RASIKLAL MANICKCHAND DHARIWAL & ANR.versusM/S. M.S.S. FOOD PRODUCTS
2011 INSC 82025 November 2011Dismissed
The plaintiff, M.S.S. Food Products, sued the appellants for passing off, seeking a declaration and injunction over the use of the mark "Manikchand". The trial court granted an interim ex parte injunction, later proceeded ex parte after the defendants failed to appear, closed their right to cross‑examine, heard only th…
GOPAL SWAROOPversusKRISHNA MURARI MANGAL & ORS.
2010 INSC 81725 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a partition suit against his father, the Karta of a joint family, who died during the proceedings. The plaintiff's brother, Gopal Swaroop, claimed that the deceased had executed a will leaving his share to him. The trial court and a single High Court judge held that the will was duly proved, but a D…
SARUP SINGH AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
2010 INSC 81625 November 2010Dismissed
The appellants sought enhanced solatium (30% instead of 15%) and higher interest rates (9% for the first year and 15% thereafter) under the 1984 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, claiming that the amendment should apply to their awards which were finalized before the amendment came into force. The Supreme Court ex…
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ DEHAR POWER HOUSE CIRCLE BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (PW) SLAPPER & ANOTHERversusEXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, SUNDER NAGAR/ ASSESSING AUTHORITY
2019 INSC 120025 October 2019
The petitioners, the Himachal Pradesh Bhakra Beas Management Board and others, challenged a High Court order that refused to condone a revision filed under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 after the 90‑day period prescribed for such revisions. The issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitatio…
GUJARAT URJA VIIKAS NIGAM LIMITEDversusSOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR POWER COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
2017 INSC 105325 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Solar Semiconductor Power Co. for a solar project, which stipulated a specific tariff and a control period ending on 28‑Jan‑2012. The respondent sought an extension of this control period, arguing that the Gujarat Electricity…
SURESH KUMAR WADHWAversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.
2017 INSC 105225 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant participated in a public auction of four nazul plots and deposited a Rs.3 lakh security as required by the public notice. After his bid was accepted, the State officer sent a letter imposing four "special terms and conditions" which the appellant had not been informed of earlier, and he refused to accept …
RAMJI PANDEY AND ORS.versusSWARAN KALI
2010 INSC 73125 October 2010Dismissed
The respondent sued the appellants for a declaration of co‑ownership of a house. The appellants failed to appear, resulting in an ex‑parte decree in the respondent's favour. They later filed a recall application, which was rejected, and subsequently appealed the decision in a District Court that lacked pecuniary jurisd…
MOHD. SAUD & ANOTHERversusDR. (MAJ.) SHAIKH MAHFOOZ & OTHERS
2010 INSC 73025 October 2010Dismissed
In a civil suit, an Additional District Judge passed an interim order, against which a first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 was filed before a Single Judge of the Orissa High Court. The Single Judge delivered a judgment on 6 August 2008, and a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was subsequently filed against that judgment. The …
SINGAMASETTY BHAGAVATH GUPTHA & ANR.versusALLAM KARIBASAPPA (D) BY LRS./ALLAM DODDABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
2025 INSC 115925 September 2025Disposed off
The case concerned a partnership share that was purportedly sold by an official receiver after the appellant and his mother were declared insolvent in 1977. The sale deed dated 11 March 1983 was executed based on a district court order, but later the insolvency adjudication was annulled in 1996. The High Court held tha…
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusCORPORATION BANK & ORS.
2025 INSC 116125 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had allotted a plot to Sarita Vihar Club under a lease that gave DDA a pre‑emptive right to purchase and required Lieutenant Governor’s consent for any mortgage. The Club mortgaged the plot to Corporation Bank without such consent, defaulted on the loan and the Bank sought recovery…
BISWAJIT SUKULversusDEO CHAND SARDA & ORS.
2018 INSC 87425 September 2018Leave Granted & Allowed
The plaintiff, a landlord, sued the tenant for arrears of rent and eviction of a shop premises under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. The trial court held that the tenant was indeed the plaintiff's tenant but found no default in rent payment, leading to dismissal of the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court…
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
2014 INSC 68525 September 2014Disposed off
The Madras Bar Association challenged the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, which sought to transfer appellate jurisdiction from High Courts to a newly created National Tax Tribunal (NTT) for deciding substantial questions of law in tax matters. The Supreme Court held that while Parliament…
CHOWDAMMA (D) BY LR AND ANOTHERversusVENKATAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER
2025 INSC 103825 August 2025Dismissed
The suit concerned the partition of ancestral lands belonging to the deceased Dasabovi, who had two wives – the plaintiffs' mother (first wife) and Chowdamma (second wife). The plaintiffs claimed that their mother was lawfully married to Dasabovi and therefore entitled to a share of the property, while the defendants d…
SRI R RAGHUversusSRI G M KRISHNA & ANR.
2025 INSC 104025 August 2025Dismissed
The Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) recovered a debt from Hoysala Thermo Farmers Pvt. Ltd. and, after default, auctioned agricultural land (Sy. No.67) belonging to the managing director, G.M. Krishna. The appellant, R. Raghu, purchased the land at the auction and later obtained a sale certificate as truste…
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAIversusNIKHILN. GUPTA & ANR.
2015 INSC 54625 August 2015Hearing Adjourned
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai (Petitioner) obtained an eviction decree against Nikhil N. Gupta and his company (Respondents) who had continued to occupy premises after a lease expired in 1952. The Supreme Court, dismissing a special leave petition, granted the Respondents one year to vacate, subject to an…
BANWARI LAL (D) BY LRS. &ANR.versusBALBIR SINGH
2015 INSC 60825 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed
Balbir Singh sued Banwari Lal and Swaraj for ownership of a parcel of land. During the pendency of the first appeal, Banwari Lal died, and during the second appeal, Swaraj died, but no steps were taken to bring their legal representatives on record as required by Order XXII of the CPC. The Delhi High Court dismissed th…
VAISHAGGARWAL PANCHAYATversusINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
2015 INSC 60725 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat, a society, filed a declaration suit in 2001 seeking to declare a 1998 decree and subsequent sale deed as void on grounds of fraud and collusion, after having earlier objected to the execution of that decree. The respondents, who were parties to the original 1993 suit, moved an application …
VIJAY KUMAR KAUL AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
2012 INSC 24825 May 2012Dismissed
The appellants, selected as Lower Division Clerks in 1984, were appointed only in 1993 and 1996 after court orders, while similarly placed candidates (Parveen Singh and others) obtained retroactive appointments and back wages following a tribunal order and a Punjab‑Haryana High Court judgment. The appellants later soug…
SRI Y.P. SUDHANVA REDDY & ORS.versusTHE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION ETC.
2018 INSC 41425 April 2018Dismissed
The appellants filed two suits claiming ownership and possession of a one‑acre plot, asserting title through their deceased father. The respondent countered that the land had been acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in 1941, and that ownership vested in the State thereafter. The High Court allow…
BAPUSAHEB CHIMASAHEB NAIK-NIMBALKAR (DEAD THROUGH LRS.) & ANR.versusMAHESH VIJAYSINHA RAJEBHOSALE & ORS.
2017 INSC 39325 April 2017Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined a suit for partition of ancestral land filed in 1979 by the heirs of Anandibai, who had inherited the property of a full‑owner Hindu female, Shakuntalabai, who died in 1962. The appellants argued that the suit was barred by the Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65(b) and by Order II Rule 2 of the…
GAIV DINSHAW IRANI & ORS.versusTEHMTAN IRANI & ORS.
2014 INSC 34125 April 2014Dismissed
The original tenant, Bomanji Irani, bequeathed his government‑owned tenancy to his wife Daulatbai, who was a residuary legatee, and the tenancy was held jointly by her and their five sons. After Daulatbai's death, the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) transferred the tenancy to one son, Dinshaw Irani, based on a 1961 …
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHADversusSHEO NARAIN KUSHWAHA & ORS.
2011 INSC 32925 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, sought to acquire land belonging to the respondents and challenged the Reference Court's award of Rs.1,10,250 per bigha as compensation, up from Rs.10,250 per bigha. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal summarily without reasons, invoking Order 41 Rule 11 of the CP…
SOUMIK SILversusSUBHAS CHANDRA SIL
2014 INSC 20325 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant and his mother filed a title suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction concerning a flat. The mother, after a High Court order in a matrimonial proceeding directing her to vacate the flat in exchange for monetary settlement, applied to delete her name from the suit. The trial court rejected this a…
JACINTA DE SILVAversusROSARINHO COSTA & ORS.
2014 INSC 20225 March 2014Dismissed
The plaintiffs, owners of a property in Goa, filed a suit in the civil court for a declaration of ownership and eviction of a defendant occupying a house claimed to be mundkarial. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the heirs of the defendant challenged the decree in execution proceedings, arguing lack of juri…
RAM LALversusJARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.
2025 INSC 30125 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which was decreed in his favour on 20‑01‑2012 directing him to deposit the balance consideration within two months. The decree was affirmed by the first appellate court on 21‑04‑2015, but no time‑limit for payment was stipulated. After a two‑year …
NKGSB COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITEDversusSUBIR CHAKRAVARTY & ORS.
2022 INSC 23825 February 2022Disposed off
The NKGSB Cooperative Bank, a secured creditor, sought possession of a mortgaged flat after the borrowers defaulted on a loan, invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) appointed an advocate commissioner to take possession of the asset, a move upheld by several High Courts but str…
PANKAJAKSHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERSversusCHANDRIKA & OTHERS
2016 INSC 21225 February 2016Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 23 of the Travancore‑Cochin High Court Act, which provides that a Chief Justice must refer a matter to a third judge when two judges of a division bench disagree, survives the repealing provision of Section 9 of the Kerala High Court Act and whether it is a special provision t…
JAYAPRAKASH & ANR.versusT. S. DAVID & ORS.
2018 INSC 6125 January 2018Dismissed
The appellants filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement against four defendants. Defendants 1 and 2, the original owners, failed to sell the property and the suit proceeded ex parte, resulting in an ex parte decree. Defendants 3 and 4 successfully set aside the decree under Order 9 Rule 13, and the tri…
N. C. BANSALversusUTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR.
2018 INSC 6225 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, N.C. Bansal, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction concerning a property. The trial court dismissed the suit as non‑maintainable; an appellate court remanded the matter for trial. After remand, the plaintiff filed three applications: (i) under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC to fil…
KANAKLATA DAS & ORS.versusNABA KUMAR DAS & ORS.
2018 INSC 5625 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed an ejectment suit under the West Bengal Tenancy Act to evict respondents Nos. 2‑5 for non‑payment of rent and other grounds. Respondent No.1, claiming co‑ownership of the suit premises, applied under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC to be impleaded as a co‑plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the appl…
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE & ANR.versusANASUYA BAI (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
2017 INSC 7425 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, sought to acquire land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) and issued preliminary and final notifications in 2000 and 2005. The respondents challenged the acquisition, arguing that no award under Section 11-A of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act…
KESHAV PRASAD SHARMAversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.
2011 INSC 7125 January 2011Dismissed
The petitioner, Keshav Prasad Sharma, was tried for a criminal offence when the public prosecutor sought to implead respondents No.3‑9 as co‑accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court allowed the impleadment, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside that order. The petitioner filed S…
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.versusRADHESHYAM & ORS
2022 INSC 122824 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Madhya Pradesh sought to acquire 38.178 hectares of land in Village Sala for rehabilitation of persons displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Dam. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation based on low market values, which the landowners challenged, leading the Reference Court to re‑determine ma…
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND VICE CHAIRMAN GUJARAT MARITIME BOARDversusASIATIC STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD AND ORS.
2020 INSC 65424 November 2020Dismissed
The Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) invited bids for ship‑breaking plots. Asiatic Steel won the bid for plot V‑10, paying an earnest money of Rs.5,00,000 on 8 Nov 1994 and the upset premium of US$1,153,000 on 22 Mar 1995. The Board failed to clear rocks from the plot, rendering it unusable. Asiatic Steel demanded a refund…
TEJ BAHADURversusSHRI NARENDRA MODI
2020 INSC 65524 November 2020Dismissed
Tej Bahadur, a former Border Security Force officer dismissed in 2017, filed an election petition challenging Narendra Modi's election to the Lok Sabha from Varanasi, alleging his own nomination was wrongly rejected and the election was vitiated. He had filed two nomination papers in April 2019 but failed to attach the…
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.versusM/S. APPLIED ELECTRONICS LTD.
2016 INSC 105924 November 2016Directions issued
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. appealed a Delhi High Court order that had held the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) applicable to an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and had entertained a cross‑objection under Order XLII Rule 22 CPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the 1996 Act is a…
INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT LTDversusKAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED
2024 INSC 82724 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed
International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd entered into a dredging contract with Kamarajar Port Limited, a statutory undertaking, which later gave rise to disputes and arbitration. The arbitral tribunal awarded the appellant approximately Rs 21.07 crore with interest and costs, and the respondent sought correction under s.…
RAM AVATAR SONIversusMAHANTA LAXMIDHAR DAS AND ORS.
2018 INSC 98824 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed
The appellant, Ram Avatar Soni, challenged the probate of a Will dated 12 March 1989 allegedly executed by Mahanta Natabar Das (MND) in favour of the first respondent, Mahanta Laxmidhar Das, alleging the Will was fraudulent and the signature forged. He filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC seeking t…
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSANJEEV BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
2017 INSC 105024 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed
Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) filed a suit in 1986 for specific performance of a sale agreement. In 2014, Kedia Construction Company (respondent No.3) filed a Chamber Summons seeking to be impleaded as Plaintiff No.3, claiming assignment of the original plaintiff's interest, and the Bombay High Court allowe…
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusPRADIP KUMAR GHOSH & OTHERS
2017 INSC 104524 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) appealed against a Division Bench order that quashed its acquisition of a flat requisitioned under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The property had been under requisition since 1979 and the High Court, in 1993, directed the Land Acquisi…
DR. BALRAM PRASADversusDR. KUNAL SAHA & ORS.
2013 INSC 71724 October 2013Disposed off
Dr. Kunal Saha filed a consumer complaint after his wife died while being treated for toxic epidermal necrolysis at AMRI Hospital. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the hospital and four doctors negligent but reduced the claim, deducted 10% for alleged contributory negligence and awarded only Rs.…
DIVYANGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR (DEAD) AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
2025 INSC 114524 September 2025Dismissed
The appellants, descendants of original Portuguese "Alvara" holders in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, claimed perpetual lease rights over agricultural lands granted under the Organizacao Agraria (OA). The Collector rescinded these grants on 30 April 1974 invoking Article 12 of the OA for non‑cultivation, leading to a protract…
B.V. NAGESH & ANR.versusH.V. SREENIVASA MURTHY
2010 INSC 64524 September 2010Disposed off
The appellants filed a regular first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against a trial court decree. The High Court of Karnataka set aside and modified the decree but did so without framing points for determination, without discussing the factual and legal issues, and without providing adequate reasons, rendering its …
SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWALversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
2023 INSC 76424 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a leaseholder of a Delhi parcel, obtained a decree for possession against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) after the lease expired. While attempting to execute the decree, the MCD resisted, citing encroachment and pending land‑acquisition proceedings, leading the Executing Court to declare the de…
SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATIONversusPOWER MECH PROJECTS LTD.
2021 INSC 41724 August 2021
The appellant SEPCO, a Chinese corporation, was awarded a large arbitration award in favour of the Indian respondent Power Mech Projects. The High Court, under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, directed SEPCO to furnish a Rs 30 crore bank guarantee from a "scheduled bank located in India". SEPCO complied by obtaining a…
GUNASEKARANversusTHE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS & ORS.
2021 INSC 42024 August 2021
The appellants were served with show‑cause notices alleging encroachment on land forming part of a National Highway. The notices were issued under Section 28(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu State Highway Act, 2001 and were said to be backed by a notification issued under Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956. The appe…
MR. ANURAG MITTALversusMRS. SHAILY MISHRA MITTAL
2018 INSC 74524 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed
Anurag Mittal obtained a decree of divorce from Rachna Aggarwal in 2009 and appealed against it, obtaining a stay. The parties later settled, and Mittal filed an application to withdraw the appeal on 28 November 2011, which was deemed withdrawn on that date. He married Shaily Mishra Mittal on 6 December 2011, before th…
RAM CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. & ORS.versusUDAI SINGH@ DAYA RAM & ORS.
2017 INSC 80224 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, represented by his legal heirs, sued the defendants for ownership and possession of agricultural land, claiming inheritance rights, while the defendants relied on a will. The trial court granted only symbolic possession to the plaintiff, and both parties appealed. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's…
RAHEEM SHAH & ANRversusGOVIND SINGH & ORS.
2023 INSC 65124 July 2023Disposed off
The original suit (Civil Suit No.3 A/02) was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, Govind Singh, on 1 October 2005. The defendants, Raheem Shah and another, filed a regular first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC but did so 52 days after the decree, prompting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for cond…
BHIM RAO BASWANTH RAO PATILversusK. MADAN MOHAN RAO AND ORS.
2023 INSC 64124 July 2023Dismissed
Bhima Rao Baswanth Rao Patil, a successful Lok Sabha candidate, was challenged by K. Madan Mohan Rao through an election petition under Sections 81 and 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging false information, non‑disclosure of pending criminal cases and convictions, and non‑compliance with Election…
EX-HAV ASHOK KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2019 INSC 80924 July 2019Dismissed
Havildar Ashok Kumar completed 24 years of service in the Indian Army and was granted a two‑year extension. During the extension he suffered a stroke, was classified as SHAPE‑3 with 80% disability and was discharged. He was awarded a disability pension under Regulation 173‑A of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, but s…
PEER GULAM JILANIversusPEER GULAM NASEER AND ORS.
2019 INSC 80324 July 2019Dismissed
The case concerned the succession to the offices of Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli of a Dargah governed by a Zabta (constitution). The fourth Sajjadah Nashin, Nurul Hasan, nominated his grandson (the daughter’s son) Gulam Naseer as his successor. The appellant challenged the nomination, arguing that the Zabta required t…
RANDHIR KAURversusPRITHVI PAL SINGH & ORS.
2019 INSC 80624 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed
Randhir Kaur filed a suit for specific performance of a 2004 agreement to sell 193 kanals 18 marlas of land, having paid earnest money of Rs.13.5 lakh through her son Dhanwant Singh. The trial court decreed specific performance, but the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, set aside…
KANTA YADAVversusOM PRAKASH YADAV & ORS.
2019 INSC 80824 July 2019Dismissed
Zorawar Singh owned immovable property in Delhi and executed a will (1985) and codicil (1995) bequeathing it to the parties. After his death, the respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning the will, while the appellant filed a suit for natural succession. The Delhi High Court held that…
FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG & ORS.versusHINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.
2020 INSC 36224 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant partnership firm owned 249.60 bighas of land that was slated for acquisition by the State of Rajasthan for the benefit of the respondent company. An agreement dated 01.02.1980 provided that about 145 bighas would be sold to the respondent, with the price to be fixed by arbitration. The sole arbitrator fix…
SHIVAKUMAR & ORS.versusSHARANABASAPPA & ORS.
2020 INSC 34924 April 2020Dismissed
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership of several properties on the basis of a Will dated 20‑05‑1991 executed by the deceased Sri Sangappa and sought to declare a trust created by the defendants void. The defendants challenged the genuineness of the Will, pointing to numerous irregularities such as the use of d…
M/S. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITEDversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
2020 INSC 36024 April 2020Case Partly allowed
The borrower defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage offered by the guarantor, leading State Bank of India to initiate SARFAESI proceedings and eventually auction the secured assets, which were purchased by Tripower Enterprises. The bank sought the return of original title documents deposited with the Debt Recovery T…
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.versusDALJIT SINGH & ORS.
2019 INSC 56924 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had entered into an agreement to sell a Delhi property and associated business for Rs 55.50 crore, receiving Rs 5 crore as part consideration, and sued for specific performance. The defendants contested the agreement, claiming the document was forged, the signatures on pages 3…
J. BALAJI SINGHversusDIWAKAR COLE & ORS.
2017 INSC 38624 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed
Balaji Singh filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction which was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the first appellate court allowed him to file additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, set aside the trial court decree and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh trial, invoking O…
FATEHJI & COMPANY & ANR.versusL.M. NAGPAL & ORS.
2015 INSC 35624 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs entered into a written agreement of sale on 2 July 1973 for a property, with performance fixed for 2 December 1973. The defendants sought extensions, the last of which expired on 1 February 1977. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance on 29 April 1994, and the defendants moved to dismiss it…
YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS.
2025 INSC 38324 March 2025Disposed off
The appellants claimed ownership of a 3.34‑acre parcel of land in Kurnool district, asserting that it was a patta land acquired by a registered sale deed in 1970 and that they had been in uninterrupted possession for over twenty years. The State argued that the land was an assigned government land, subject to a non‑ali…
MD MISHER ALI @ MESER ALIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
2021 INSC 20524 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed
Md Misher Ali was alleged by the Assam police to be an illegal migrant from Bangladesh who entered India after 24 March 1971. The police referred him to the Foreigner's Tribunal, which served notice by hanging it at his temporary address in Sivasagar, despite his permanent residence being in Dhubri, and subsequently de…
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.versusCHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI
2023 INSC 15824 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Chandervir Singh Negi, filed a suit in 2003 seeking a declaration, mandatory injunction and direction to the State of Himachal Pradesh to complete land acquisition for a road constructed on his land in 1987, alleging no compensation and damage to fruit trees. The trial court held the suit barred by limit…
P. SHYAMALAversusGUNDLUR MASTHAN
2023 INSC 16224 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff obtained an ex‑parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, directing him to pay the balance consideration of Rs 15,00,000 within two weeks, which he failed to do. After a delay of 853 days, the plaintiff sought an extension of time under CPC 148 and Section 28 of the Specific Relie…
S. MURALI SUNDARAMversusJOTHIBAI KANNAN & ORS
2023 INSC 16124 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010) challenging a Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation order concerning a pathway. The High Court discarded a survey report and ruled in favour of the respondents on 03.03.2017. The respondents then filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of th…
LANKA VENKATESWARLU (D) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF A.P. & ORS.
2011 INSC 15924 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The original plaintiff, Lanka Venkateswarlu, filed a suit for title and injunction which was appealed after his death in 1990. The High Court ordered the government pleader to bring the legal heirs on record within a week, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The appeal was dismissed on 6 February 1998 for non‑…
OMDEO BALIRAM MUSALE & ORS.versusPRAKASH RAMCHANDRA MAMIDWAR & ORS.
2024 INSC 9324 January 2024Dismissed
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration in 1982 alleging that their father had illegally sold family property in 1980. The suit was dismissed for default because the petitioners failed to pay the process fee for serving notice, and subsequent applications for restoration of the suit and the revision petition were …
KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIAversusBIKRAM SINGH JARYAL
2017 INSC 7324 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed
Kuldeep Singh Pathania, who lost a 2012 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging irregularities in voting and postal ballots. The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition on preliminary ground…
V. RAJENDRAN AND ANR.versusANNASAMY PANDLAN (D) THR. LRS. KARTHYAYANL NATCHIAR
2017 INSC 125724 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction in 2004 describing the suit property as Survey No.192/9. During the trial they discovered that the respondents had transferred the patta and executed an Inam Settlement Deed referring to the same land as Survey No.192/14, creating a confusion about the identity of th…
WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD.versusMSM SATELLITE (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
2014 INSC 5024 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute arose from a Facilitation Deed containing an arbitration clause (Clause 9) that required disputes to be referred to ICC arbitration in Singapore. The respondent rescinded the deed alleging fraud and sought a temporary injunction restraining the arbitration. The Bombay High Court granted the injunction, hold…
KALYAN SINGH CHOUHANversusC.P. JOSHI
2011 INSC 6624 January 2011Dismissed
The appellant Kalyan Singh Chouhan, declared elected by a margin of one vote in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election, challenged the High Court's order rejecting his application to summon all ten tendered votes, arguing that the entire set should be examined to prevent miscarriage of justice. The respondent C.P.…
UNION OF INDIAversusVIJAY KRISHNA UNIYAL (D) THROUGH LRS.
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 6823 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India, as the owner of land covered by an Old Grant, issued a notice to resume a 3.398‑acre property in Landour Cantonment occupied by Vijay Krishna Uniyal, who sued for a permanent injunction claiming ownership based on a 1980 sale deed and long possession. The trial court, the first appellate court and t…
SMT. BAYANABAI KAWAREversusRAJENDRA S/O BABURAO DHOTE
2017 INSC 113623 November 2017Dismissed
The plaintiff purchased a plot from a housing cooperative society by a registered sale deed dated 29‑12‑1981 and was placed in possession. The defendant later encroached on the land and erected a hut, prompting the plaintiff to sue for possession and mesne profits. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed th…
RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWATversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
2011 INSC 81623 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a farmer, challenged the acquisition of his agricultural land by the State of Haryana, alleging that the statutory notices under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not properly published, he was denied a hearing, and that possession of his land was never actually taken because crops were standing at the…
BOARD OF WAKF, WEST BENGALversusANIS FATMA BEGUM AND ANR.
2010 INSC 80523 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned a dispute over the demarcation of a Wakf estate created by a 1936 deed, which divided the property into 75% for the descendants (Wakf‑al‑al‑aulad) and 25% for religious purposes. A suit for demarcation was filed in the Calcutta High Court, which held that the demarcation was incorrect and that the Wa…
GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLCversusBYJU RAVEENDRAN & ORS.
2024 INSC 81123 October 2024
The appellant, GLAS Trust Company LLC, a financial creditor of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd (the corporate debtor), challenged the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) approval of a settlement between the corporate debtor and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the setting aside of the NCLT order…
GOVINDAMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusVAIDIYANATHAN AND ORS.
2018 INSC 97423 October 2018Dismissed
The case concerned a 2.72‑acre property originally owned by two brothers, which was partitioned in 1912 giving each brother a 50% share. The plaintiffs, descendants of one brother, claim ownership of the 1.36‑acre "A Schedule" share, while the defendant’s father purchased the other 1.36‑acre share in a 1933 court aucti…
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITEDversusEQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AND CABLES LIMITED
2018 INSC 98023 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (appellant) awarded contracts to Equipment Conductors and Cables Ltd. (respondent) which led to arbitration where claims on invoices 1‑57 were held time‑barred and no award was made. The respondent unsuccessfully sought execution of those amounts, then issued a Sectio…
SATHEESH V.K.versusTHE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
2025 INSC 114023 September 2025Dismissed
The appellant, a borrower, defaulted on a loan from The Federal Bank and the bank classified the loan as a Non‑Performing Asset, invoking SARFAESI provisions. The High Court ordered the appellant to pay Rs.2 crore immediately and the balance in twelve instalments, which the appellant challenged by a Special Leave Petit…
OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL M.V. POLARIS GALAXYversusBANQUE CANTONALE DE GENEVE
2022 INSC 101523 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved an Admiralty suit filed by Banque Cantonale de Geneve against the owners of the vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy for alleged mis‑delivery of cargo. The Commercial Division of the Madras High Court, exercising its power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, added Gulf Petroleum FZC as a necessary party. The a…
THE JAMIA MASJIDversusSRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
2021 INSC 52823 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The Jamia Masjid Gubbi filed a suit seeking a declaration that the State Wakf Board owned a specific property, possession, an injunction and mesne profits. Defendants argued that the suit was barred by res judicata, relying on three earlier suits concerning the same property. The Supreme Court examined whether the earl…
AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
2021 INSC 53123 September 2021Case Partly allowed
The petitioners, original landowners of two parcels acquired in 1976 for the NOIDA project, challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Courts (Rs 4.628 and Rs 6 per square yard) and sought enhancement to Rs 297 per square yard, relying on the High Court's decision in Mangu v. State of U.P. and the earlier jud…
GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusPATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI
2019 INSC 107023 September 2019Dismissed
The appellants, sons of the deceased donor, claimed that a property gifted by their father to the respondent was ancestral and that the donor lacked authority to execute the gift deed, alleging the deed was forged. The trial court held the property ancestral, a view affirmed by the first appellate court, but the Gujara…
M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITEDversusM. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS
2019 INSC 106823 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed
Canara Nidhi Ltd. advanced a Rs.50 lakh loan secured by mortgage and a demand promissory note, which the borrower M. Shashikala failed to repay, leading to an arbitral award of Rs.63.82 lakh. Shashikala filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award and sought…
SHARADAMMAversusMOHAMMED PYREJAN (D) THROUGH LRS. &ANR.
2015 INSC 69423 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed
Sharadamma filed a suit in 1998 for declaration of title and restoration of possession of a property. The suit was dismissed in 1990 and she appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, she assigned her interest to her daughter Padmavathi, who subsequently sold the property to G.R. Ramesh. The Karnataka High Court dism…
KANWAR SINGH SAINIversusHIGH COURT OF DELHI
2011 INSC 70923 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed
Kanwar Singh Saini appealed against a conviction for criminal contempt by the Delhi High Court for allegedly breaching an undertaking given in a civil suit that resulted in a decree granting a permanent injunction. The Supreme Court held that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is only available during …
M/S OM GURUSAI CONSTRUCTION COMPANYversusM/S V.N. REDDY & ORS
2023 INSC 76023 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute arose when M/s OM Gurusai Construction Company (appellant) submitted the additional performance security for a water resources project two days later than the two‑working‑day deadline stipulated in Clause 2.22.0(ix) of the tender, due to a nationwide strike by employees of nationalised banks on the prescrib…
THANGJAM ARUNKUMARversusYUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH & ORS.
2023 INSC 76223 August 2023Dismissed
The appellant, a returned candidate to the Manipur Legislative Assembly, was challenged by the unsuccessful candidate who filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices, including non‑disclosure of a financial transaction. The appellant moved applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and Section 86 of the Re…
KANAILAL & ORS.versusRAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS.
2017 INSC 79223 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants (defendants) challenged a summary dismissal of their second appeal by the Calcutta High Court, which had been filed against a decree granting partition to the plaintiffs. The High Court dismissed the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 without stating facts, the parties' submissions, or reasons, and without id…
AJAY ARJUN SINGHversusSHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS
2016 INSC 119423 August 2016Case Partly allowed
The appellant, a returned MLA, challenged an election petition alleging corrupt practices and excess expenditure under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC seeking to strike out several paragraphs of the petition as frivolous, scandalous or vexatious. The…
VISHU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHANversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
2025 INSC 88423 July 2025Disposed off
The dispute concerned ownership of a 2‑18‑10 bigha parcel of land in NOIDA, jointly purchased in 1997 by Reddy, Sudhakar and Vishnu. Reddy later sought to establish sole ownership by filing separate suits and a writ petition, suppressing the earlier joint‑ownership litigation, and obtained a High Court order declaring …
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusN. R. SRIVASTA & ORS.
2020 INSC 46223 July 2020Dismissed
The Union of India and Safdarjung Hospital appealed against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) order that held Safdarjung Hospital liable for medical negligence and directed payment of Rs.2 lakh compensation to the complainant. The complaint arose from the death of a premature baby who was re…
G H SURINDER PAL SONIversusSOHAN LAL (D) THRU LRS .
2019 INSC 79723 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement and obtained a decree from the trial court directing the respondent to execute the sale deed within two months of depositing the balance consideration. Both parties appealed; the appellate court affirmed the trial court decree, effecting a merger of the two …
D.A.V. BOYS SR. SEC. SCHOOL ETC. ETC.versusDAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITIEE
2010 INSC 42423 July 2010Dismissed
The DAV College Managing Committee, holder of a registered trademark for "DAV" and "Dayanand Anglo Vedic", filed four suits in the Delhi District Court under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against several schools in Chennai that were using the same mark. The Chennai schools filed transfer petitions under Sect…
SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIMversusPRAKASAN & ORS.
2025 INSC 76423 May 2025Dismissed
The appellant, a grandson of the original defendant, was impleaded as a legal heir in execution proceedings after the original defendant died. He later filed an interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10 seeking deletion of his name, claiming he was not a legal heir and that he enjoyed tenancy rights under Section…
JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.
2025 INSC 77023 May 2025Dismissed
The dispute arose from a Coal India notification dated 19‑12‑2017 imposing Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) on coal dispatches, which the power generator (Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd.) claimed constituted a "change in law" under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Rajasthan distribution companies. The generator …
SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS.versusK. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR.
2025 INSC 55723 April 2025Disposed off
The appellants and respondents were embroiled in a series of suits and appeals concerning a sale deed of land and the validity of a mutation register entry. The trial court dismissed the plaint on the ground of rejection under Order VII Rule 11, and subsequently, the respondents sought production of the mutation regist…
SAKINA SULTANALI SUNESARA (MOMIN)versusSHIA IMAMI ISMAILI MOMIN JAMAT SAMAJ & ORS
2025 INSC 57023 April 2025Dismissed
The appellant, Sakina Sultanali Sunesara, challenged two consent decrees arising from compromises in suits concerning disputed land, alleging she had no notice of the compromises and that they were procured by fraud. She filed applications under Order XLIII Rule 1‑A to set aside the decrees, while the respondents argue…
RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS.versusPRASHANT GARG & ORS.
2025 INSC 55223 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, heirs of Dr. Karam Chand, sued the appellants for cancellation of two 1992 sale deeds and recovery of possession of a family house, alleging that the deeds were void because the vendor, Ramesh Chand, had no title and that a will favouring the plaintiffs had been admitted in earlier suits. The trial cour…
GLOBE GROUND INDIA EMPLOYEES UNIONversusLUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES & ANR.
2019 INSC 55923 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The Globe Ground India Employees Union raised an industrial dispute alleging that Globe Ground India Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Lufthansa German Airlines, closed its establishment and retrenched 106 workers. The union sought to implead Lufthansa, claiming it was the holding company and therefore a necessary and proper pa…
ARSAD SK. & ANR.versusBANI PROSANNA KUNDU & ORS.
2014 INSC 31423 April 2014Dismissed
The appellants challenged a Calcutta High Court judgment in a second appeal concerning a land title dispute, alleging that the High Court failed to frame the substantial question of law at the time of admitting the appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined whether such an omission invalidates the …
UNION OF INDIAversusSANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. AND ORS.
2013 INSC 27723 April 2013Disposed off
The Union of India filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, alleging that it was not given a chance to be heard because the special leave petition was not served and that the judgment misquoted the Expert Committee’s report. The petitio…
C.N. RAMAPPA GOWDAversusC.C. CHANDREGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.
2012 INSC 18323 April 2012Dismissed
The plaintiff filed a partition suit claiming a 13‑acre property as joint family property and the defendants, though served with summons and represented by counsel, never filed a written statement. The trial court, relying solely on the plaintiff’s affidavit and documents, passed an ex‑parte decree granting the plainti…
BHUPINDER SINGHversusUNITECH LIMITED
2023 INSC 28323 March 2023Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined an application filed by Unitech Limited seeking restitution of Rs. 98.07 crore that had been paid to Shri Naresh Kempanna and Col. Mohinder Khaira under an earlier order directing distribution of sale proceeds from a land transaction with M/s Devas Global Services LLP. Unitech argued that it …
PREMLATA @ SUNITAversusNASEEB BEE & ORS.
2022 INSC 33523 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff initially approached the Revenue Authority under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) seeking relief, but the respondents objected that the authority lacked jurisdiction because the dispute concerned title, leading the Tehsildar to dismiss the application. While that appeal was pend…
SITA RAM BHAMAversusRAMVATAR BHAMA
2018 INSC 26023 March 2018Case Partly allowed
The father of the parties, a self‑acquired owner of a house and a shop, decided to divide his property on 25‑Oct‑1992 but died on 10‑Sep‑1993. The surviving brothers recorded a memorandum of settlement on 9‑Sep‑1994, signed by their mother and sisters, allocating the entire property between them. The plaintiff sued for…
MANTI DEVI & ANR.versusKISHUN SAH @ KISHUN DEO SAO & ORS.
2017 INSC 26123 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed
Manti Devi and her son filed an eviction suit in the Munsif Court seeking possession of two katras on the ground of personal necessity, claiming to be landlords after purchasing the property. The trial court decreed eviction in their favour. The tenants appealed to the High Court in revision, which set aside the decree…
M/S. MILLENIUM WIRES (P) LTD.versusTHE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.
2015 INSC 25023 March 2015Dismissed
Millenium Wires Ltd. and State Trading Corporation of India entered into an agreement to import copper wire rods from the Synergic companies, opening four letters of credit (LCs) with Allahabad Bank as the issuing bank and Malayn Bank, Malaysia as the confirming bank. After the confirming bank released payments to the …
THIRU K. PALANISWAMYversusM. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
2023 INSC 15623 February 2023Disposed off
The dispute concerned the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party's internal governance after the death of its General Secretary, when the party shifted to a joint leadership of a Co‑ordinator and Joint Co‑ordinator. A requisition by over 80% of General Council members led to a meeting on 11 July 2022, …
SWAMI SHIVSHANKARGIRI CHELLA SWAMI & ANR.versusSATYA GYAN NIKETAN& ANR.
2017 INSC 17423 February 2017Disposed off
The dispute concerned a property waqfed in 1940 by Swami Satya Dev to Respondent No.2 (Prachaarini Sabha) for the purpose of promoting Hindi language, establishing a library and other charitable activities, subject to conditions prohibiting sale or mortgage. The appellants, interested in ensuring the purpose of the waq…
DHEERAJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDR. OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS
2016 INSC 20423 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed
Dheeraj Developers Private Limited filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed of land against Dr. Om Prakash Gupta and others. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed the decision, granting specific performance solely on the basis that Exhibit P‑1, the alleged agreement, was genuine. T…
RAM RATIversusMANGE RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
2016 INSC 20623 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant and respondent were involved in two parallel suits concerning the same property, which were consolidated by the trial court. During the trial of one suit, a witness (PW‑I) was examined and the evidence was closed. After consolidation, the respondent filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC, …
IVO AGNELO SANTIMANO FERNANDES & ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF GOA & ANR.
2011 INSC 15123 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed
In a land acquisition proceeding, the government paid compensation by issuing cheques to four owners, two of which remained uncollected and were subsequently deposited in the State's revenue account and utilized. The owners filed an execution application seeking the balance amount and interest, arguing that under Secti…
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.versusNARATA SINGH & ANR.
2010 INSC 11823 February 2010Dismissed
Narata Singh, a former work‑charged employee of various Punjab State departments (Irrigation & Power, Bhakra Dam, Beas Dam) from 1952 to 1978, was retrenched and later joined the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) as a work‑charged employee in 1982, regularised in 1984 and retired in 1990. He sought to have his earl…
M/S. SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. & ANR.versusASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
2019 INSC 8123 January 2019Dismissed
M/s Shanti Conductors entered supply contracts with Assam State Electricity Board before the Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 came into force, but the supplies were completed after the Act's commencement. The Supreme Court held that the Act applies to any supply mad…
RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS
2024 INSC 91322 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, a group of brothers and their wives, sued the defendants, their brothers and sons, to cancel a sale deed and obtain a permanent injunction after the defendants allegedly transferred the jointly owned property to a son for a nominal consideration using a power of attorney that was not intended for sale. …
SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY, AMRAVATI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENTversusOMPRAKASH S/O DINKAR DESHMUKH & ORS.
2021 INSC 76622 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute concerned a house originally owned by Shri Kashirao Deshmukh, who died leaving his wife Smt. Shevantabai. The wife executed a gift deed in 1981 transferring the property to the appellant. The defendants produced a 1976 Will of the deceased, claiming it gave the wife only a life estate, rendering the gift de…
STATE BANK OF INDIAversusGRACURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
2013 INSC 77322 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The State Bank of India (SBI) sued Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for recovery of dues arising from letters of credit, while Gracure filed a separate suit for damages alleging wrongful withdrawal of credit facilities. The two suits were filed within two months of each other, and SBI moved to dismiss the damages suit unde…
M/S J.P. BUILDERS & ANR.versusA. RAMADAS RAO & ANR.
2010 INSC 79922 November 2010Dismissed
V NAGARAJANversusSKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD.& ORS.
2021 INSC 66322 October 2021Dismissed
The appellant, V. Nagarajan, challenged an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 31 December 2019 that dismissed his application for interim relief in a liquidation proceeding. He filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 8 June 2020, relying on a free certified cop…
STATE OF RAJASTHANversusUCCHAB LAL CHHANWAL
2013 INSC 71122 October 2013Case Partly allowed
Ucchab Lal Chhanwal, a Rajasthan Police Service officer, was penalised with a censure in 1992 which barred his promotion for the 1996‑97 vacancy. He filed a writ petition seeking quash of the penalty and promotion. The High Court set aside the censure and ordered his promotion, but the Division Bench later set aside th…
M/S. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITEDversusOSCAR INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS.
2022 INSC 99422 September 2022Directions issued
Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd sought enforcement of a Singapore arbitral award of about INR 2,562 crore against 20 respondents, including Oscar Investments Ltd and the Singh brothers. The Supreme Court examined whether the Singh brothers (contemnors 9 and 10) had willfully violated multiple orders and undertakings of the Delh…
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusAJAY BHATIA
2022 INSC 100522 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (the appellant) owned two adjacent plots, 4/4 and 4/5, in Azadpur, Delhi, and operated petrol stations on both. Ajay Bhatia (the respondent) filed a suit seeking possession and mesne profits for Plot 4/4 after the lease expired in 2003. The trial court decreed possession of Plot 4/4…
CHANDRABHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSARASWATI & ORS.
2022 INSC 99722 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Chandrabhan, was adopted by his paternal uncle Baliram at age 14 under customary rites. After Baliram's death, Chandrabhan claimed ownership of the uncle's property, which his first wife Champabai was later gifted. Chandrabhan filed a suit for declaration of ownership; the trial court dismissed it, but t…
KUTCHI LAL RAMESHWAR ASHRAM TRUST EVAM ANNA KSHETRA TRUST THR. VELJI DEVSHI PATELversusCOLLECTOR, HARIDWAR & ORS.
2017 INSC 97922 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The Kutchi Lal Rameshwarsram Trust and Anna Kshetra Trust claimed ownership of land in Haridwar, asserting that it had been held by the trust for over forty‑five years based on a will and a declaration by the original purchaser, Mohan Lal. The Collector, Haridwar, on a complaint that Mohan Lal had died without heirs, i…
MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.versusM/S. GOLDEN CHARIOT AIRPORT AND ANR.
2010 INSC 63322 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed
Golden Chariot Airport held a licence to operate a restaurant at Mumbai Airport, which was initially for three years and later extended twice. The licence holder claimed the licence was irrevocable based on alleged oral assurances and sought to prevent eviction after the licence expired. The Supreme Court held that the…
TANKADHAR TRIPATHYversusDIPALI DAS
2025 INSC 101722 August 2025
The appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy, was elected from the Jharsuguda Assembly Constituency, after which the respondent, Dipali Das, filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices and EVM irregularities. The appellant challenged the petition's maintainability, arguing that the petition lacked a Form 25 affidavit as…
IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.versusABDUL SHUKOOR
2025 INSC 102722 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The trial court decreed specific performance of a sale agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant appealed and, during the pendency of the appeal, filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the CPC to lead additional documentary evidence. The High Court admitted this evidence without firs…
RAMATHALversusMARUTHATHAL & ORS.
2017 INSC 79022 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant (buyer) entered into a sale agreement where the seller was obliged to conduct a survey of the land before payment was due. The seller failed to conduct the survey, prompting the buyer to sue for specific performance. The trial court and the first appellate court both decreed specific performance, finding …
S. TIRUPATHI RAOversusM. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.
2024 INSC 54422 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute arose from a civil suit concerning the partition of ancestral land, which led to a decree directing the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the first respondent in revenue records. The Tahsildar failed to comply, prompting a contempt petition that was initially allowed by a Single Judge but later set aside by a…
KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI PATEL & ORS.versusM/S S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
2024 INSC 54222 July 2024Case Partly allowed
The appellants, a group of flat buyers, filed a consumer complaint against the developer, M/s S.J.R. Prime Corporation, alleging delayed possession and various charges. The NCDRC ordered the developer to pay delayed compensation and to construct promised amenities, but the developer had previously been declared by the …
MD. ALAUDDIN KHANversusKARAM THAMARJIT SINGH
2010 INSC 41822 July 2010Matter referred to larger bench
The election for the 9th Manipur Legislative Assembly was won by MD Alauddin Khan by a margin of two votes over Karam Thamarjit Singh, who filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) alleging impersonation of dead voters in certain polling stations and seeking a recount and declaration of the election as vo…
VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD.versusMAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.
2025 INSC 77222 May 2025
Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., the owner of agricultural land, sued Mahaveer Lunia and others for declaration, possession and injunction after the respondents executed sale deeds despite the appellant's revocation of a power of attorney and board resolution. The respondents filed an Order VII Rule 11 application seeking …
SMT. BADAMI (DECEASED) BY HER L.R.versusBHALI
2012 INSC 24522 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, the daughter of Badami, challenged a 1973 decree that had been obtained through a purported family settlement in which Badami allegedly transferred her entire share of ancestral land to Bhali. The trial court had passed the decree within three days of filing, without proper examination of admissions, and…
ANGADI CHANDRANNAversusSHANKAR & ORS.
2025 INSC 53222 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute concerned whether a 7‑acre suit property, purchased by Defendant No.1 from his brother after a 1986 partition of the joint Hindu family, was ancestral or self‑acquired. The plaintiffs (sons and daughters of Defendant No.1) sued for partition and possession, claiming the property remained ancestral because i…
KANCHHUversusPRAKASH CHAND & ORS.
2025 INSC 54222 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a civil suit in 1987 seeking cancellation of a sale deed, but the respondents repeatedly obtained adjournments and were eventually set ex parte, leading to a decree in 1991. The respondents later filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 and the Limitation Act, which were dismissed, and their subseq…
AMRUDDIN ANSARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusAFAJAL ALI & ORS.
2025 INSC 56622 April 2025Dismissed
The petition arose from a series of suits concerning a land dispute in Chhattisgarh, where the original plaintiffs' father filed a suit that was dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 of the CPC and a subsequent application for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 was also rejected. The plaintiffs then instituted a fresh suit on…
M/S J N REAL ESTATEversusSHAILENDRA PRADHAN & ORS.
2025 INSC 61122 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute involved multiple claims over the same property, with the original plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell and the appellant (original defendant No.8) seeking to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The trial court allowed the appellant’s impleadment, but the …
REHAN AHMED (D) THR. LRS.versusAKHTAR UN NISA (D) THR. LRS.
2024 INSC 32922 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff Rehan Ahmed sued Ghulam Mohiuddin (Defendant No.1) and his brother Saeeduddin (Defendant No.2) for specific performance of a 1967 agreement to sell a house and shops in Jaipur. While the suit was pending, the parties entered into a compromise in 1978, which was later verified by the trial court and a decr…
M/S. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA
2021 INSC 26922 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., was contracted by the State of Kerala to upgrade two highway stretches. The contract contained a clause (60.8) providing for interest on delayed payments, but the rate for local‑currency interest was left blank in the bid appendix. The arbitral tribunal awarde…
RAHUL S SHAHversusJINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI & ORS.
2021 INSC 27022 April 2021Dismissed
The case arose from a protracted dispute over a one‑acre property in Bengaluru that had been sold multiple times, leading to conflicting claims and a series of suits for declaration, possession, and execution. The decree‑holders obtained a decree for possession, but the judgment debtors and subsequent purchasers repeat…
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
2019 INSC 54822 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., challenged demand notices for interest on entry tax levied under the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007, arguing that the Act contained no substantive provision for interest and that the High Court’s dismissal of its writ petition was barred by res…
AMAR NATHversusKEWLA DEVI &ANR.
2014 INSC 30422 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed
Amar Nath filed a suit for possession of agricultural land, alleging that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 14‑02‑1970 was obtained by fraud and that he was entitled to a half‑share as the son of Vaij Nath. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding it barred by the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Lan…
N. SURESH NATHAN & ORS., ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
2010 INSC 23022 April 2010Disposed off
The case concerned promotion of Section Officers/Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Pondicherry Public Works Department under the 1965 Recruitment Rules. The Supreme Court examined whether its earlier decision in N. Suresh Nathan & Ors. v. Union of India bound courts on the method of considering …
BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.versusZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED
2024 INSC 25522 March 2024Disposed off
Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and others sought an ex parte ad interim injunction to compel Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited to remove a February 2024 article alleged to be defamatory. The trial judge granted the injunction on the basis of a brief reference to prior cases, without …
THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BANGALOREversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
2022 INSC 32522 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s judgment that the land acquisition proceedings for its mega‑market project had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The…
AMALENDU KUMAR BERA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
2013 INSC 19122 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The decree dated 7 August 1969 in a title suit was executed in 2009. The State of West Bengal raised objections under Section 47 of the CPC in 2010 and again in 2011, both of which were dismissed. The State later filed a civil revision challenging the 2010 order and sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Li…
HEERA TRADERSversusKAMLA JAIN
2022 INSC 21922 February 2022Case Partly allowed
Heera Traders and another appealed against a decree of eviction passed by the trial court under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The landlord, Kamla Jain, sought possession of non‑residential premises and mesne profits, while the tenants argued that Section 13 of the Act, which obliges a tenant to de…
M/S.BAGAI CONSTRUCTION THR. ITS PROPRIETOR MR. LALIT BAGAIversusM/S. GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE
2013 INSC 12122 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent filed a recovery suit against the appellant for Rs 4,35,250.18. After the evidence was closed and final arguments were heard, the appellant filed two applications – one under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC to produce certain bills, and another under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 …
M/S.BAGAI CONSTRUCTION THR. ITS PROPRIETOR MR. LALIT BAGAIversusM/S. GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE
2013 INSC 12322 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a construction contractor, was sued by the respondent for a sum of Rs.4,35,250.18. After the trial court heard arguments and reserved judgment, the appellant filed two applications—one under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC to produce certain bills, and another under Order XVIII Rule 17…
KOKKANDA B. POONDACHA AND OTHERSversusK.D. GANAPATHI AND ANR.
2011 INSC 14722 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a partition suit and the respondents later applied under Order XVI Rule 1(1) and (2) read with Section 151 of the CPC to file a list of witnesses, naming the appellants' advocate, N.R. Karnath, as a witness. The trial court allowed the list but rejected the request to summon the advocate because no…
M/S TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LIMITEDversusMICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANOTHER
2025 INSC 9122 January 2025Matter referred to larger bench
The appeal concerned whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed against an order of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) made under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006, and if so, under what circumstances. The Supreme Court examined earlier conflicting judgments, no…
VARADARAJANversusKANAKAVALLI & ORS.
2020 INSC 7522 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Varadarajan, sought to execute a decree in favour of the deceased decree‑holder Umadevi by filing an application as her legal representative under a Will. The Executing Court allowed the application, but the High Court, in revision under Section 115 of the CPC, set aside that order on the ground that the…
BUSSA OVERSEAS & PROPERTIES (P) LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
2016 INSC 116422 January 2016Dismissed
Bussa Overseas & Properties Ltd. sought a refund of excess provisional customs duty under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The customs authority directed the claim to be made under Section 27(2) and the appellants contested this, filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ and, on review, rejected …
SRI JEYARAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ORS.versusA.G. SYED MOHIDEEN AND ORS.
2010 INSC 5222 January 2010Dismissed
The respondents instituted a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before the District Court in Tamil Nadu, seeking relief concerning a public trust. The appellants argued that a 1960 notification empowering Subordinate Courts under Section 92 removed the District Court's jurisdiction, relying on a…
R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS.versusT.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.
2024 INSC 88421 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The buyer sued the sellers for specific performance of a 2005 agreement for sale of land and a tenanted building. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the buyer was not ready and willing to pay the balance price, while the High Court reversed that decision, holding that time was not of the essence and granting s…
N. MOHANversusR. MADHU
2019 INSC 127021 November 2019Disposed off
The appellant, a businessman, was ordered to repay Rs.45,00,000 borrowed from the respondent, but failed to do so, leading to an ex‑parte decree in the respondent's suit. The appellant first sought to set aside the decree via an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed, and later filed a first appeal…
HARYANA WAKF BOARDversusMAHESH KUMAR
2013 INSC 76821 November 2013Dismissed
The Haryana Wakf Board filed a civil suit in 2000 seeking possession of land it claimed was Wakf property. The trial court ruled in favor of the Board, but the Additional District Judge held that the question of whether the land was Wakf property fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal under Section…
RATILAL JHAVERBHAI PARMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
2024 INSC 80121 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a civil application under Article 227 before the Gujarat High Court, which was orally dismissed on 1 March 2023 without the judge indicating that reasons would follow. More than a year later, a detailed reasoned order dated 1 March 2023 was uploaded, having actually been prepared on 12 April 2024 a…
VAISHNO DEVI CONSTRUCTION REP. THR. SOLE PROPRIETOR (D) THR. LRS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2021 INSC 65521 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, Vaishno Devi Construction and others, claimed to be assignees of a decree holder (the late S.N. Kanungo) and sought execution of arbitration awards turned into decrees under Order XXI Rule 16 of the CPC. The dispute turned on whether the Explanation added to Order XXI Rule 16 by the 1976 Amendment Act, …
SURESH LATARUJI RAMTEKEversusSAU. SUMANBAI PANDURANG PETKAR & ORS.
2023 INSC 84621 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant Suresh Ramteke sought specific performance of a sale deed against the respondents Sumanbai Petkar, alleging that the respondents failed to execute the deed despite his readiness and payment of consideration. The trial court and the first appellate court upheld the appellant's claim, finding that the respo…
RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERSversusHEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS
2021 INSC 51421 September 2021Dismissed
The plaintiffs, heirs of some original partners of the partnership firm ‘Soorajmull Nagarmull’, filed a suit seeking declaration of entitlement to the firm’s assets, representation before authorities, injunctions, and dissolution of the firm. The defendants, heirs of the remaining original partners, contended that the …
RAMA KT. BARMAN (DIED) THR. LRS.versusMD. MAHIM ALI & ORS.
2024 INSC 64421 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a title suit seeking declaration of ownership and possession of land, which the trial court decreed in their favour. The respondents appealed, and the High Court, in a second appeal, framed four additional substantial questions of law that were not raised before the trial or appellate courts, and d…
STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UP EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT BOARD & ORS.versusSAROJ MAURYA & ORS.
2024 INSC 67721 August 2024Disposed off
The State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board appealed a Division Bench order of the Allahabad High Court that upheld a Single Judge's decision without providing any reasons. The Division Bench merely stated its agreement with the Single Judge and failed to consider several Government Orders and submis…
SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.
2020 INSC 50221 August 2020Dismissed
The owners of certain land executed an agreement to sell to a housing society and also a General Power of Attorney (GPA) authorising the society's officers to sell the property. Sale deeds in favour of the appellants were later executed under the GPA. The respondents filed suits seeking cancellation of the agreement to…
PRABHAKAR GONES PRABHU NAVELKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.versusSARADCHANDRA SURIA PRABHU NAVELKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
2019 INSC 93321 August 2019Dismissed
The dispute concerned two ancestral lands in Goa, "M" and "B", originally owned by the grandfather of brothers Suriaji and Gones. A 1915 sale deed conveyed portions of the lands to Suriaji, with an accompanying 1919 settlement deed stating that Suriaji had paid half the price on behalf of Gones and would transfer Gones…
M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
2018 INSC 73121 August 2018Disposed off
The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated 20 July 1984 under the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was made a rule of the court and later reduced in interest rate. The appellant sought execution of the award, and the State (respondent) deposited Rs 75,65,945, after which the executing court ordered the State to deposit…
M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
2018 INSC 73121 August 2018
An arbitral award dated 20 July 1984, made a rule of the court in 1986, was being executed when the State of Uttar Pradesh deposited Rs 75,65,945 and was later directed by the executing court to deposit an additional Rs 1,25,16,969.56, which the State objected to. The State filed a civil revision, and the High Court, i…
SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANIversusM/S. AURORA PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS AND ANR.
2018 INSC 73321 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a developer, was ordered by the Bombay High Court to hand over eight flats and sixteen parking spaces to the plaintiff under a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and another respondent, even though the appellant had no direct contract with the plaintiff. The appellant challenged the High Court's …
SEJAL GLASS LTD.versusNAVILAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.
2017 INSC 78321 August 2017Disposed off
Sejal Glass Ltd. filed a civil suit seeking a money decree and recovery of TDS from Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and its directors. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, claiming the plaint disclosed no cause of action against the directors and seeking bifurcation of the suit. The trial…
CITIBANK N.A.versusHITEN P. DALAL & ORS.
2015 INSC 59421 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from a money decree that was later set aside, where Citibank N.A. had received 9% IRFC bonds worth Rs.50 crore from Canbank Financial Services Ltd. (Canfina) and subsequently sold them in the market. The issue was how to calculate the restitution amount under Section 144 of …
VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERSversusTOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
2012 INSC 34421 August 2012Dismissed
The Delhi High Court entertained a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 13‑9‑1988 and restrained the vendor from alienating the property. The vendor later sold the suit property to six companies (the appellants) who, in turn, sold it to Bhagwati Developers, all in violation of the injunction. The appella…
GHANSHYAM DASS GUPTAversusMAKHAN LAL
2012 INSC 34321 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court but, due to a clerical error, the vakalatnama of his new counsel was not filed and no lawyer appeared for either party at the final hearing. Despite the absence of representation, the High Court examined the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal. The appellant…
METPALLI LASUM BAI (SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERSversusMETAPALLI MUTHAIH (D) BY LRS.
2025 INSC 87921 July 2025
The dispute concerned the ownership of a 4‑acre 16‑gunta plot in Dasnapur village, claimed by the second wife of the deceased Metpalli Rajanna (Lasum Bai) under a registered Will dated 24 July 1974 and an oral family settlement. The trial court held that the Will was genuine, that it allocated a specific share to Lasum…
R. KRSNA MURTIIversusR. R. JAGADESAN
2022 INSC 74121 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, who held a power of attorney for his mother, was prosecuting a suit filed by her for declaration and injunction. After the mother’s death, the appellant applied to be substituted as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, asserting his right as a son and citing a registered will in his favour…
JASWANT SINGH & ORSversusPARK.ASH KAUR & ANR
2017 INSC 65621 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff obtained an ex‑parte decree for specific performance of a 1995 agreement. The defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, but it was dismissed in default and the defendant died shortly thereafter. The legal heirs filed a restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 …
M/S. MSK PROJECTS (I) (JV) LTDversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
2011 INSC 51021 July 2011Disposed off
The Supreme Court considered a dispute arising from a BOT concession agreement for the Bharatpur bypass road, where the contractor claimed entitlement to tolls and compensation for delay in the State's issuance of a traffic‑restriction notification and for the Bharatpur‑Deeg patch of road. The arbitral tribunal had awa…
SYED MOHIDEEN & ANR.versusRAMANATHAPURA PERIA MOGALLAM JAMATH & ORS.
2010 INSC 41321 July 2010Dismissed
The appeal concerned a decision of the Madras High Court that remanded a matter before the Wakf Tribunal because the Tribunal had failed to consider certain points. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether, under Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act 1995, the Wakf Tribunal is deemed a civil court and can exercise the sa…
PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS.versusLAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
2026 INSC 52121 May 2026Dismissed
The testator B. Sheena Nairi executed a Will on 15 May 1983 bequeathing all his immovable properties to his sister Laxmi Nairthy, cancelling an earlier Power of Attorney in favour of his brother‑in‑law. After his death, his wife applied for mutation of the properties in her name, but the sister filed a suit seeking dec…
ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED (NOW M/S ESL STEEL LIMITED)versusISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED
2025 INSC 52521 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed
Electrosteel Steel Ltd. (now ESL Steel Ltd.) filed a petition under Article 227 challenging an order that directed it to comply with an arbitral award dated 06.07.2018 passed by the West Bengal MSME Facilitation Council in favour of Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd. The award was rendered after the corporate debtor’s insolvency …
MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANR.versusGURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS)
2025 INSC 51421 April 2025Dismissed
The appellants, sons of Tirakappa Gurusiddappa Malagi, challenged a compromise decree dated 18 January 2000 that partitioned seven acres of land among their father, uncles, and grandfather, alleging that their father was coerced into the settlement and that the land was not ancestral joint family property. The trial co…
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITEDversusPURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
2025 INSC 52321 April 2025Dismissed
Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and Puri Construction Ltd (PCL) entered into a Development Agreement for land development, later supplemented by a Supplementary Agreement and a Tripartite Agreement involving a bank. Disputes arose over alleged economic duress, non‑fulfilment of conditions precedent, and L&T's abandonment of the …
MONOJ LAL SEAL AND OTHERSversusOCTAVIOUS TEAAND INDUSTRIES LTD.
2015 INSC 34221 April 2015Dismissed
The landlords filed an eviction suit against Octavious Tea & Industries Ltd for non-payment of rent. The tenant filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The trial court allowed the Section 7(1) application but directed the tenant to deposit arrears with the Civil Ju…
HARBANS PERSHAD JAISWAL (D) BY LRS.versusURMILA DEVI JAISWAL (D) BY LRS.
2014 INSC 29521 April 2014Dismissed
DR. SHEHLA BURNEY AND. OTHERSversusSYED ALI MOSSA RAZA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2011 INSC 32721 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of a 3‑acre land alleging title derived from their parents. Defendant No.1 (Razia Begum) transferred the land to Lateef Hassan Burney (defendant No.2) who was later impleaded. The amended plaint sought possession only against defendant No.1 and made no prayer against defendant…
SHANTI BUDHIYA VESTA PATEL AND ORS.versusNIRMALA JAYPRAKASH TIWARI AND ORS.
2010 INSC 22921 April 2010Dismissed
The case arose from a dispute over a suit property originally held by Budhiya Vesta Patel, who transferred his rights to respondent No.9 via a Development Agreement and an irrevocable Power of Attorney (POA). After Patel's death, his heirs (the appellants) executed further irrevocable POAs in favour of the same respond…
BINA BASAK & ORS.versusSRI BIPUL KANTI BASAK & ORS.
2024 INSC 27921 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned a plot of land allotted by the West Bengal Relief and Rehabilitation Department to a refugee family that migrated from East Pakistan in 1950. The lease deed was initially executed in the name of Smt. Hem Prova Basak, but the government later ordered inclusion of the two younger brothers' names and ev…
MADIRAJU VENKATA RAMANA RAJUversusPEDDIREDDIGARI RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS.
2018 INSC 24921 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant challenged the election of respondent No.1 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on the ground that the Returning Officer had improperly accepted the respondent's nomination form, which contained blank columns and lacked signatures on each page, violating the Representation of People Act, 1951. The r…
T. RAVI & ANR.versusB. CHINNA NARASIMHA & ORS. ETC.
2017 INSC 24221 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned a long‑standing partition suit over the matruka property of the late Nawab Jung, in which Defendant No.1 (Hamid Ali Khan) sold his share of 68 acres 10 guntas to Bala Mallaiah on 23‑Nov‑1959. The sale was challenged on the grounds that it was made during the pendency of the partition suit, that the v…
M/S. BRAKEWEL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusP. R. SELVAM ALAGAPPAN
2017 INSC 24821 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed
M/S. Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. obtained a decree for recovery of a sum of money from P.R. Selvam Alagappan. The respondent filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the executability of the decree on grounds of alleged mis‑joinder of parties, fraud an…
MARIA MARGARIDA SEQUERIA FERNANDES AND OTHERSversusERASMO JACK DE SEQUERIA(DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.
2012 INSC 14021 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a sister, owned a house in Goa purchased at auction, while her brother was allowed to occupy it as a caretaker. After the appellant returned to Goa in 1992, the brother filed a suit for a mandatory injunction to prevent her from taking possession, claiming a family arrangement. The trial court and High C…
SANWARLAL AGRAWAL & ORS.versusASHOK KUMAR KOTHARI & ORS.
2023 INSC 14921 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants and respondents entered into a 2017 joint venture for a hospital, each contributing a Rs 10 crore interest‑free loan. In 2019 the respondents bid for the appellants' 50% shareholding, agreeing via email on a consideration of Rs 36.75 crore, which the parties argued did not include the loan amount. The re…
AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS.versusMAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS
2022 INSC 21021 February 2022Dismissed
The case arose from a partition suit (O.S. No. 388/77) where the trial court decreed shares only to plaintiffs 2 and 3, rejecting plaintiffs 4‑8. The appellant‑defendant appealed and the First Appellate Court set aside the trial decree, but the High Court restored it and, on remand, divided the property among the appel…
AKHILESH SINGH @ AKHILESHWAR SINGHversusLAL BABU SINGH & ORS.
2018 INSC 18421 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed
M/S. ADVANTA INDIA LTD.versusB. N. SHIVANNA
2018 INSC 18321 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed
Advanta India Ltd filed a complaint against advocate B.N. Shivanna alleging cheating, fraud and fabrication of documents, leading the Karnataka State Bar Council’s Disciplinary Committee to debar him for life. The Bar Council of India (BCI) on appeal reduced the punishment to 18 months, but Shivanna’s review petition u…
SATISH KUMAR GUPTA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.
2017 INSC 16621 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Haryana acquired large tracts of land for an industrial model township, vesting the land in the State after the Collector’s award. The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) later allotted part of this land to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (MSIL) under a deed that required the allottee to pay a…
JAYANTILAL CHIMANLAL PATELversusVADILAL PURUSHOTTAMDAS PATEL
2017 INSC 16021 February 2017Disposed off
The appellant-landlord filed a suit in 1992 seeking a permanent injunction against the tenant for constructing a permanent structure without consent, invoking Section 13(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial court partially decreed the suit, but the High Court later dismisse…
JAYAKANTHAM & OTHERSversusABAYKUMAR
2017 INSC 16121 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants entered into an agreement to sell a residential property to the respondent for Rs 1.60 lakh, receiving Rs 60,000 as advance, with the balance to be paid on execution of the sale deed. The deed was not executed within the stipulated period and the respondent sued for specific performance. The trial court …
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON LONDON BRANCHversusZENITH INFOTECH LIMITED
2017 INSC 16521 February 2017Disposed off
Zenith Infotech Ltd filed a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The Registrar of the Board refused to register the reference on the ground that the company was not an "industrial company" within the meaning of …
THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD.versusNANAK BUILDERS & INVESTORS P. LTD. & ORS.
2013 INSC 11821 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed
Nanak Builders sued the Sawhneys for specific performance of a 1986 sale agreement. While the suit was pending, the Sawhneys transferred the suit property to Thomson Press (India) Ltd. despite a court injunction and public notice of the dispute. Thomson Press applied under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a defen…