaches to any partner

SH. JAG MOHAN CHAWLA AND ANR.versusDERA RADHA SWAMI SATSANG AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6417 May 1996Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction to prevent the respondents from interfering with their possession of a specific plot of land. The respondents, in their written statement, claimed to have purchased a different plot and sought a counter‑claim for a permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from

BRITISH INDIAN CORPORATION LTD.versusMIS RASHTRACO FREIGHT CARRIERS

1996 INSC 6287 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

British Indian Corporation Ltd entrusted 147 bales of raw wool to Rashtaco Freight Carriers for transport. The carrier detained the goods and sued the owner for an injunction, claiming arrears of Rs 13,48,817.13 in transport charges. The owner filed a separate suit for recovery of the detained goods. The carrier applie

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusRAVINDRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6297 May 1996

The Central Bank of India sought clarification on the meaning of the expression "the principal sum adjudged" in Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly whether it includes interest that has merged with the principal. The Attorney General, appearing for the bank, relied on earlier Supreme Court dec

CHANDMALversusFIRM RAM CHANDRA AND VISHWANATH

1991 INSC 1357 May 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord Chandmal filed an eviction suit under section 15(3)(a)(iii) of the Hyderabad House (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, claiming the premises for his personal use. The tenant firm denied the claim of permanent tenancy and argued the landlord was not bona fide. The trial court and the Additional Re

JASWANT SINGH & ANRversusTHE CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, NEW DELHI

1985 INSC 1257 May 1985Dismissed

Two brothers sold a half‑interest in their ice factory to Saghir Ahmed, who later became an evacuee. After a decree for the balance of consideration, Ahmed's properties were attached and sold in execution; Jaswant Singh, a decree‑holder, purchased them. The Custodian of Evacuee Property sought to set aside the sale und

SHALIMAR ROPE WORKS LTD.versusABDUL HUSSAIN H. M. HASAN BHAI RASSIWALA AND ORS.

1980 INSC 1087 May 1980Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a suit for damages against Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. and served summons at the company's registered office in Calcutta, handing it to an office assistant, Navlakha, who was not a secretary, director, or principal officer. The company remained unaware of the summons and the subsequent ex‑parte decree

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusRAM KISHORI GUPTA & ANR.

2025 INSC 4547 April 2025Disposed off

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

M/S CHATHA SERVICE STATIONversusLALMATI DEVI & ORS.

2025 INSC 4687 April 2025Dismissed

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

RAKESH KUMAR VERMAversusHDFC BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 4737 April 2025Disposed off

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

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.versusRABINDRA KUMAR BHARTI

2022 INSC 4057 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a clerk, was suspended and later dismissed by Eastern Coalfields Ltd. on a complaint that he demanded a bribe to clear retirement formalities, leading to a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The employer initiated departmental proceedings, which the respondent challenged in the

PADMAKUMARI & ORS.versusDASAYYAN &ORS.

2015 INSC 2887 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

KARAM KAPAHI & OTHERSversusM/S. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST & ANOTHER

2010 INSC 2007 April 2010Dismissed

The Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust leased property to the South Delhi Club and later terminated the lease for non‑payment of rent. The Trust sued for possession; the Club contested the Trust’s title and sought relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, while also admitting non‑payment of rent in its s

SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS,versusSHRI BASANTI LAL

2008 INSC 4637 April 2008Disposed off

Rameshwar Prasad filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which the trial court granted. The respondent Basanti Lal appealed, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the decree, holding that the plaintiff had not pleaded or proved his readiness to pay interest, a term of the contract, thereby fail

AMARENDRA KOMALAM AND ANR.versusUSHA SINHA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 1917 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Amarendra Komalam and others sued respondent Usha Sinha for specific performance of a lease renewal clause, while the respondent had earlier filed an eviction suit and, in earlier proceedings, undertook not to contest the authenticity of the 02‑09‑1978 lease agreement. The respondent later attempted to r

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusKARAM SINGH AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3827 April 1997Leave Granted & Allowed

The respondents' property was acquired under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. After the Land Acquisition Collector fixed compensation, the respondents objected and an arbitrator enhanced the award. The Single Judge set aside the arbitrator’s award and fixed a uniform enhanced compensa

INACIO MARTINS DECEASED THROUGH LRS.versusNARA YAN HARI NAIK AND ORS.

1993 INSC 1457 April 1993Appeal(s) allowed

Inacio Martins filed a suit for declaration and injunction concerning his tenancy of a coconut grove, which was dismissed because he was not in possession. He subsequently filed a suit for restoration of possession, alleging unlawful dispossession by the defendants. The defendants contended that the second suit was bar

NARENDRA HIRAWAT AND CO.versusSHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2022 INSC 2687 March 2022Directions issued

The appellant, Narendra Hirawat & Co. (NHC), entered into film‑licence agreements with Sholay Media Entertainment (SME) for a total consideration of Rs 20 crore, later amended by addenda and a Deed of Settlement dated 03‑12‑2018 requiring NHC to pay Rs 8.71 crore in four tranches. Disputes arose over the issuance of in

ISHA DISTRIBUTION HOUSE PVT. LTD.versusADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 3307 March 2019Directions issued

The plaintiff, Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd., filed a civil suit in the Calcutta High Court seeking declaration, damages and injunction, and applied for leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865. The defendants contested the suit's territorial jurisdiction, filing an application to revoke the lea

FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATIONversusM/S IRON MASTER INDIA (P) LTD.

2017 INSC 2047 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The municipal corporation (Faridabad Complex Administration) appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's dismissal of its second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The corporation sought to overturn a decree that had upheld a suit filed by MIS Iron Master Ind

MOHAN KUMARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2017 INSC 2057 March 2017

Mohan Kumar purchased land in 1941 and later the State and municipal authorities constructed temples, latrines and other structures on it. The Collector ordered removal of the encroachments and suggested allotting alternate land, but the valuation of the appellant’s land (Rs 150 per sq m) was lower than that of the pro

GAUTAM SARUPversusLEELA JETLY AND ORS.

2008 INSC 3227 March 2008Case Allowed

Gautam Sarup filed a suit to declare his title to property bequeathed to him by a will and to obtain a permanent injunction. Respondent No.6, Leela Jetly, initially filed a written statement admitting the plaintiff's claims, but later denied having signed that statement and sought to withdraw it by filing a second writ

A.V. PAPAYYA SASTRY AND ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2467 March 2007Dismissed

The appellants, land owners, had declared under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 that their land was not surplus because it was already in the possession of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The competent authority accepted this and declared them non‑surplus. Subsequent land‑acquisition proceedings were in

JANARDHAN NARASIMHA NAYAKversusBALWANT VENKATESH KULKARNI AND ANR.

2007 INSC 2477 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff (Respondent No. I) filed a suit for specific performance of a 1972 contract of sale. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, which the Karnataka High Court allowed, holding that the Fi

M. VISHWESHWARA SHASTRYversusM. GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2487 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

M. Vishweshwara Shastry, a defendant in a suit decreed ex-parte, appealed the dismissal of his petition for restoration of the suit. The Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal on payment of costs and directed him to file a written statement within two weeks. Relying on erroneous advice from his counsel, Shastry filed

M/S. WYAWAHARE & SONS AND ORS.versusMADHUKAR RAGHUNATH BHAVE

2007 INSC 2497 March 2007Disposed off

The appellant challenged the Bombay High Court's order allowing a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The original suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff, and after a first appeal was decided in favour of the appellant-defendants, the respondent filed a second appeal which the High

PPK GOPALAN NAMBIARversusPPK BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR AND ORS.

1995 INSC 1727 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed

In a partition suit, the defendant (appellant) produced a registered will executed by his mother that left the entire estate to him. The trial court rejected the will, finding suspicious circumstances, while the subordinate judge upheld its validity, relying on the registrar's endorsement as proof of the testator's sou

PUNJAB WAKF BOARDversusSHAM SINGH HARIKE

2019 INSC 1577 February 2019Disposed off

The Punjab Wakf Board (PWB) claimed ownership of two parcels of land and filed suits for permanent injunction and possession against lessees Sham Singh Harike and Teja Singh. Both suits were transferred to the Wakf Tribunal, where the respondents argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the civil courts sh

RAJINDER KUMARversusSHRI KULDEEP SINGH & OTHERS

2014 INSC 847 February 2014Disposed off

Eight legal heirs sold a Delhi property to Kuldeep Singh in 1980, with the balance consideration to be paid after obtaining permission from the Land & Development Officer. A minor heir, Rajinder Kumar, challenged the agreement, and Kuldeep Singh filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed ex parte in 1984 a

LAKSHMI ALIAS BHAGYALAKSHMI AND ANR.versusE. JAYARAM (D) BY LR.

2013 INSC 807 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property purchased from the defendant, although the sale deed was unregistered, and filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for interim relief. The trial court granted an interim injunction protecting the plaintiff

M/S. KALINGA MINING CORPORATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 837 February 2013Dismissed

M/s Kalinga Mining Corporation (appellant) challenged the grant of a mining lease to the legal heirs of the deceased Dr. Sarojini Pradhan (respondent No.10). The High Court had earlier allowed the substitution of the legal heirs, dismissed an SLP against that order, and later upheld the lease grant. The appellant argue

S. NOORDEENversusV.S. THIRU VENKITA REDDIAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 2037 February 1996Dismissed

The appellant S. Noordeen challenged the validity of a sale of properties that had been attached before judgment in a suit (O.S. No. 95/53) to recover a debt from D.J. Gonzaga. The properties, including items 1‑7 attached under Order 38 Rule 6 of the CPC, were incorporated in a compromise decree dated 3 April 1954 and

ANAYATULLAH AND ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER OF MUSLIM WAKF OF JAMMU

1991 INSC 267 February 1991Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether two State Government orders of 1955 and 1958 granted land to the Ziarat Shareef of Hazrat Baba Ibrahim (a Wakf) or to the father of the defendants in his personal capacity. The Committee of Muslim Wakf sued the managers of the Ziarat, alleging they were treating the land as personal p

CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, MADRASversusT.N. GANAPATHY

1990 INSC 287 February 1990Dismissed

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board allotted residential plots to low‑income applicants in 1963. In 1975 it issued fresh demands for additional amounts covering excess compensation for land acquisition and development charges. T.N. Ganapathy filed a suit in representative capacity on behalf of all low‑income allottees seeking

REGENTA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S HOTEL GRAND CENTRE POINT AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 327 January 2026

Regenta Hotels Private Limited entered into a franchise agreement with M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point and, after disputes arose, obtained an ad‑interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 17 February 2024. The appellant served a notice invoking arbitration on 11 April 2024, to whic

THE PROPERTY COMPANY (P) LTD.versusROHINTEN DADDY MAZDA

2026 INSC 337 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusSRI BALA & CO.

2025 INSC 427 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SNEH LATA GOELversusPUSHPLATA & ORS.

2019 INSC 227 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought execution of a final decree in a partition suit, while the first respondent objected under Section 47 CPC, claiming the decree was void for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The executing court dismissed the objection, holding that such a jurisdictional challenge must be raised at the earliest oppo

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusGRAM VIKAS SAMITI, SHIVDASPURA

2019 INSC 177 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Gram Vikas Samiti filed a civil suit against the State of Rajasthan seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the State from interfering with its possession of a disputed land. The trial court granted the injunction, and the State's first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The State then filed a

SUSHIL THOMAS ABRAHAMversusM/S. SKYLINE BUILD. THR. ITS PARTNER & ORS.

2019 INSC 257 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking to be treated as an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC, but the trial court rejected his application and the High Court upheld that rejection. He later filed an appeal against the trial court's decree and sought permission to file the appeal as an indigent person u

HARDEVINDER SINGHversusPARAMJIT SINGH & OTHERS

2013 INSC 137 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Sarabjit Singh filed a suit challenging a will, claiming co‑share in ancestral joint Hindu family property. The trial court declared the will void and decreed in his favour. On appeal by defendants 1‑4, the appellate court set aside that decree and dismissed the suit. Defendant No. 5, the brother of the plaintiff, file

ABDUL RAZAK (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusMANGESH RAJARAM WAGLE AND ORS.

2010 INSC 197 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The suit concerned tenancy of premises in Goa, where the plaintiffs (respondents) sought declaration of tenancy and possession against the defendants, including the legal representatives (appellants) of a deceased defendant. The appellants filed an additional written statement after being impleaded, which the trial cou

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

2004 INSC 227 January 2004Disposed off

Ashok Leyland Ltd., a manufacturer of commercial vehicles, filed Form F under Section 6A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 claiming that transfers of goods to its regional offices were stock transfers, not inter‑State sales. The Tamil Nadu assessing authority accepted the Form F, but later reopened the assessment,

GANPAT GIRLversusIIND ADDITLONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BALIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 27 January 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Ganpat Giri appealed against a decree-holder who, after a court‑ordered sale of Giri's property, purchased the property without the express permission of the executing court required under Order 21 Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing court set aside the sale under Rule 72(3) and the District Judge aff

COX AND KINGS LTD.versusSAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2023 INSC 10516 December 2023

The Supreme Court examined whether the "group of companies" doctrine, which allows an arbitration agreement signed by one member of a corporate group to bind non‑signatory affiliates, is valid under Indian law and how it should be applied. The Court considered the interpretation of the phrase "claiming through or under

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 8276 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired a parcel of land in 1977 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and took possession of it. Seventeen years later, the landowner (respondent No.1) leased part of the land to respondent No.2 and sued for ejectment, obtaining a decree in his favour. BDA, not

SATISH CHAND SURANAversusRAJ KUMAR MESHRAM

2021 INSC 8296 December 2021Case Partly allowed

Satish Chand Surana filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning two parcels of land, which the trial court dismissed ex‑parte. He appealed to the High Court of Chhattisgarh and, during the pendency of that appeal, filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC seeking permission to addu

STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusM/S GLOBAL STEEL HOLDING LIMITED & ORS.

2018 INSC 11626 December 2018Disposed off

The State Trading Corporation (STC) entered into a tripartite agreement with Global Steel Holding Ltd. (GSHL) and Global Steel Philippines Inc. (GSPI) for the sale of steel coils, which later gave rise to settlement agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. GSHL and GSPI defaulted on the settlement p

ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.versusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

2017 INSC 11966 December 2017Dismissed

The landlord Atma Ram Properties sued its tenant Oriental Insurance for possession, claiming that a huge property tax payable under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 could be treated as arrears of rent, raising the total rent above Rs.3,500 per month and thereby removing the tenant’s protection under the Delhi

S. BHAGIRATH AMMALversusPALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION

2007 INSC 12336 December 2007Dismissed

The Palani Roman Catholic Mission (landlord) leased a plot to S. Bhagirath Ammal (tenant) who erected a structure. After the lease expired, the Mission sought possession, and the tenant filed an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 to purchase the land. While the application was p

JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI AND ANR.versusINDUSIND BANK LTD. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 6956 December 2004Dismissed

The appellants, Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another, claimed co‑ownership of a residential plot attached by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in a loan recovery suit and asserted that they had contributed to its purchase from independent income, including foreign remittances under the 1991 Foreign Exchange (Immunity) Scheme. T

WESTERN PRESS PVT. LTD., MUMBAIversusTHE CUSTODIAN AND ORS.

2000 INSC 5726 December 2000Dismissed

Western Press Pvt. Ltd., a company that was not a party to the proceedings before the Special Court under the Securities Act, 1992, sought to prevent its premises from being attached for recovery of public money siphoned through a group of companies. The Special Court had passed a consent decree ordering the respondent

SMT. AMBALIKA PADHI AND ANRversusRADHAKRISHNA PADHI AND ORS.

1991 INSC 3266 December 1991Appeal(s) allowed

Urmila Padhi filed a suit for declaration of title based on a 1968 partition and later died during the proceedings. Her brother’s son and sister were brought in as legal representatives under a deed of settlement and a will executed by her. The trial court upheld the suit, finding the settlement and will valid and gran

VLJAY COTION AND OIL MILLS (P) LTD.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1990 INSC 3776 December 1990Appeal(s) allowed

Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. owned 6 acres in Kutch, which the Government of Gujarat took possession of on 19 November 1949 under an agreement to provide equivalent land, but later issued a notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 1 February 1955 to acquire the land. The Collector awarded compens

SMT. GITARANI PAULversusDIBYENDRA KUNDU ALIAS DIBYENDRA KUMAR KUNDU

1990 INSC 3796 December 1990Appeal(s) allowed

Gitarani Paul purchased land from the Bauries, who were under‑Raiyats, after the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 came into force. She sued Dibyendra Kundu and Dasarathi Dutta for declaration of title and possession, alleging that on 5 June 1960 the defendants, aided by police, destroyed her crops and disturbe

SMT. SARABATI DEVI. & ANR.versusSMT. USHA DEVI

1983 INSC 1926 December 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether a nominee under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 acquires a beneficial interest in the proceeds of a life‑insurance policy when the assured dies intestate. The deceased, governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had nominated his wife as the sole nominee. The wife claimed exclu

VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12836 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SURESH KUMAR THROUGH GPAversusANIL KAKARIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 10776 November 2017Dismissed

The appellant, Suresh Kumar, claimed that an agreement dated 24‑04‑1980 and a purported will of the original allottee, Ved Prakash Kakaria, entitled him to purchase a 114‑acre plot allotted by HUDA. After Kakaria's death, his heirs (respondents 1‑3) sold the land to respondent 4, prompting the appellant to file a suit

M/S COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD.versusM/S APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD.

2015 INSC 8376 November 2015Case Partly allowed

The parties entered into a contract for the construction of a cargo ship, which later gave rise to arbitration before a former Supreme Court judge who awarded in 2009. The respondent sought to set aside the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, alleging the arbitrator’s legal misconduct, and appl

BIBI ZUBAIDA KHATOONversusNABI HASSAN SAHEB AND ANR.

2003 INSC 6086 November 2003Dismissed

Bibi Zubaida Khatun purchased the suit property in 1996 during the pendency of two cross‑suits (one for redemption of mortgage and another for specific performance) without obtaining leave of the court as required by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. She filed three applications seeking her impleadment as a p

POOVOLLAPARAMBIL CHATHU AND ORS.versusV.P. SUDHEER AND ORS.

1998 INSC 4146 November 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were exclusive co‑owners of a parcel of land, while the defendants claimed tenancy under a predecessor and asked for fixity of tenure. The dispute turned on whether the civil court could decide the tenancy issue or had to refer it to the Land Tribunal under Section 125 of t

JAI DAYAL AND ORS.versusKRISHAN LAL GARG AND ANR.

1996 INSC 12986 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Jai Dayal sued Krishan Lal Garg for a perpetual and mandatory injunction to keep a 5‑ft passage between their houses free from obstruction. The trial court granted the injunction in 1964, which was confirmed on appeal. After the obstruction was initially removed, Garg later built a shop that completely blocked the pass

LAXMI CHAND & ORS.versusGRAM PANCHAYAT, KARARIA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6886 November 1995Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land by a Gram Panchayat for a school, arguing that the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) had lost jurisdiction after initially dropping the proceedings due to the Panchayat’s lack of funds. The Supreme Court held that the LAO retained power to reopen the inquiry and mak

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusPT. CHANDRA BHUSHAN MISRA

1979 INSC 2306 November 1979Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed a decision of the Allahabad High Court which had ordered a refund of court fees under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 after a case was remanded to the lower court under Order XI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the High Court. The central question was

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

2023 INSC 8776 October 2023Case Partly allowed

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

SMT. NEERAJA SARAPHversusSH. JAYANT V. SARAPH AND ANR.

1994 INSC 4486 October 1994Disposed off

The appellant, an Indian teacher, was married to an NRI doctor who returned to the United States shortly after the wedding and later obtained a foreign decree of annulment, leaving her deserted. She filed a suit in forma pauperis for damages, which was decreed ex parte for Rs 22 lakhs. The Delhi High Court stayed the d

NOORDUDDINversusDR. K.L. ANAND

1994 INSC 4526 October 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Noorduddin, claimed an independent right, title and interest in land (Khasra No.179) that he alleged was part of his ancestral property and not covered by the sale of evacuee lands (Khasra Nos.13 and 14) to Dr. K.L. Anand. The respondent sought possession of the latter parcels under a decree, and the app

AMBATI NARASAYYAversusM. SUBBA RAO & ANR.

1989 INSC 3096 October 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Ambati Narasayya's 10‑acre land was attached and sold in execution of a decree for a debt of about Rs 2,400. The entire parcel fetched Rs 17,000 and was sold to the respondent. The appellant challenged the sale, arguing that under Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court should have sold only that por

RAM SARUPversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1983 INSC 1446 October 1983Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Sarup, dismissed from service, filed a suit as an indigent person which was dismissed. He appealed to the Delhi High Court as a pauper under Rule 1 of Order 44, CPC, seeking permission to appeal without paying court fees. The High Court dismissed the application by a one‑word order and also rejected a subsequent re

G.N.R. BABU @ S.N. BABUversusDR. B.C. MUTHAPPA & ORS.

2022 INSC 9316 September 2022Case Partly allowed

The first respondent filed a suit for declaration of ownership of a property and demolition of a structure erected by the appellant. The trial court proceeded ex parte against the appellant, deeming him to have been served, and passed a decree. The appellant appealed under Section 96 of the CPC, contending that summons

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusSUDERA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 9286 September 2022Dismissed

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

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S PUNA HINDA

2021 INSC 4486 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and others entered into a road‑construction contract with M/s Puna Hinda, which contained an arbitration clause for dispute resolution. After completing the work, the contractor submitted a final bill of Rs 23.68 crore, claiming payment for certain bills that the government alleged were already settl

UMESH KUMARversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

2013 INSC 5906 September 2013Disposed off

The case arose from a complaint alleging that a senior police officer, V. Dinesh Reddy, had amassed disproportionate assets, which was later claimed to be forged and signed by a fictitious MP. An investigation led to a charge sheet against Umesh Kumar under IPC sections 468, 471, 120‑B and 201, and the appellant sought

BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO.versusKAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICE, INC.

2012 INSC 3796 September 2012Reference answered

The dispute arose from a contract between Bharat Aluminium Co. and Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. that provided for arbitration in London under English law, but governed the contract by Indian law. After two awards were rendered in England, the appellant sought to set aside the awards under Section 34 of the

GEETA DEVI & ORS.versusPURAN RAM RAIGAR & ANR.

2010 INSC 5706 September 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, Geeta Devi & Ors., challenged the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court's order dismissing their appeal against a single High Court judge's decision that had rejected a miscellaneous appeal arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The central issue was whether such an intra‑court appea

JAWALA SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusJAGAT SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 5826 September 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined two appeals challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that allowed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without formulating any substantial question of law. The appellants argued that the High Court erred by not stating a specific legal question in t

NAVANEETHAMMALversusARJUNA CHETTY

1998 INSC 3496 September 1998Appeal(s) allowed

Navaneethammal, the plaintiff, purchased land and sued Arjuna Chetty, the tenant, for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The tenant claimed he had surrendered the lease, re‑entered the land and acquired title by adverse possession, contending that the suit was barred by Article 139 of the Limitation Act.

SURJIT SINGH AND ORS ETC. ETC.versusHARBANS SINGH AND ORS ETC. ETC.

1995 INSC 5396 September 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a family settlement deed that prohibited alienation of the ancestral property during the lifetime of the patriarch, Janak Singh. After his death, a suit for partition was filed and the trial court passed a preliminary decree and subsequently an order restraining all parties from alienating any part of

AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLCversusFUTURE RETAIL LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 3856 August 2021Disposed off

Amazon invested in FCPL and, through it, in Future Retail Ltd (FRL). When FRL and its promoters attempted to sell FRL's retail assets to a rival, Amazon sought emergency interim relief under the SIAC Rules, and an Emergency Arbitrator issued an award restraining the transaction. The Delhi High Court enforced the award

STATE OF M.P. & ANR.versusANSHUMAN SHUKLA

2014 INSC 5256 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S FIXITY PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusUDYEN JAIN (HUF)

2009 INSC 10216 August 2009Disposed off

The respondent filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of Rs.2.66 crore on account of dishonoured cheques. The appellants sought leave to defend and the trial judge granted conditional leave, directing them to deposit Rs.2 crore within two months or have the leave revoked. The High Court upheld

ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusS.P. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. & ANR.

2009 INSC 10226 August 2009Dismissed

ECE Industries Ltd., the plaintiff‑appellant, entered into a Development Agreement with S.P. Real Estate Developers for the construction of 1,800 apartments on a land parcel in Hyderabad. The respondents allegedly breached the agreement but proceeded with substantial construction, investing crores of rupees, and later

BARNES INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ORS.versusRAJ K. GUPTA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 3436 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants obtained a decree in England for a sum of about Rs. 3.6 crore and sought execution in Delhi, leading to attachment of the respondent's immovable property. While the attachment was pending, the respondent filed a suit in Delhi seeking a declaration that the foreign decree was void and obtained a stay of e

PATEL ROADWAYS LIMITED, BOMBAYversusPRASAD TRADING COMPANY

1991 INSC 1726 August 1991Dismissed

Patel Roadways Ltd, a carrier with its principal office in Bombay and subordinate offices elsewhere, was sued in Madras courts for loss of goods transported from its Tamil Nadu and Madras branches to Delhi. The carrier claimed that a clause in its contracts stipulated that any dispute must be heard only in Bombay court

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.versusYADAV ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR

1982 INSC 626 August 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a contract between Food Corporation of India and Yadav Engineer that contained an arbitration clause. Yadav Engineer filed a suit seeking a declaration that the contract was subsisting and an interim injunction against the corporation. The corporation appeared, sought time to reply to the injunct

KARAN KAPOORversusMADHURI KUMAR

2022 INSC 6616 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Karan Kapoor, was a tenant of a residential property owned by the respondent, Madhuri Kumar, under lease agreements from 2011 to 2014. After the lease expired, the appellant stopped paying rent and the respondent filed a suit for possession, rent, and mesne profits. The appellant claimed that subsequent

ALKA CHANDEWARversusSHAMSHUL ISHRAR KHAN

2017 INSC 5936 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The sole arbitrator, on 7 October 2010, issued an interim order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prohibiting the disposal of any flats without its leave. The respondent transferred five flats on 14 October 2010, breaching that order, and the arbitrator later found the breach and, on 5 May

SH JOGENDRASINHJI VIJAYSINGHJIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2015 INSC 4856 July 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a letters patent appeal could be filed against an order of a Single Judge that arose from civil court proceedings or other tribunals. It held that orders of civil courts are only reviewable under Article 227 of the Constitution and therefore are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under

ABCversusTHE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2015 INSC 4826 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

An unwed Christian mother filed a petition under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking to be appointed guardian of her five‑year‑old son. The Guardian Court dismissed the petition because the mother refused to disclose the name and address of the child’s putative father, holding that Section 11 requir

PONNALA LAKSHMALAHversusKOMMURI PRATAP REDDY & ORS.

2012 INSC 2746 July 2012Dismissed

The appellant, a returned candidate, appealed a High Court order that refused to dismiss an election petition filed by the respondent alleging irregularities in vote counting. The Supreme Court examined whether the petition disclosed a cause of action and could be struck out at the threshold, and whether the lack of an

K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTERversusM.V. SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS.

2010 INSC 3586 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, K.K. Ramachandran Master, filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of M.V. Sreyam Kumar on grounds of corrupt practices alleged under Sections 123(4), 123(5) and 123(6). The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it failed to disclose m

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.versusREGENCY CONVENTION CENTRE & HOTELS PVT. LTD.

2010 INSC 3626 July 2010Dismissed

The Airport Authority of India (AAI) leased the Mumbai airport to Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (appellant), excluding a 31,000 sq.m. parcel pending a suit by Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (first respondent) for specific performance of an agreement with AAI. The appellant sought to be impleaded

HABBAN SHAHversusSHERUDDIN

2026 INSC 4516 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

MOHIT SURESH HARCHANDRAI & ORS.versusHINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED

2025 INSC 8126 May 2025Disposed off

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

SATHYANATH & ANR.versusSAROJAMANI

2022 INSC 5296 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit for declaration of ownership of property against the respondent. The respondent sought to frame several preliminary issues, including whether the suit was barred by res judicata, under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the CPC. The trial court dismissed the application, but the High Court, on revision,

TRILOKI NATH SINGHversusANIRUDH SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 3856 May 2020Dismissed

The appellant, who purchased land by a sale deed in 1984, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a compromise decree passed by the High Court in 1994 in a partition suit was illegal, fraudulent and void. The decree was passed in a second appeal concerning parties other than the appellant, who was a stranger to the com

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARDversusK. A. NAGAMANI

2019 INSC 6316 May 2019Disposed off

The Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) allotted a flat to K.A. Nagamani, who later sought a refund of the amount deposited after the Board demanded a higher price. A consumer complaint was filed and the District Forum awarded interest and compensation, which was upheld by the State Commission and later set aside by the Supr

JITEN K. AJMERA & ANR.versusM/S TEJAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY

2019 INSC 6256 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, sons of the deceased owner of a housing project, were directed by the District Consumer Forum to obtain an occupancy certificate and execute a conveyance deed for the co‑operative housing society. They appealed to the State Consumer Commission, and during the pendency of that appeal filed an application

SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS.versusRAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.

2016 INSC 3886 May 2016Dismissed

The appeal concerned a land‑inheritance dispute where the petitioners sought to set aside an order of the Consolidation Officer that rejected their claim to a share of land. The petitioners argued that earlier judgments in a separate proceeding involving the same parties, but concerning a different parcel of land, shou

SUBRATA ROY SAHARAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 3676 May 2014Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Subrata Roy Sahara challenging an order dated 4.3.2014 directing his arrest and detention for non-compliance of earlier orders to refund money collected through Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs). The Court held that the two Sahara companies flouted orde

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusDINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS.

2014 INSC 3616 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 0.90‑acre parcel of land in Pune Cantonment held under an 1827 government grant. The respondents had purchased the lease‑hold rights and the superstructure on the land, while the Union of India (Pune Cantonment Board) issued a resumption notice in 1971 claiming the land remained government prope

DEVENDRA &ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2009 INSC 7386 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a civil dispute among co‑sharers over the extent of their shares in a joint family property. Two co‑sharers sold a portion of the property to third parties, prompting the remaining co‑sharer to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and a criminal complaint alleging cheating and forgery und

HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.versusGULSHAN LAL & ORS.

2009 INSC 7426 May 2009Dismissed

Haryana Vidyut Parishan Nigam Limited (the corporation) owned two thermal power plants; employees at its Faridabad plant sued for higher pay scales, seeking a declaration of entitlement and a mandatory injunction to pay the higher salaries with interest, invoking the principle of equal pay. The trial court, relying on

C.K. PRAHALADA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2008 INSC 5936 May 2008Dismissed

The appellant sought the return of articles seized by a hospital after the death of his brother, but the hospital required a succession certificate. A succession certificate was issued in the appellant's favour, yet the hospital did not return the articles. The appellant filed a suit, which was decreed ex parte, and af

VALLAPALLY PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA

1999 INSC 2266 May 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Vallapally Plantations Pvt Ltd owned 130.47 acres and claimed that 125 acres were exempt from ceiling‑area calculations because they were rubber plantation as of 1 January 1970 under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Taluk Land Board rejected the claim, held a surplus of 115.17 acres and ordered surrender; the High Cour

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

1996 INSC 6246 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

MRS. PAYAL ASHOK KUMAR JINDALversusCAPT. ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL

1992 INSC 1506 May 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Mrs. Payal Jindal married Capt. Ashok Kumar Jindal on 24 January 1988. The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 16 August 1988 alleging cruelty. The wife denied the allegations and sought transfer of the case from the Family Court, Pune to Delhi, obtaining a temporary stay

BINOD MILLS CO. LTD, UJJAIN (M.P.)versusSURESH CHANDRA MAHAVEER PRASAD MANTRI, BOMBAY

1987 INSC 1526 May 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Binod Mills, a textile undertaking in Ujjain, was declared a relief undertaking under the Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upkram (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1978, with protection until 15‑Nov‑1987. The respondent obtained an ex‑parte decree for a monetary sum in the Bombay High Court and had it transferred to the District Jud

RAJIV GHOSHversusSATYA NARYAN JAISWAL

2025 INSC 4676 April 2025Dismissed

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

KISHORSINH RATANSINH JADEJAversusMARUTI CORP. & ORS.

2009 INSC 4576 April 2009Disposed off

The appellants, owners of agricultural land, entered into an agreement in 1980 for a cooperative housing project that later failed, leading the respondent Maruti Corp. to sue for specific performance in 1999. While the Gujarat High Court admitted the appeal and initially ordered that any dealing with the property would

KAILASHversusNANHKU AND ORS.

2005 INSC 1866 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Kailash, elected to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council, challenged a High Court order that refused to accept his written statement filed after the 90‑day limit prescribed by Order VIII, Rule I of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined when the trial of an election petition begins, whether the CPC time‑li

M/S GUPTE CARDIAC CARE CENTRE AND HOSPITALversusOLYMPIC PHARMA CARE PVT. LTD.

2004 INSC 2396 April 2004

The Gupte Cardiac Care Centre & Hospital filed a suit in Nashik seeking recovery of Rs.28.35 lakh after a heart‑lung machine purchased from a German manufacturer and its Indian dealer performed unsatisfactorily. The dealer, Olympic Pharma Care Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit in the Delhi High Court for the balance price of Rs.

GANPATRAO GULABRAO PAWAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1992 INSC 1046 April 1992Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, agricultural landholders, filed returns under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961. The Collector held that the first petitioner’s holding was 124 acres 23 guntas, below the ceiling, and therefore not a surplus holder. The petitioner appealed this finding before the Mahar

R. DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARIversusA.N. UMAKANTH & ORS.

2019 INSC 3186 March 2019Dismissed

The suit was filed to cancel a sale deed executed by a former partner (defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.2, alleging that the property vested in the plaintiff after the partnership was dissolved. After the original plaintiff died, his heirs were impleaded; one heir (plaintiff No.5) sold the property to three pu

ANDANUR KALAMMA AND ORS.versusGANGAMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS.

2018 INSC 2046 March 2018Dismissed

The appellants sought a declaration of ownership and possession of a 23‑acre land that had been auctioned in 1966 to satisfy income‑tax arrears. The auction sale was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, but the appellant’s predecessor challenged the confirmation under Section 177 of the Karnataka (Mysore) Land Revenue

SITARAMversusRADHEY SHYAM VISHNAV & ORS.

2018 INSC 2126 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Sitaram was elected Chairperson of a municipal corporation, but the defeated candidate Radhey Shyam Vishnav filed an election petition under the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009. The petition was filed without the mandatory treasury challan of Rs 1,000 required by Rule 3(5)(d). The a

MRS. A. KANTHAMANIversusMRS. NASREEN AHMED

2017 INSC 2026 March 2017Dismissed

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

PARMANAND PATEL (D) BY LR. & ORS.versusSUDHA A. CHOWGULE & ORS.

2009 INSC 3386 March 2009Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court interim order that appointed the High Court’s Official Receiver for the assets of a company and gave Sudha A. Chowgule exclusive powers to execute documents and induct tenants. The Court reiterated that under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Proce

GUNWANTBHAI MULCHAND SHAH AND ORS.versusANTON ELIS FAREL AND ORS

2006 INSC 1366 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

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

G. AMALORPAVAM AND ORS.versusR.C. DIOCESE OF MADURAI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1376 March 2006Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages which was decreed by the trial court. The appellants appealed to the first appellate court, which dismissed the appeal, and a second appeal to the Madras High Court was also dismissed. The appellants contended that the appellate courts had failed

SRI SHIBU CHANDRA DHARversusSRI PASUPATI NATH AUDDYA

2002 INSC 1216 March 2002Disposed off

Shibu Chandra Dhar, a tenant who purchased the landlord's building, sued Pasupati Nath Auddya for non‑payment of rent and for possession of shop premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. After the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent was dismissed, the respondent applied under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHUBANESHWAR AND ANR.versusPARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 1386 March 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Income Tax Department seized gold ornaments from the premises of Babula Agarwal under Section 132 of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961. Babula claimed the ornaments belonged to his step‑mother and ultimately to the plaintiff, Parmeshwari Devi Sultania, who filed a petition with the officer for their return but was rejected.

CANARA BANKversusNUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

1995 INSC 1606 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Canara Bank appealed a decision of the Company Law Board (CLB) that had refused to register bonds purchased from Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. The CLB had been hearing the bank's application under Section 111 of the Companies Act when the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities

NANI GOPAL PAULversusT. PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.

1995 INSC 1646 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a foreclosure suit where a court‑appointed receiver sold the mortgaged property to the appellant, Nani Gopal Paul, for Rs 60 lakhs, of which only Rs 5 lakhs was deposited. The sale was confirmed by a single High Court judge despite the existence of higher offers and without proper scrutiny. Responde

VANNARAKKAL KALLALATTHIL SREEDHARANversusCHANDRAMAATH BALAKRISHNAN AND ANR.

1990 INSC 786 March 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant entered into an agreement on 9 October 1978 to purchase 80 cents of land, but before the sale deed was executed the property was attached on 16 November 1978 by a third‑party creditor. The sale deed was executed on 23 November 1978, after the attachment. The Kerala High Court held that the sale was subjec

B.P. KHEMKA PVT. LID.versusBIRENDRA KUMAR BHOWMICK & ANR.

1987 INSC 726 March 1987Permission to File SLP/Appeal-allowed and matter dismissed(including all pending IAs)

The tenant, B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd., was sued for eviction on the ground of rent default. While the suit was pending, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance 1967 introduced Section 17(2A) allowing tenants in default to pay arrears in instalments, and Section 5 gave it retrospective effect to all pending s

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

2026 INSC 1326 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHERversusT. USHAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 1346 February 2026Dismissed

The plaintiff, sister of the first defendant, executed a limited Power of Attorney (PoA) on 31 July 1998, which she later cancelled after learning that the first defendant had used it to sell her immovable properties to the second and third defendants on 15 March 2007. The plaintiff alleged that the PoA presented by th

SHIVNARAYAN (D) BY LRS.versusMANIKLAL (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 1526 February 2019Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit in the Indore court seeking declarations of nullity of a will, a sale deed, and transfer documents relating to two immovable properties—one in Indore and another in Mumbai—along with a claim of joint family ownership. Defendants 7 and 8, who were parties to the Mumbai sale deed, moved to dism

SRI THIMMAIAHversusSHABIRA AND ORS.

2008 INSC 1466 February 2008Case Partly allowed

The plaintiffs (respondent No.1 and No.2) purchased land (site 43) from respondent No.3 and, while demolishing a temporary structure, were interfered with by the appellant (defendant No.1) who attempted to encroach on the property. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant's inter

BARKAT ALI & ANR.versusBADRI NARAIN (D) BY LRS.

2008 INSC 1476 February 2008Dismissed

The decree holder obtained a decree against the judgment debtor in a mortgage suit and filed successive execution applications. In the latest execution, after notice and adjournments, the court found no objections and ordered attachment of property under Order XXI Rule 22, proceeding to issue a warrant on 21 September

H.P. PYAREJANversusDASAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 736 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, H.P. Pyarejan, entered into a sale agreement with five co‑owners, advancing a loan on condition that all would execute the deed. Only four signed, and the plaintiff sued for specific performance including the fifth defendant. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding no eviden

KUNJAN NAIR SIVARAMAN NAIRversusNARAYANAN NAIR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 906 February 2004Case Partly allowed

The legal heirs (respondents) sued the appellant for declaration of title and possession of certain land; an earlier suit had only sought title and injunction. The appellant later filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits, claiming he was a cultivating tenant and seeking compensation for improvements un

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

2003 INSC 676 February 2003Dismissed

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

CHANDRAKANT TUKARAM NIKAM AND ORS.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD AND ANR.

2002 INSC 656 February 2002Dismissed

Workmen of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation were dismissed and filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court challenging the termination. The civil court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, and the Gujarat High Court affirmed that the dispute falls within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, making civil

LEKH RAJversusMUNI LAL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 726 February 2001Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging non‑payment of rent, unauthorised sub‑letting and that the shop was dilapidated and unfit for human habitation. The trial court ordered eviction, but the appellate court set aside the order, finding th

MAHENDRA KUMARversusLALCHAND AND ANR.

2001 INSC 736 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Mahendra Kumar filed a suit for partition of property with his mother, which resulted in a preliminary decree granting equal shares to mother and son, and a final decree after a document alleged the son had relinquished his share, giving equal shares to the mother and respondent No.1. Both parties appeale

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

2001 INSC 756 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed

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

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MANDSAURversusFAKIRCHAND AND ANR.

1997 INSC 1116 February 1997Dismissed

Three brothers, claiming ownership of a joint Hindu family property, sued the Municipal Council, Mandsaur for a permanent injunction. The trial court decreed in favor of the brothers and the municipality appealed. During the pendency of the appeal one brother died, but the municipality failed to bring the heirs or lega

INDERMANI KIRTIPALversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 1896 February 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a former semi‑skilled workman who later became an Assistant Store Keeper, claimed that he was unfairly excluded from promotion to the OEP Section, alleging a violation of his right to consideration. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his application through a single‑member bench. He cha

BAYER (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 256 February 1991Disposed off

A writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenged a communication of the Municipal Corporation that barred development of a parcel of land near chemical factories. The High Court set aside the communication, thereby affecting the interests of the factory owners who were not parties to the writ petition. Those own

KSHITISH CHANDRA BOSEversusCOMMISSIONER OF RANCHI

1981 INSC 266 February 1981Appeal(s) allowed

Kshitis Chandra Bose sued the Ranchi Municipality for declaration of title and possession of plot No. 1735, claiming title by a 1912 Hukumnama and by prescription after 30 years of continuous, open, hostile possession. The trial court and the Additional Judicial Commissioner upheld his claim on both title and adverse p

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LIMITEDversusKS INFRASPACE LLP LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 46 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. filed suits for specific performance of a sale of land and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from executing further documents. The defendants appealed, arguing that no concluded contract existed and that the plaintiff had delayed instituting suit, allowing third

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2014 INSC 9026 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the administration of the Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram, claimed by the Podhu Dikshitars, a Smarthi Brahmin community, as their religious denomination. The High Court had earlier dismissed the State's order appointing an Executive Officer under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow

KARTICK CHANDRA MANDALversusNETAL MONDAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 46 January 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction based on an alleged amicable partition of land among co‑sharers. The High Court, on a second appeal under CPC s.100, decided that the partition, if any, did not occur before the commencement of Section 14 of the West Bengal Land Re

M/S. PEARLITE LINERS PVT. LTD.versusMANORAMA SIRSI

2004 INSC 216 January 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Pearlite Liners Pvt Ltd. transferred the respondent, a trainee accountant later promoted, from its head office to a sales office. The employee refused to comply, was absent, and a chargesheet was issued. She filed a suit seeking a declaration that the transfer order was void, that she remained in service, and an injunc

USHA HARSHAD KUMAR DALALversusM/S. ORG SYSTEMS AND ORS.

2000 INSC 66 January 2000Dismissed

The appellant, Usha Harshad Kumar Dalal, a co‑owner of a building, filed a partition suit in 1978 and a Court Receiver was appointed who took symbolic possession while Suhrid Geigy Trading Ltd. (R‑2) occupied the premises. After the licence expired, the amendment to the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Cont

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusVATSAVYI KUMARA VENKATA KRISHNA VERMA

1999 INSC 16 January 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a holder of agricultural land under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and his wife sold four parcels of land within a 15‑day period between 24‑Jan‑1971 and before the notified date. One sale was to the respondent’s father and three to others, with installment

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

1997 INSC 26 January 1997Dismissed

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

M.L. MUBARAK BASHA AND OTHERSversusMUNI NAIDU

1997 INSC 56 January 1997Dismissed

The appellant, M.L. Mubarak Basha, appealed a Madras High Court decision confirming a public auction sale of a saw‑mill property, contending that the Commissioner of the court had no authority to fix the upset price. The sale had been conducted under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which requires t

REVANASIDDAYYAversusGANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA & ANR.

2017 INSC 11715 December 2017Disposed off

The appellant purchased land from the original owner, Veerabasayya, and was given possession after paying earnest money, but the owner died before the sale deed was executed. The respondents, as legal heirs, sued for a declaration of ownership and possession, and the trial court declared them owners but denied possessi

B.L. SREEDHAR AND ORS.versusK.M. MUNIREDDY (DEAD) AND ORS.

2002 INSC 5185 December 2002Dismissed

The case concerned service‑inam lands that were originally attached to a hereditary village office. After the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, the lands were resumed and re‑granted to the plaintiff and his son, who later consented to a re‑grant in favour of his son (defendant No.3). Defendant No.3 sold part

D.P. CHADHAversusTRIYUGL NARAIN MISHRA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 5695 December 2000Case Partly allowed

The appellant, advocate D.P. Chadha, was engaged by his client, Triyugi Narain Mishra, to defend an ejectment suit. While the client was away, Chadha used a blank vakalatnama and blank paper signed by the client to fabricate a compromise petition and a receipt, causing a decree for eviction without the client’s knowled

BEHARILAL AND ANR.versusSMT. BHURI DEVI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14395 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan Government’s Mandi Committee allotted two plots to Beharilal in 1953, issued a patta and delivered possession in 1954. After the patta was cancelled in 1956, the same plots were re‑allotted to Ram Gopal (husband of Bhuri Devi) and possession was handed over to him. Criminal proceedings under S. 145 Cr.P.C

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTDversusYASHWANT GAJANAN JOSHI AND ORS.

1990 INSC 3755 December 1990Dismissed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (the Corporation) was authorised under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 to lay a pipeline and appointed Mrs. A.R. Gadre, a Special Land Officer of the Corporation, as the competent authority to determine compensation for landowners

GOVERNMENT OF ORISSAversusM/S. ASHOK TRANSPORT AGENCY AND ORS.

2004 INSC 6455 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Ashok Transport Agency filed a money suit against Mis OMC Alloys Ltd, a government company, which was dismissed for default. While the suit was pending restoration, the Government of India issued an amalgamation order under Section 396 of the Companies Act, 1956, merging the company with Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd a

SRI RAMNIK VALLABHDAS MADHVANI AND ORS.versusTARABEN PRAVINLAL MADHVANI

2003 INSC 6015 November 2003Dismissed

The widow of Pravinlal Madhvani sued the Madhvani brothers for partition of a tea estate, accounts of a family partnership and mesne profits, seeking 6% interest. While the appeal of the preliminary decree was pending, the High Court allowed an amendment to raise the interest rate to 13% and awarded interest at prevail

M/S B.L. GUPTA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.versusBHARAT COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

2003 INSC 6035 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M.B.L. Gupta Construction, entered into a contract with the respondent, Bharat Cooperative Group Housing Society, to construct 308 dwelling units, which included an arbitration clause for dispute resolution. After completing the work, a dispute arose and the matter was referred to a sole arbitrator, who

MALLIKARJUNversusGULBARGA UNIVERSITY

2003 INSC 6045 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a contractor, executed a contract with Gulbarga University for constructing an indoor stadium. Clause 30 of the contract stipulated that any dispute would be decided by the Superintending Engineer of the Gulbarga Circle, whose decision would be final and binding. After the Engineer rendered an award, the

VENKATRAO ANANTDEO JOSHI AND ORS.versusSAU MALATHIBAI AND ORS

2002 INSC 4615 November 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Venkatrao Joshi and his mother filed a partition suit against the father and his wife, alleging an illegal transfer of joint family land. The trial court issued a preliminary decree granting the appellants a two‑thirds share and held the transfer void; the decree became final after the father and wife’s appeal was dism

S.N. KAPOOR (DEAD) BY HIS LRS.versusBASANT LAL KHATRI AND ORS.

2001 INSC 5565 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a widow of the original landlord S.N. Kapoor, sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises. The Rent Controller held the claim not bona‑fide, and the Delhi High Court dismissed both the revision and the widow's applic

MOHD. ABDUL KHADER MOHD KASTIM AND ANR.versusPAREETHIJ KUNJU SAYED AHAMMED AND ORS.

1996 INSC 12895 November 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a mortgagor of a property under a usufructuary mortgage, filed a redemption suit seeking to pay the mortgage amount of Rs.18,000. The trial court passed a preliminary decree on 22 November 1960 directing redemption on deposit of the mortgage money, payment of mesne profits, and a provision for claiming i

LAKSHMICHAND & BALCHANDversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1986 INSC 2245 November 1986Case Partly allowed

The contractor Lakshmichand & Balchand entered into two road‑repair contracts with the State of Andhra Pradesh. An arbitrator awarded the contractor Rs.99 lakhs, but the civil court set aside the award and the High Court allowed only Rs.16 lakhs. In execution proceedings the State claimed a set‑off of Rs.22.91 lakhs: R

HARBHAJAN SINGH DHALLAversusUNION OF INDIA

1986 INSC 2255 November 1986Case Allowed

The petitioner, an Indian contractor, performed maintenance work for the Algerian Embassy in 1976 and claimed unpaid dues of about Rs.27,000. He sought permission under Section 86(4)(aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure to sue the Embassy, but the Central Government refused on vague "political grounds." The Supreme Court

DIPALI BISWAS & ORS.versusNIRMALENDU MUKHERJEE & ORS.

2021 INSC 6165 October 2021Dismissed

The decree-holder obtained a money decree against the judgment‑debtor, leading to execution proceedings for the sale of 17 decimals of land. After a series of auctions, sale proclamations, issuance of a sale certificate and delivery of possession, the judgment‑debtor repeatedly challenged the execution, ultimately fili

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD.versusR.S. AVTAR SINGH & CO.

2012 INSC 4565 October 2012Dismissed

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (appellant) challenged an execution petition filed by R.S. Avtar Singh & Co. (respondent) on the ground that the arbitral award, made a rule of court on 31‑05‑1985, had been fully satisfied by part payments made in 1985 and 2000, and that no further interest could be claimed. The Supreme C

GAYTRI BAJAJversusJITEN BHALLA

2012 INSC 4505 October 2012Dismissed

The parties were married in 1992 and had two daughters. They obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in 2003, expressly agreeing that the husband would have sole custody of the children and the wife would forego visitation rights. The wife later challenged the decree on grounds of fraud and also sought custody/v

MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusHARTAR SINGH SANGHA

2010 INSC 6725 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Man Kaur, owned a plot that was sold to the respondent, Hartar Singh Sangha, by an agreement executed through attorney‑holders. The respondent paid earnest money and claimed he was ready to complete the purchase, but the vendor failed to execute the sale deed. The respondent sued for specific performance

CARONA LTD.versusM/S PARATHY SWAMINATHAN & SONS

2007 INSC 10085 October 2007Dismissed

Carona Ltd., a public limited company with paid‑up share capital exceeding Rs. 1 crore, was let a premises by a partnership landlord. After defaulting on rent, the landlord gave notice terminating the tenancy on 31 March 2001 and filed an eviction suit. While the suit was pending, the tenant passed a resolution to redu

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. POPULAR CONSTRUCTION CO.

2001 INSC 4875 October 2001Dismissed

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

SMT. KAMLESH KOHLI AND ANR.versusESCOTRAC FINANCE AND INVESTMENT LTD. AND ORS.

1999 INSC 4575 October 1999Dismissed

The respondents filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of Rs.85,62,500 based on a memorandum of agreement signed by the plaintiffs and the defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 applied for unconditional leave to defend, which was dismissed by the trial judge, while the trial judge granted leave to def

U. NILANversusKANNAYYAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

1999 INSC 4595 October 1999Dismissed

The mortgagor (respondent) had mortgaged property to the appellant and, after default, the property was auctioned and the sale was confirmed. The mortgagor filed several applications to set aside the sale and its confirmation, which were dismissed, leading to appeals before the High Court. While those appeals were pend

SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD JAINversusSHRI GANGA SINGH

1999 INSC 4545 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Ganga Singh, first obtained an injunction against M.P. Jain and the Municipal Corporation and later filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession of a tuck‑shop premises. The trial court, despite finding that the respondent was not a tenant of the appellant or his predecesso

SRIKANT KASHINATH JITURI AND ORS.versusCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELGAUM

1994 INSC 4405 October 1994Dismissed

The Corporation of the City of Belgaum revised property tax in 1984, and the plaintiffs filed a representative civil suit alleging that the increase was arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, that assessors inspected properties without notice, and were pressured to raise taxes. The suit was dismissed by the trial court unde

K.V. GEORGEversusSECRETARY TO GOVT., WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM & ANR.

1989 INSC 3055 October 1989Dismissed

The appellant, a contractor, entered into a contract for constructing an embankment but failed to complete the work, leading to contract termination by the respondents. He filed an arbitration claim (Case No. 132 of 1980) seeking rate enhancement, interest and costs, while the respondents filed a counter‑claim. The arb

PUSHPALATAversusVIJAY KUMAR (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2022 INSC 9105 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The father, Laxmi Prasad, the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family, bought several parcels of land using his own funds but registered them in the names of his minor sons, Vijay Kumar and Rajendra Kumar. The sons later sold one of the parcels, prompting the father’s widow and daughters to sue for declaration of title and s

S. N. D. P. SAKHAYOGAMversusKERALA ATMAVIDYA SANGHAM

2017 INSC 8535 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a charitable society, filed a suit against another society and a person seeking a declaration that a sale deed concerning a piece of land was void. The plaintiff applied to the trial court for permission to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedur

MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGHversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

2017 INSC 8525 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Maharaja Amrinder Singh, a wealth‑tax assessee, challenged the High Court’s order that set aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision in his favour and restored a penalty assessment for the years 1981‑84. The revenue had appealed to the High Court under Section 27‑A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, which the Suprem

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

2017 INSC 8605 September 2017Disposed off

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

M/S RAPTAKOS, BRETT & CO. LTD.versusM/S GANESH PROPERTY

2017 INSC 8575 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, MIS Rapta­kos, Brett & Co. Ltd., occupied premises leased to it until 1985. The respondent, Mis Ganesh Property, sued for possession and mesne profits in 1986; the court decreed possession in its favour but declined the mesne‑profit claim because the respondent did not press it. Subsequent appeals allowe

SIDDALINGAYYAversusGURI. LINGAPPA & ORS.

2017 INSC 8555 September 2017Dismissed

Siddalingayya sued the respondents for Rs 45,000 damages alleging illegal demolition of his construction. The respondents failed to file a written statement within the time fixed, and the trial court refused to extend the deadline, proceeding to decree in favour of the plaintiff. The respondents appealed, and the High

THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD.versusNARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.

2011 INSC 6515 September 2011Dismissed

The National Textile Corporation Ltd. (NTC) occupied premises that were originally leased to Poddar Mills, a textile undertaking taken over by the Central Government under the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995. The owners of the premises filed an eviction suit under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999

ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusVIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 9285 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

RUCHI RAWATversusPRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT ETAH & ANR.

2022 INSC 13145 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Ruchi Rawat, the appellant-wife, filed an application seeking transfer of a matrimonial suit (Original Suit No.23 of 2018) filed by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, from the Family Court in Etah to the Family Court in Mathura. She argued that she had no income, lived with her parents in Mathura,

SHRI SAURAV JAIN & ANR.versusM/S A. B. P. DESIGN & ANR.

2021 INSC 3845 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The first respondent claimed to be the transferable owner of a parcel of land and sued to declare the Moradabad Development Authority's (MDA) auction of that land illegal and to restrain dispossession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding MDA was the lawful owner; the High Court reversed, declaring the auction v

M/S EXL CAREERS AND ANOTHERversusFRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

2020 INSC 4775 August 2020Disposed off

The appellant, EXL Careers, filed a suit for recovery in a Gurgaon civil court despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a franchise agreement that designated Delhi courts as the sole forum. The Gurgaon court returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, and the High Court ordered its transfer to Delhi, dir

BUDH RAM & ORS.versusBANSI & ORS.

2010 INSC 4815 August 2010Dismissed

Budh Ram & Ors. appealed against a decree that declared them co‑owners of land along with Smt. Parwatu, a proforma defendant who died during the pendency of the appeal. The appellants sought substitution of Parwatu's legal representatives but failed to obtain condonation for the delay. The lower appellate court held th

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