VIPIN KUMARversusJAYDEEP & OTHERS
2025 INSC 16921 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, a resident of Village Fakarhedi, challenged the appointment of Defendant No.3 as a Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG distributor, alleging that the appointment was based on a fraudulent domicile certificate. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit ex parte, and the first appellate court affirmed that dismiss…
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusM/S OM PRAKASH BRICK KILN OWNER, ETC.
2025 INSC 8821 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Punjab sought to levy royalty on brick earth excavated by private brick‑kiln operators, who argued that the land and the mineral were privately owned and that the State had no authority to impose such a charge. The lower courts held that, under Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the quarry lands ve…
SUNIL KUMAR MAITYversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
2022 INSC 8421 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed
Sunil Kumar Maity deposited a cheque that was mistakenly credited to another customer with a similar name at State Bank of India. He filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, which was allowed; the bank appealed to the State Consumer Commission, which partially upheld the order. The bank then sought revision before …
STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusMSTC LIMITED
2020 INSC 7221 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed
Standard Chartered Bank filed a Section 19 application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to recover a debt of about Rs 191 crore from MSTC Limited. After the DRT allowed an intervening application, the respondent appealed, withdrew the appeal, and then filed a review petition under Rule 5A, which was dismissed fo…
MURTI BHAWANI MATA MANDIR REP. THROUGH PUJARI GANESHI LAL (D) THROUGH LR. KAILASHversusRAMESH & ORS.
2019 INSC 6121 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed
A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the representative of Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir claiming possession of disputed agricultural land, but the trial court dismissed the suit for lack of proof of possession. Subsequent appeals were also dismissed. The defendant then filed an application under Section 144 of the…
KULDEEP KUMAR DUBEY & ORS.versusRAMESH CHANDRA GOYAL (D) TH LRS.
2015 INSC 6021 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The father of the appellants, Raj Kumar, owned a shop that was let to the respondent. After Raj Kumar’s death, his brother Shiv Kumar filed an eviction suit, and upon Shiv’s death his sons Kuldeep Kumar and Pradeep Kumar were substituted as plaintiffs as heirs. The trial court decreed eviction in favour of the plaintif…
DEEPAK AGGARWALversusKESHAV KAUSHIK AND OTHERS
2013 INSC 4421 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed
Five candidates who were serving as Assistant District Attorneys, Public Prosecutors or Deputy Advocate General were selected for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Haryana through direct recruitment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed their appointments, holding that they did not satisfy the …
P. KISHORE KUMARversusVITTAL K. PATKAR
2023 INSC 100920 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute concerned 15 acres of land in Sy. No. 3, where the plaintiff claimed title based on a sale deed from the vendor, while the defendant relied on occupancy rights granted to his predecessor under the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. The vendor had applied for occupancy under section …
SRI SHIVAJI BALARAM HAIBAITLversusSRI AVINASH MARUTHI PAWAR
2017 INSC 112620 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant purchased a shop and sued the respondent for possession, alleging the respondent occupied the shop without any right. The respondent denied the appellant's title and pleaded adverse possession, claiming long possession. The trial court and first appellate court held in favour of the appellant, finding the…
R. RAJANNAversusS.R. VENKATASWAMY & ORS.
2014 INSC 79620 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff obtained a decree declaring a 1982 gift deed void. The respondents appealed and the High Court set aside that decree on the basis of a compromise recorded under Order XXI Rule 3 of the CPC. The plaintiff contended that the compromise was forged and void, and filed a suit (OS No.5236 of 2005) seeking to se…
YASHPAL JAINversusSUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
2023 INSC 94820 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The suit was filed in 1982 by Urmila Devi to declare a sale deed void and claim possession of land. After her death in 2007, multiple applications were filed to substitute a legal representative, with Manoj Kumar Jain initially approved, later withdrawn, and Yashpal Jain seeking substitution. The trial court allowed Ya…
MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKFversusM/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS.
2023 INSC 94920 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf, owned a property that was leased to the respondent hotel for 33 years, which expired in 1999. After the lease ended, the appellant sued the respondents before the Wakf Tribunal for ejectment and possession, obtaining a decree in 2002. During execution of the decree, the responden…
RAJESH MITRA @ RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR.versusKARNANI PROPERTIES LTD.
2024 INSC 71920 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, children of a tenant who died in 1970, claimed that they inherited tenancy rights under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which were later purportedly extinguished by the 1997 Act. The landlord sought eviction, relying on a deposition in an unrelated case as an admission that the tenancy was i…
APPAIYAversusANDIMUTHU @ THANGAPANDI & ORS.
2023 INSC 83520 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant purchased a two‑acre property in 1963 from Puliyankaladi, who had earlier acquired it through a registered sale deed (Exhibit A1) dated 27‑08‑1928. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the certified copy of Exhibit A1, a public document, was admissible as secondary evidence to prove the…
ISHWARLAL MALI RATHODversusGOPAL AND ORS.
2021 INSC 50220 September 2021Dismissed
The respondents filed an eviction suit in 2013 against the petitioner. Between 2015 and 2019 the petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments, ten in total, and was given a final opportunity with a cost order to cross‑examine the plaintiff’s witness, which the petitioner failed to do. The trial court consequently closed t…
MUNI REDDY & ANR.versusC. NAGARAJU & ORS.
2018 INSC 84220 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed which was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by two appellate courts. The parties later compromised, and the High Court disposed of the second appeal on that compromise. Defendant No.2 challenged the validity of the compromise, but the High Court dismis…
SUDARSAN PUHANversusJAYANTA KU. MOHANTY & ANR. ETC.
2018 INSC 85020 September 2018Case Partly allowed
The claimant, Sudarsan Puhan, suffered paraplegia after a motorcycle accident and obtained a compensation award of Rs.24,62,065 from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both the claimant and the insurer appealed to the Orissa High Court; the insurer's appeal was partially allowed, red…
SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITEDversusTUFF DRILLING PRIVATE LIMITED
2017 INSC 96720 September 2017Dismissed
The dispute arose when an arbitrator, appointed with the parties' consent, terminated the arbitration under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because the claimant failed to file a statement of claim within the time prescribed under Section 23(1). The claimant later filed an application seeking…
M/S PAYAL VISION LTD.versusRADHIKA CHOUDHARY
2012 INSC 41320 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed
M/S Payal Vision Ltd., the landlord, filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against Radhika Choudhary, the tenant, alleging a lease of Rs.50,000 per month and a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy due to unauthorized structural changes. The tenant contested the nature…
VIKRAM BAKSHI AND OTHERSversusR.P. KHOSLA AND ANOTHER
2025 INSC 102020 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute arose between the Khosla and Bakshi groups over a resort development project, leading to allegations of perjury and a criminal proceeding under Section 340 of the CrPC. The High Court initially dismissed the criminal application but later recalled its own order after a review petition was filed under Order …
INDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD.versusDHARAM SINGH & ANR.
2014 INSC 54720 August 2014Dismissed
India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd., the management of a manufacturing unit, challenged the competence of 113 workmen to be represented before the Industrial Tribunal by five elected workmen. The dispute centered on whether Section 6‑1 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Industr…
H. DOHIL CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD.versusNAHAR EXPORTS LTD. & ANR.
2014 INSC 99420 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined the High Court's order that condoned a 9‑day delay in filing regular first appeals and a 1727‑day delay in refiling those appeals filed by Nahar Exports Ltd. and others. The Court held that the respondents failed to provide a bona‑fide explanation for the inordinate delay, showing gross negli…
SAYYED AYAZ ALIversusPRAKASH G GOYAL & ORS.
2021 INSC 34220 July 2021Disposed off
The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and declaration concerning a property, but the trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, deeming it barred by law, and then directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint and pay court fees within 15 days. The plaintiff challenged this direction by filing…
MRS. KANIKA GOELversusSTATE OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. AND ANR.
2018 INSC 62220 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved a US‑born minor girl, M, whose mother (the appellant) fled the United States with her to India and filed for divorce. The father (respondent No.2) obtained a US custody order and sought a writ of habeas corpus in Delhi to have the child returned to the US. The Delhi High Court ordered her return, but …
STATE OF ASSAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2018 INSC 62720 July 2018Disposed off
The State of Assam, in a boundary dispute with the State of Nagaland, sought the production of additional topographical maps from a Survey of India witness during the trial. An earlier order of the Court had already permitted the production of certain maps, but Assam required more documents that were not in its possess…
BHAU RAMversusJANAK SINGH & ORS.
2012 INSC 29320 July 2012Dismissed
The dispute involved a suit for possession of land in Himachal Pradesh that had passed through several owners and litigants. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by provisions of Order IX and Ord…
GMR WARORA ENERGY LIMITEDversusCENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (CERC) & ORS.
2023 INSC 39820 April 2023Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals arising from Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) between GMR Warora Energy Ltd. (the generator) and various distribution companies, challenging the classification of several post‑cut‑off charges as ‘Change in Law’ events and the computation of carrying cost interest. The Court…
CANARA BANKversusN. G. SUBBARAYA SETTY & ANR.
2018 INSC 38520 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed
Canara Bank granted a loan to N.G. Subbaraya Setty, who signed an unregistered assignment deed transferring the trademark "Eenadu" to the bank as security. The bank later cancelled the deed, invoking the Banking Regulation Act, and both parties litigated in 2004 – the bank seeking to declare the deed void and the respo…
USAMMAANTONY AND ANOTHERversusKARTHIYAYANI AND ANOTHER
2015 INSC 97920 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing and demolishing the boundary fence of their property. The trial court decreed the injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and the first appellate court affirmed that decree. The High Court entertained a second appeal under…
SHIVDEV KAUR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusR.S. GREWAL
2013 INSC 17720 March 2013Dismissed
Dr. Hira Singh's 1944 will granted his daughter Shivdev Kaur a life interest in a property. After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, Shivdev Kaur claimed that the life interest had crystallised into an absolute title under Section 14 of the Act. The lower courts held that the life interest remained restric…
LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusSLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
2019 INSC 24120 February 2019Dismissed
LMJ International Ltd. and Sleepwell Industries Ltd. entered into two separate contracts for the sale of Thai rice, governed by GAFTA 48 with disputes to be arbitrated under GAFTA 125 in London. Two foreign arbitral awards were rendered in favour of the respondent, who then filed execution petitions under Section 48 of…
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OFversusNANDINI J. SHAH & ORS
2018 INSC 17820 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) sought eviction of several respondents from a licensed premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Estate Officer ordered eviction; the respondents appealed to the Appellate Officer, identified as the District Judge/Principal Judge…
PRABHAKARA ADIGAversusGOWRI & ORS.
2017 INSC 15920 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff obtained a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his immovable property. The judgment‑debtor died shortly thereafter, and his heirs attempted to dispossess the plaintiff, prompting the plaintiff to file an execution petition. The issue before the Supreme Court was…
SK. BHIKAN S/O SK NOOR MOHD.versusMEHAMOODABEE W/O SK. AFZAL & ORS.
2017 INSC 15720 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute involved a brother (appellant) and his sister (plaintiff) over ownership of a family property in Aurangabad. The sister claimed inheritance under Mohammedan law, while the brother asserted that the property was self‑acquired through a registered sale deed and adverse possession. The trial court dismissed th…
M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusT. THANKAM
2015 INSC 14120 February 2015Disposed off
Sundaram Finance Ltd. filed a suit for injunction to restrain the repossession of a vehicle financed to T. Thankam. The loan agreement contained an arbitration clause (clause 22) and a repossession clause (clause 14.6). The respondent filed the injunction suit in a civil court; the appellant moved an application under …
M/S. BHANDARI UDYOG LIMITEDversusINDUSTRIAL FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANR.
2015 INSC 14020 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed
M/s. Bhandari Udyog Ltd., a cotton ginning business in Raichur, Karnataka, sold 750 bales of cotton to Respondent No.2, a spinning mill in Latur, Maharashtra. A dispute over the unpaid balance was referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and an award was made directing payment. Responde…
MATA PRASAD MATHUR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusJWALA PRASAD MATHUR & ORS.
2013 INSC 11320 February 2013Dismissed
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, partition and injunction against several defendants, one of whom, Virendra Kumar, died without contesting the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit as abated for failure to substitute the deceased's legal representatives. On appeal, the first appellate court and the High …
STATE OF ASSAMversusRIPA SARMA
2013 INSC 11420 February 2013Dismissed
The State of Assam filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging only the Gauhati High Court's order dismissing its review petition, without challenging the original judgment of the Writ Appeal dated 20 November 2007. The Court examined whether an SLP can be entertained when the…
ARUNACHALA GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LRS.versusPONNUSAMY AND ORS.
2022 INSC 7420 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appeal concerned a partition suit filed by the daughter of Ramasamy Gounder, who claimed a one‑fifth share in property that was originally purchased by his brother Marappa Gounder in 1938. The lower courts held that Marappa died in 1949, that the property was joint family property and thus devolved by survivorship …
DESH RAJversusBALKISHAN (D) THROUGH PROPOSED LR MS. ROHINI
2020 INSC 5920 January 2020Disposed off
The appellant and respondent, brothers, entered into an agreement to sell one floor of their ancestral property, which the respondent later sought to enforce through a suit for specific performance. The appellant repeatedly failed to file a written statement within the timelines prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the C…
LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS.versusRANGANATH & ORS.
2015 INSC 5420 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs owned a parcel of land (A schedule) that had been earmarked for a road but no road was ever constructed. They sold portions of the land to the first defendant, who later transferred it to the second and third defendants, who subsequently encroached on a portion of the A schedule land (B schedule). The tr…
M/S H.D.F.C.versusGAUTAM KUMAR NAG & ORS.
2012 INSC 4820 January 2012
The appellant, HDFC, granted a loan to the borrower (defendant No.1) who executed a loan agreement, a promissory note and created an equitable mortgage. Two other defendants stood as guarantors and signed letters of guarantee. After the borrower defaulted, HDFC sued both the borrower and the guarantors, but the borrowe…
HORILversusKESHAV & ANR.
2012 INSC 4620 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed
Horil filed a civil suit in the Munsif Court seeking a declaration that a decree passed by the Assistant Collector, a revenue officer, under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was fraudulent because it was based on a forged compromise petition. The respondents contended that the suit was barred by…
SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS.versusSHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER
2024 INSC 102519 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and its trustees challenging the High Court’s affirmation of a trial court order that rejected their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC to dismiss a plaint filed by Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj seeking declaration of own…
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD.versusAWAZ & ORS.
2024 INSC 104419 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined a consumer complaint filed by two trusts on behalf of credit‑card users alleging that banks were charging exorbitant interest rates of 36%‑49% p.a., which the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had deemed an unfair trade practice and capped at 30% p.a. The Court held that…
MALLAVVA AND ANRversusKALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.
2024 INSC 102119 December 2024
The deceased plaintiff originally filed a suit in 2011 for declaration of title and injunction over certain immovable properties, which the trial court dismissed despite finding her to be the absolute owner because she was not in possession. After her death, her legal heirs appealed and successfully amended the plaint …
ABDUL REJAK LASKARversusMAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.
2024 INSC 102319 December 2024
The appellant, Abdul Rejak Laskar, purchased a share of land in 1977 but later faced forcible dispossession by the respondents. After a series of title suits and appeals, the appellant sought an imperfect partition of the land under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which was denied by the Additional Deputy …
DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusPRITHVI RAJ SINGH
2024 INSC 103019 December 2024
The appellant, Dwarika Prasad, was unaware of an ex‑parte decree passed against him in 1994 because his former counsel failed to inform him. Upon learning of the decree, he filed a restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on 31‑Oct‑1994, explaining his ignorance and alleging fraud by his previous lawye…
AMUTHAversusA.R. SUBRAMANIAN
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 75519 December 2024Dismissed
Amutha and A.R. Subramanian were married in 2002 but lived apart for more than fifteen years following a series of disputes, including the wife filing a false dowry harassment complaint against the husband. The husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which were initially rejected by the trial and…
SANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 86619 December 2024Dismissed
The appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance which was referred to mediation under Section 89 of the CPC and settled amicably; he sought a full refund of the court fees paid, but the trial court allowed only a 50% refund. He challenged this in a writ petition, arguing that Section 16 of the Court Fees Act,…
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusAMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.
2024 INSC 87519 November 2024Dismissed
The plaintiffs, heirs of Amin Lal, sued the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department for possession of land on the basis of revenue records, sale deeds and mutation entries. The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the State had not proved adverse possession. The State appealed and the fi…
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.
2024 INSC 89019 November 2024Dismissed
The State of Punjab appealed a High Court order that directed the original sale certificate of auction‑purchased property to be handed over to the purchaser and that the stamp duty deposited by the purchaser be refunded. The dispute arose from the liquidation of M/s Punjab United Forge Ltd., where M/s Ferrous Alloy For…
G H ASHOK KUMAR KALRAversusWING CDR. SURENDRA AGNIHOTRI & ORS.
2019 INSC 126619 November 2019Reference answered
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and the defendant filed a written statement followed by a counter‑claim. The trial court allowed the counter‑claim, but the High Court quashed it, prompting a reference to the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. The Court held that Ru…
D.R. SOMAYAJULU, SECRETARY D.L.S. & OTHER S.E. RAILWAY HOUSE BLDG.CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. VISAKHAPATNAMversusATTILIAPPALA SWAMY & ORS.
2014 INSC 79019 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the Diesel Loco Shed Employees & S.E. Railway Employees House Building Co‑op Society Ltd. challenging a High Court review that set aside orders declaring surplus land vested in the State and the allotment of 6 acres to the society. The Court held that the heirs of the deceased de…
A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPAversusSANGONDEPPA & ANR.
2013 INSC 75919 November 2013Disposed off
The appellant, A.M. Sangappa, challenged a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in a regular first appeal (RFA No. 238 of 2004). The issue was whether the High Court had complied with the procedural requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which obliges a court hearing a regular first appe…
DALJIT KAUR AND ANR.versusMUKTAR STEELS PVT. LTD.
2013 INSC 76119 November 2013Dismissed
Daljit Kaur and Anr. filed a suit seeking declaration that certain agreements were industrial licences. During the suit the parties entered into a compromise, which the plaintiff later disputed. The trial court recorded the compromise and, after conducting an enquiry into its validity, passed a decree based on the comp…
REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHANversusBANI KANT DAS AND ORS.
2010 INSC 79619 November 2010Case Allowed
The petitioner, Remdeo Chauhan, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor of Assam after a recommendation from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Relatives of the victims challenged the commutation, arguing that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction a…
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANERversusGORDHAN DASS (D) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS
2023 INSC 93519 October 2023Matter referred to larger bench
The case concerns three bighas of land in Bikaner purchased by Gordhan Dass and co‑owners in 1970, which the Urban Improvement Trust later claimed to have acquired under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The Trust issued acquisition notices to the original khatedars recorded in the revenue records but not to t…
S. RAMACHANDRA RAOversusS. NAGABHUSHANA RAO & ORS.
2022 INSC 111419 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, S. Ramachandra Rao, sought to have his wife—who held a General Power of Attorney (GPA) for him and was also an enrolled advocate—appear in several civil suits as his GPA holder. The Trial Court allowed her to act in that capacity, but the High Court later set aside those orders and permitted her to appea…
VAN VIBHAG KARAMCHARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT (REGD.)versusRAMESH CHANDER AND ORS.
2010 INSC 70519 October 2010Dismissed
The appellant cooperative society entered into an oral agreement in 1974 and a written sale deed in 1976 to purchase land from the first respondent, who later claimed the agreement was cancelled in a public notice dated 3 February 1991. The appellant filed a suit on 11 February 1991 for declaration of ownership and inj…
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HOSHIARPURversusPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
2010 INSC 70919 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The Municipal Committee of Hoshiarpur obtained an electricity connection for a tubewell and was later served with a revised bill of Rs.82,300 without a show‑cause notice. The Committee challenged the bill in a civil suit, which was decreed in its favour by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. The …
SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATIONversusPOWER MECH PROJECTS LTD.
2022 INSC 98119 September 2022Dismissed
The appellant SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corp. obtained an arbitral award of Rs 142 crore in favour of the respondent Power Mech Projects Ltd. The appellant filed a Section 34 challenge and, on the same day, a Section 36(2) application for a stay of the award. The respondent subsequently filed a Section 9 applic…
ILLOTH VALAPPIL AMBUNHI (D) BY LRS.versusKUNHAMBU KARANAVAN
2019 INSC 105819 September 2019Dismissed
Raman Aithan Ashari executed a deed of gift in favour of the Chuzhali Bhagavathi Dharmadeva Bhandaram, an idol, stating that possession of the property was delivered. The deed was not expressly accepted, but the High Court held that the recital of possession created a presumption of acceptance, placing the burden on th…
M/S. SURENDRA TRADING COMPANYversusM/S. JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT JUTE MILLS COMPANY LIMITED AND. OTHERS
2017 INSC 95719 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The operational creditor, Mis. Surendra Trading Co., filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the corporate debtor, Mis. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd. The adjudicating authority identified procedural defects and gave the creditor seven days to cure them. The cred…
MAHESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR(S)versusBRIJESH KUMAR & ORS.
2025 INSC 100519 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a landlord, sued the tenants for possession and arrears of rent after they defaulted on a tenancy agreement dated 31 July 1970 for a parcel of land used to set up a petrol pump, a non‑agricultural purpose. The trial court dismissed the tenants' jurisdictional challenge and decreed in favour of the appell…
K. PRABHAKAR HEGDEversusBANK OF BARODA
2025 INSC 99719 August 2025Disposed off
K. Prabhakar Hegde, a former officer of Vijaya Bank (later merged with Bank of Baroda), was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings for alleged irregularities in approving temporary overdrafts. He challenged the denial of the preliminary inquiry report, the failure of the Inquiry Officer to generally question him as r…
NILIMA DAS GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS.versusON THE DEATH OF ABDUR ROUF HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.
2025 INSC 103719 August 2025Disposed off
In a title suit, the original defendant (Defendant No.1) failed to appear in court and her son (DW‑5) testified on her behalf. The High Court, relying on Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, held that the son was an incompetent witness and discarded his testimony, thereby allowing the second appeal and dismissing th…
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusM/S. TODAY HOMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ETC.
2019 INSC 91619 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined whether a civil suit challenging a property tax assessment under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is maintainable. The appellant, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, argued that Sections 169 and 171 of the Act provide a specific appeal route to the Municipal Taxation Tribunal and conf…
COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERSversusM/S. MOHANLAL AND COMPANY
2016 INSC 118719 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed
The parties entered into a construction contract containing an arbitration clause, and an award was rendered on 11 November 2010. The respondent later filed a Section 11 application in the High Court seeking appointment of an arbitrator, claiming the clause was invalid; the application was dismissed. Subsequently, on 2…
ANITA KUSHWAHAversusPUSHAP SUDAN
2016 INSC 118619 July 2016Directions issued
The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether it can transfer civil or criminal proceedings pending in any court of Jammu and Kashmir to a court outside the State and vice‑versa, despite the fact that Sections 25 of the CPC and 406 of the CrPC do not apply to Jammu and Kashmir and the State codes contain no such provis…
RAJAT KUMAR AND OTHERSversusS D ADARSH JAIN KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SADHAURA AND OTHERS
2026 INSC 64819 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed
The original plaintiff sued the school for illegal encroachment, seeking a mandatory injunction to remove a wall and a lintel that obstructed light, air and water flow. The trial courts granted the injunctions, and the first appellate court affirmed those decrees. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, however, set aside the…
ALLOKAM PEDDABBAYYA AND ANOTHERversusALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS
2017 INSC 48119 June 2017Dismissed
Allokam Peddabbayya and another bought a property in 1985 that was under an equitable mortgage created in 1979 by Defendants 3 and 4 in favour of Allahabad Bank. The bank foreclosed on the loan, obtained a decree in 1991 and the property was auctioned in 1993, with a sale certificate issued to the auction purchaser (De…
SMT. SHAIFALI GUPTAversusSMT. VIDYA DEVI GUPTA & ORS.
2025 INSC 73919 May 2025
The mother and younger son filed a suit for partition, possession, declaration, injunction and accounting of properties claimed to be Joint Hindu Family assets against the elder son, his wife and other family members. The elder son’s wife (defendant No.2) and subsequent purchasers (defendants No.5 and 6) sought to have…
SENTHIBALAJI VversusA.P. GEETHA AND ORS
2023 INSC 57119 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a duly elected MLA, challenged an election petition filed by the first respondent that alleged improper acceptance of his nomination papers and corrupt practices. The petition relied on representations to the Returning Officer and alleged misuse of government vehicles and suppression of Election Commissi…
CANARA BANKversusG S JAYARAMA
2022 INSC 59719 May 2022Disposed off
The appeal concerned an award of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) that had granted Canara Bank repayment of a loan from G S Jayarama without any recorded conciliation. The High Court had set aside the award, holding that the PLA lacked adjudicatory power and had bypassed mandatory conciliation steps. The Supreme Court exam…
KAVITA KANWARversusMRS. PAMELA MEHTA & ORS.
2020 INSC 39719 May 2020Dismissed
The appellant, the younger daughter of Smt. Amarjeet Mamik, sought probate of a 2003 Will that left the entire immovable property to her, while excluding her brother and elder sister. The Trial Court and the Delhi High Court rejected the probate petition, finding numerous unexplained suspicious circumstances, including…
YOMESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR BHATTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
2011 INSC 40619 May 2011Case Partly allowed
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly setting a maid on fire by pouring kerosene on her, leading to her death. The prosecution's case relied on the victim's multiple dying declarations and circumstantial evidence, as there were no eye‑witnesses. The appellant contended that the Supreme Court, …
DOLLY RANIversusMANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL
2024 INSC 35519 April 2024Disposed off
The petitioners, both commercial pilots, claimed to have "solemnised" their marriage on 7 July 2021 and obtained a marriage certificate from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti, which was later used to register the marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. In reality, no Hindu rites or saptapadi were perfo…
NEMAI CHANDRA DEY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusPRASANTA CHANDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.
2022 INSC 43319 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, a pardahnashin lady, sued to declare two gift deeds as void, alleging she was misled into executing them under the impression of a power of attorney. The trial court, after reappreciating the evidence, declared the deeds void and decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The first appellate court dismissed the…
KALYAN DEY CHOWDHURYversusRITA DEY CHOWDHURY NEE NANDY
2017 INSC 37019 April 2017Case Partly allowed
The husband Kalyan Dey Chowdhury and his wife Rita Dey Chowdhury (née Nandy) were married in 1995 and later divorced. The wife sought permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was initially set at Rs.16,000 per month in 2015. The husband’s net salary rose from Rs.63,842 to Rs.95,000, prompting…
MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHYversusSYED JALAL
2017 INSC 36619 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy filed a suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed, alleging that the land was Wakf property. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, which the Wakf Tribunal allowed, finding the suit meritless and barred. The High Court set asid…
MESSER HOLDINGS LTD.versusSHYAM MADANMOHAN RUIA & OTHERS
2016 INSC 32619 April 2016Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined multiple Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) arising from a protracted dispute over the acquisition and transfer of shares in Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd. The dispute involved Messer Holdings GmbH (MGG), Goyal Gases Ltd (GGL), the Ruia family (RUIAS) and a joint venture company Messer Holdings L…
STATE OF A.P.versusHYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT. LTD & ANR.
2010 INSC 22319 April 2010Dismissed
The State of Andhra Pradesh filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 seeking a declaration that Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. and another were land grabbers of a 17,786.5‑sq‑metre parcel. The respondents asserted that they had purchased the land in 1946, posses…
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEERversusM/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.
2021 INSC 19419 March 2021Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when those appeals are governed by Articles 116, 117 of the Limitation Act or by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It overruled th…
NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusJAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS.
2020 INSC 31519 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, owners of land leased for 20 years to the respondent, sought possession after the lease was deemed terminated for non‑payment of rent and after part of the land was de‑notified following acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent claimed a share of compensation for the unexpired lease te…
SHYAM SAHNIversusARJUN PRAKASH AND OTHERS
2020 INSC 31919 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed
Shyam Sahni filed a civil suit seeking declaration, possession, injunction and partition of property inherited from his mother. Respondent No.1 (Arjun Prakash) and his father created an equitable mortgage on the property to secure a bank loan and repeatedly failed to honour undertakings to clear the charge, leading to …
SUSHIL K. CHAKRAVARTY (D) THR. LRS.versusM/S. TEJ PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
2013 INSC 17419 March 2013Dismissed
The case concerned two cross suits between Sushil K. Chakravarty (deceased) and M/s Tej Properties Pvt. Ltd. over an agreement to sell agricultural land. The sole defendant died during the pendency of the suit, and the Delhi High Court proceeded ex‑parte without impleading his legal heirs, invoking Order XXII Rule 4(4)…
MATHAI @ JOBYversusGEORGE & ANR.
2010 INSC 15819 March 2010Matter referred to larger bench
The petitioner, a defendant in a suit concerning the genuineness of a will, sought a second forensic opinion after being dissatisfied with the first report; the trial court rejected this request and the High Court dismissed his writ petition. He filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution…
SURESH CHAND AND ANR.versusSURESH CHANDER (D) THR LRS. AND ORS.
2020 INSC 21219 February 2020Disposed off
The appeal concerned a dispute over a courtyard shared by two brothers, Beni Prasad (BP) and Kirorilal, who were joint owners of the amenity. Kirorilal sold his share to Devicharan (DC), who also claimed a right of pre-emption under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966. The central issue was whether BP's pre-emption rig…
AGRA DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusANIL DAVID AND ORS.
2020 INSC 21019 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Agra Diocesan Trust Association, filed two suits for cancellation of a sale deed and permanent injunction. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had undervalued the suits and paid insufficient court fee under the Uttar Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1870. The trial court held the suits were undervalued and t…
SURAT SINGH (DEAD)versusSIRI BHAGWAN & ORS.
2018 INSC 17019 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC by Siri Bhagwan against a decree favoring Murti Devi's heirs. The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the appeal without hearing the contesting respondent (Surat Singh, appellant No.4) and framed the substantial question of law only in its fi…
MAYA DEVIversusLALTA PRASAD
2014 INSC 11619 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Maya Devi, filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 58 to execution proceedings initiated by the decree holder, Lalta Prasad, who had obtained an ex‑parte money decree for Rs 3.40 lakh based on an alleged agreement for sale dated 3 Nov 2003 between him and the judgment debtor, Prem Chand Verma. Maya Devi …
G H BAJRANGA (DEAD) BY LRS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
2021 INSC 2619 January 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, BAJRANGA (deceased) represented by legal heirs, challenged the State of Madhya Pradesh's declaration of his agricultural land as surplus under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. He argued that a portion of the land had been decreed in favour of his mother‑in‑law, Jenobai, in a…
MANISH KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
2021 INSC 2819 January 2021Dismissed
The petitioners challenged Sections 3, 4, and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, which introduced threshold requirements for allottees and certain financial creditors to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), clarified that a corporate debtor can initiate CIRP against anot…
VENIGALLA KOTESWARAMMAversusMALEMPATI SURYAMBA & ORS.
2021 INSC 2719 January 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Venigalla Koteswaramma, filed a suit for partition of her step‑mother Annapurnamma's properties, alleging that her siblings were co‑sharers and that defendant 4 had fraudulently obtained thumb impressions to execute a sale agreement and a will. The trial court held that both the alleged will (Ex. B‑9) an…
MUSKAN ENTERPRISES & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
2024 INSC 104618 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.74,00,000, with the Sessions Court directing a 20% deposit of that amount. They challenged the deposit condition through a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which the High C…
RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA
2024 INSC 101418 December 2024Disposed off
The petitioner-wife Rinku Baheti filed a transfer petition seeking to move a pending divorce suit to the Pune Family Court and opposed the respondent-husband Sandesh Sharda's application under Article 142(1) for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The parties had a brief marriage o…
GEETA DUBEY & ORS.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 65218 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The claimants, wife and son of the deceased Chakradhar Dubey, filed a motor accident claim after he was injured and later died following a collision between his car and a truck (MP-19-HA-1197). The First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 50,41,289 against the truck driver and …
M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD.versusASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS. 786787 OF 2019 IN
2019 INSC 139718 December 2019Dismissed
M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. filed a money suit against Assam State Electricity Board for interest on delayed payments. The Supreme Court had earlier held the suit barred by limitation, rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of benefit under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 14, and also held that the 1993 …
ANIL S/O JAGANNATH RANA AND OTHERSversusRAJENDRA S/O RADHAKISHAN RANA AND OTHERS
2014 INSC 89318 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The parties were partners in a firm and a civil suit was filed concerning partnership property. The partnership deed contained an arbitration clause, but the civil court, after hearing the parties, held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and declined to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Ar…
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusM/S SEW CONSTRUCTION LIMITED & ORS.
2022 INSC 121718 November 2022Dismissed
The State of Madhya Pradesh awarded a contract to M/S Sew Construction for a masonry dam, but the original sand quarry became depleted, prompting the contractor to seek an alternate quarry. The contract’s clause 3.11(A) allowed escalation of rates only if the circumstance was beyond the contractor’s control and a writt…
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.versusDELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
2022 INSC 110518 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., distribution licensees in Delhi, challenged the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (DERC) tariff orders that altered the methodology for computing AT&C losses, depreciation, FR/SR salaries, fringe benefit tax, and interest on consumer security deposits during …
S. P. MISRA & ORS.versusMOHD. LAIQUDDIN KHAN & ANR.
2019 INSC 116318 October 2019Dismissed
The appellants, legal heirs of the late partner Jai Narayan Misra, sought execution of a 1993 decree against the respondents, heirs of the late partner Hashmatunnisa Begum, arising from a partnership for real‑estate development in Paigah Compound. The decree restrained the respondents from developing a disputed portion…
RAJENDER BANSAL & ORS.versusBHURU (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
2016 INSC 97218 October 2016Appeal(s) allowed
The landlords filed a civil suit for eviction of tenants occupying a shop in a rural area of Haryana, which at the time of filing was not covered by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. While the suit was pending, a municipal notification brought the area within the urban sweep, thereby subjectin…
B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR.versusD. SARALA & ANR.
2020 INSC 55618 September 2020Dismissed
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the vendor, upholding the lower courts' decree that the vendee was entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement for the remaining 200 square yards of land after the vendor had already conveyed 100 square yards to a third party. The court found that the vendee h…
M/S TECNIMONT PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
2019 INSC 105418 September 2019Disposed off
The Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 requires a 25% pre‑deposit of the additional demand before a first appeal can be entertained under Section 62(5). Assessors, including Punjab State Power Corporation, filed appeals and sought waiver of this requirement on grounds of financial hardship, challenging the provision as o…
DAGDU KHOMANE AND ANOTHERversusEKNATH BHIKU YADAV & ORS.
2019 INSC 105218 September 2019Dismissed
The dispute concerned six acres of land belonging to the Maruti Dev Temple, which had been let out to tenants who, on Tillers' Day (1 April 1957), became deemed purchasers under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The temple trust was registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public T…
BHUPINDER SINGHversusJOGINDER SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
2019 INSC 105318 September 2019Dismissed
The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a scheme for the management of a Gurudwara, alleging it to be a public place of worship. The appellant‑defendant contended that the Gurudwara was private property owned by his father, a Mohtmim, and argued that the suit was not maintain…
RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIAversusSHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA AND OTHERS
2015 INSC 67318 September 2015Case Partly allowed
The case arose from a partition suit filed in 1978 where defendants No.5 and No.12, in their 1979 written statements, admitted that they had no right, title or interest in the family property, having renounced any claim. After about 25 years they sought to amend their written statements to withdraw those admissions, an…
BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD.versusPRAMILA SANFUI AND ORS.
2015 INSC 67418 September 2015Disposed off
The West Bengal Housing Board (appellant) purchased a 20.184‑acre plot from the legal heirs of late Gangadas Pal, who were intermediaries under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The heirs had earlier been parties to a partition suit (Title Suit No. 121 of 1962) that was later amended to include the plot, a…
SHANTI DEVI & OTHERSversusKAUSHALIYA DEVI
2015 INSC 102318 September 2015Disposed off
Ram Narayan filed a suit in 1966 which ultimately led to Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1987. The appellant died in 1994 and, because no substitution was filed within the 90‑day period prescribed by Rule 3 of Order XXII CPC and Article 120 of the Limitation Act, the appeal abated and was dismissed in default in 1997. After el…
EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusHIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS
2023 INSC 74818 August 2023Disposed off
Experion Developers, the builder of the Windchants housing project, increased the sale area of apartments and demanded extra payment from the allottees. The allottees (respondents) filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund of the excess amount, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ordered t…
S. MADHUSUDHAN REDDYversusV. NARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS
2022 INSC 84618 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined two successive review petitions filed by the respondents seeking to overturn a High Court judgment that upheld the surrender of protected tenancy rights in 1967. The Court held that the respondents had ample opportunities to produce the certified revenue records earlier and failed to demonstr…
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.versusM/S. EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANR.
2011 INSC 59218 August 2011Disposed off
The buyer placed a purchase order for Syrian rock phosphate and obtained an irrevocable letter of credit (LC) from State Bank of India (issuing bank) in favour of the seller. The seller presented documents to the negotiating bank, which forwarded them to the issuing bank; the bank flagged discrepancies and refused paym…
D.V. PAULversusMANISHA LALWANI
2010 INSC 52818 August 2010Disposed off
The tenant, D.V. Paul, was ordered by the High Court to deposit Rs.10,000 in the trial court as compensation, failing which an eviction decree would follow. He mistakenly sent a demand draft directly to the landlord instead of depositing it in court, and later sought an extension of time to make the proper deposit. The…
SURESH CHANDRA (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusPARASRAM & ORS.
2025 INSC 87318 July 2025Dismissed
The plaintiff sued the defendants for title and possession of a house, alleging they were tenants; the trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court declared the plaintiff the owner and the defendants tenants. The defendants filed a second appeal, but one co-defendant (Ram Babu) died during its pendency…
N.C.V. AISHWARYAversusA.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA
2022 INSC 131018 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a 21‑year‑old wife residing in Chennai, sought the transfer of her husband’s petition for annulment of marriage filed in the Family Court at Vellore to the Family Court at Chennai under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She also had two other matrimonial petitions – restitution of conjugal right…
DR. MANJEET KAUR MONGA (DEAD) THR. HER LEGAL HEIRS KARAN VIR SINGH MONGAversusK. L. SUNEJA & ORS.
2017 INSC 63718 July 2017Disposed off
The appellant, representing the deceased Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga, challenged the cancellation of a flat allotment by the builder K.L. Suneja & Ors., alleging unfair trade practice before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT). The CAT awarded compensation under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Pract…
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
2011 INSC 49818 July 2011Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined a long‑running environmental dispute in which chemical industries in Bichhri, Rajasthan had been ordered in 1996 to pay Rs.37.385 crore for remediation of toxic sludge and to have their plants closed. Despite the judgment, the respondents repeatedly filed interlocutory applications to avoid p…
RANA NAHID @ RESHMA @ SANA & ANR.versusSAHIDUL HAQ CHISTI
2020 INSC 43218 June 2020Disposed off
A Muslim couple divorced; the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance, which the Family Court converted into an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and ordered maintenance. The High Court set aside the conversion, holding the Family Cou…
JENNIFER MESSIASversusLEONARD G LOBO
2026 INSC 50218 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Jennifer Messias, sought partition and separate possession of a flat jointly owned with the deceased husband. The trial court issued a decree on 13 April 2012 that declared the parties' shares, awarded possession and mesne profits to the appellant, and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to effect partiti…
ARTI DIXIT & ANRversusSUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA & ORS
2023 INSC 55618 May 2023Dismissed
The respondents obtained an ex‑parte decree for ejectment and recovery of rent from the appellants. The appellants filed, on the same day, an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and an application under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, seeking permission to deposit or furnish securit…
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR
2022 INSC 58618 May 2022Dismissed
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and the District Bar Association challenged the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, seeking to relocate the NGT bench from Bhopal to Jabalpur and to strike down provisions they claimed ousted High Court jurisdiction and provided an unconstitutional direct app…
K. SRINIVASAPPA & ORS.versusM. MALLAMMA & ORS.
2022 INSC 58718 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The parties to a partition suit entered into a compromise that was recorded by a Lok Adalat on 7 July 2012, which under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is deemed a decree of a civil court. Plaintiffs 4‑6 later alleged that their signatures were obtained by fraud and filed writ petitions seeking t…
M/S. HARYANA SURAJ MALTING LTD.versusPHOOL CHAND
2018 INSC 53718 May 2018Disposed off
The case concerned whether an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court loses its jurisdiction to set aside an ex‑parte award once the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant, Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd., sought to have an ex‑parte award against workman Phool Chand recal…
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSATISH JAIN (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.
2024 INSC 31518 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed
Satish Jain sued the State of Madhya Pradesh and a private defendant for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions over land owned by the State but allegedly possessed by the private defendant through adverse possession. The trial court had earlier passed an ex‑parte decree in favour of the plaintiff, which was …
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.versusMOHD. ABDUL QASIM (DIED) PER LRS.
2024 INSC 31018 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Mohd. Abdul Qasim, claimed title over 106.34 acres of land that had been declared a reserved forest under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. He filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, but the trial court and the High Court found that the land was forest land and that he had fail…
GADDIPATI DIVIJA & ANR.versusPATHURI SAMRAJYAM & ORS.
2023 INSC 38518 April 2023Dismissed
The father of the appellants executed a sale agreement to sell 0.90 acres of land to the plaintiff for Rs.11.88 lakh, receiving an advance of Rs.4 lakh and obligating himself to demarcate the land within three months before the balance could be paid. After his death, the appellants failed to demarcate the land, and the…
PUNJAB AND SIND BANKversusFRONTLINE CORPORATION LTD
2023 INSC 38618 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, had mortgaged a suit property to Frontline Corporation Ltd. after the latter defaulted on loans. The bank issued notices under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and took possession, while the borrower filed a civil suit for specific performance of a settlement agreement and obtained…
M/S SUNEJA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.versusANITA MERCHANT
2023 INSC 39118 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed
Anita Merchant booked three flats from Suneja Towers Private Limited, paid 60% of the price, but the builder failed to deliver possession even after the agreed period, leading her to file consumer complaints. The District Forum dismissed the complaints, but the State Consumer Commission reversed the decision, ordering …
RANJIT KUMAR KARMAKAR @ DULAL KARMAKARversusHARI SHANKAR DAS
2019 INSC 54218 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, which the trial court dismissed. The first appeal was allowed, overturning the trial court's decision. The defendant then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, and the High Court set aside the first appellate j…
SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNYversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
2018 INSC 36318 April 2018Disposed off
The Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, a society that had established Cluny Women’s College as a secular institution, later applied to the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) for a minority status certificate, which was granted in 2007. The society and the college’s governing body subsequentl…
VELAYUDHAN & ORS.versusMOHAMMEDKUTTY & ORS.
2017 INSC 35918 April 2017Case Partly allowed
The respondents filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and, by implication, a declaration of title over certain land. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the first appellate court dismissed the suit. On second appeal, the High Court held the suit was only for a perpetual injunction and therefore did…
AYAN CHATTERJEEversusFUTURE TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION INC. & ORS.
2017 INSC 35818 April 2017Disposed off
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking declaration of tenancy and a permanent injunction, and during the suit applied for a temporary injunction under Order 39 of the CPC. The trial court granted the injunction, directing a status‑quo and finding the plaintiff prima facie in possession. On appeal, the High Court modi…
DAGADABAI (DEAD) BY L.RS.versusABBAS @ GULAB RUSTUM PINJARI
2017 INSC 36018 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed
Dagadabai, the heir of the deceased Muslim landowner Rustum, filed a suit for possession of agricultural land against Abbas who claimed to be Rustum's adopted son and also pleaded adverse possession. The trial court and the first appellate court held that adoption is not recognized under Mohammedan law and that the def…
M/S UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD.versusRANI DEVI & ANR.
2017 INSC 36118 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed
Mis Unichem Laboratories Ltd., a company that provided housing to its industrial workers under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Housing Act, 1955, sought eviction of Rani Devi and others who continued to occupy a quarter after the original allottee, Dharam Dev Yadav, retired and later died. The company filed a civil suit f…
MASHYAK GRIHNIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADITversusUSMAN HABIB DHUKA & ORS.
2013 INSC 26618 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a co‑operative housing society, entered into a development agreement and later amalgamated two of its plots. The plaintiffs, members of the society, sued to restrain construction on the amalgamated plot but did not challenge a conveyance deed dated 8 February 1989 at the time of filing. They later sought…
S. MALLA REDDYversusM/S. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY & ORS.
2013 INSC 27218 April 2013Dismissed
The plaintiff, a co‑operative housing society, sued the defendants for a declaration of title and a perpetual injunction. The defendants filed a written statement admitting the plaintiff's claim and asked for a decree. Later they sought to strike out that written statement (Order VI Rule 16 CPC) and to file a detailed …
J.S. YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.
2011 INSC 31118 April 2011Case Partly allowed
J.S. Yadav, a District Judge, was appointed a Member of the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission for a five‑year term in 2006 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. After the 2006 amendment to the Act introduced a seven‑year experience requirement for District Judges, the State Government issued a notif…
JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.
2024 INSC 21318 March 2024Dismissed
Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. filed a miscellaneous application seeking a direction that the Rajasthan distribution companies pay a late payment surcharge of Rs.1376.35 crore, alleging that the Supreme Court's earlier judgment on the matter was incomplete. The application was filed after the main appeals (Civil Appeals No…
SHANTILAL GULABCHAND MUTHAversusTATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. & ANR.
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 43218 March 2013Disposed off
The appellant purchased five Tata diesel vehicles and paid the price through eight bills of exchange drawn on his banker. The respondent sued for the balance amount, but the appellant, believing the debt settled, failed to file a written statement. The trial court passed a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC wit…
SHANTILAL GULABCHAND MUTHAversusTATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. & ANR.
2013 INSC 17218 March 2013Disposed off
Shantilal purchased five Tata diesel vehicles and paid the price through a series of bills of exchange. Tata Engineering filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,66,000 plus interest, but Shantilal did not file a written statement, believing the amount had been paid. The trial court passed an ex parte decree under Order VIII …
MRS. RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTTAversusM/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
2011 INSC 22418 March 2011Case Partly allowed
The appellant, owner of a bus insured with the respondent insurer, claimed Rs.5,33,782 for damages after a 2003 accident, asserting that the driver held a valid licence. The insurer contested the claim, alleging the driver lacked a valid licence and that the claim amount was excessive. The District Forum and State Comm…
DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANRversusGOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.
2025 INSC 26218 February 2025Disposed off
The appellants purchased an e‑stamp paper for a property transaction which was subsequently lost, prompting them to seek a refund of the stamp duty of Rs 28,10,000. The Delhi High Court ordered a refund of the principal amount but declined interest, leading the appellants to file a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dism…
PRAGATI MAHILA MANDAL, NANDEDversusMUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NANDED AND ORS.
2011 INSC 14018 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed
Pragati Mahila Mandal, a charitable trust, was allotted a 60‑year lease of a plot by Nanded Municipal Council to start a school for girls. Unable to fund the school, it instead operated a hostel for girls and working women on a no‑profit basis. A public‑interest writ petition filed by Anil Tryambakarao Kokil challenged…
P.K. SINGHversusM/S. S.N. KANUNGO AND OTHERS
2010 INSC 11018 February 2010Disposed off
The case arose from an arbitration award directing the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to pay a contractor a sum with interest. The Executive Engineer (appellant) wrote letters to the contractor seeking to adjust the award by having the contractor accept only the principal amount and waive interest, invoking Order X…
B. L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTDversusM/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION & ANR.
2022 INSC 6018 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed
B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., a steel supplier, filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC against a real‑estate firm (defendant No.1) and its contractor JMS Steels & Power Corp. (defendant No.2) for non‑payment of Rs 89,50,244. The trial court denied both defendants leave to defend, holding that no triable issues …
MAMTAZ & ORS.versusGULSUMA ALIAS KULUSUMA
2022 INSC 5818 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a suit for declaration and possession, which the trial court decided ex parte. The respondent appealed to the First Appellate Court after a delay of 2 years and 7 months, filed but later withdrew an application for condonation of delay, and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation under…
BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITEDversusANIL KUMAR VIRMANI & ORS.
2021 INSC 91817 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The builder, Brigade Enterprises Ltd., appealed against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order permitting 91 purchasers of 51 apartments to file a consumer complaint under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on behalf of all 1,134 buyers in the residential project. The Supreme Cou…
NGAITLANG DHARversusPANNA PRAGATI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
2021 INSC 92317 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Meghalaya Infratech Ltd., where four resolution applicants submitted bids and Ngaitlang Dhar emerged as the highest bidder (H‑1). The losing bidder, Panna Pragati Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (PPIPL), sought additional t…
UNIVERSITY OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2019 INSC 138917 December 2019Dismissed
The University of Delhi challenged the conversion of land acquired for the Delhi Metro project into a residential housing scheme, filing a writ petition that was dismissed for delay and laches. The University later filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) 916 days after the writ petition’s disposal, seeking condonation of t…
SAKETA VAKSANA LLP & ANR.versusKAUKUTLA SARALA & ORS.
2019 INSC 139017 December 2019Dismissed
The developer and landowners entered into an unregistered agreement of sale for 54 acres of agricultural land, with a clause stating that physical possession of the entire land was handed over to the developer at execution. Disputes arose over whether the developer actually possessed the 17.31‑acre suit portion and whe…
INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT LIMITEDversusINDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION &ANR.
2014 INSC 87717 December 2014Dismissed
International Amusement Ltd (operator of "Appu Ghar") held a licence from the India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO) to occupy land in Pragati Maidan. Clause 28 of the licence agreement provided that any dispute would be referred to arbitration by the Chairman of ITPO or his nominee. After the licence expired, ITPO …
ACQUA BOREWELL PVT. LTD.versusSWAYAM PRABHA & OTHERS
2021 INSC 74217 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court heard appeals by third‑party defendants (Acqua Borewell Pvt Ltd and others) challenging a Karnataka High Court order that modified an interim injunction to restrain alienation of one‑seventh share in a large schedule of properties. The original suit sought declaration of a one‑seventh share in the pro…
M. HARIHARASUDHANversusR. KARMEGAM AND ORS.
2019 INSC 116217 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed
Mr. M. Hariharasudhan, who runs a hotel, sued the respondents for damages after they damaged his property and stole cash. The trial court decreed damages, but the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the decree, holding that the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 implicitly barred…
MAJ. GEN. KAPIL MEHRA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
2014 INSC 73417 October 2014Dismissed
The appellants, Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra and others, challenged the compensation awarded by the Delhi Development Authority for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had fixed the market value at Rs.14,974 per square yard by averaging four perpetual lease deeds, adding 20% for free‑hold conver…
PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
2014 INSC 73317 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants owned agricultural land that was transferred from Bihar to West Bengal under the Bihar and West Bengal (Transferred Territories) Act, 1956, and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was extended to the transferred territories. The Calcutta High Court, in a 1984 writ petition, quashed the vesting of the …
SALIM D. AGBOATWALA AND ORS.versusSHAMALJI ODDHAVJI THAKKAR AND ORS.
2021 INSC 48617 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed
A group of heirs filed a suit in 1987 to set aside a 1963 Agricultural Lands Tribunal order and a 1954 sale certificate concerning land that had been placed under the control of a court‑appointed receiver after the death of the original owner in 1946. The defendants moved to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d)…
SATYA PRAKASH DWIVEDIversusMUNNA ALIAS CHANDRABHAN YADAV AND OTHERS
2021 INSC 49117 September 2021Case Allowed
The appellant, Satya Prakash Dwivedi, suffered grievous injuries in a road accident and claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs.5,42,633 with a 50% permanent disability assessment. The insurance company appealed, and the High Court, exercising power under Order XLI Rule 33 of th…
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. PATIALA & ORS.versusATMA SINGH GREWAL
2013 INSC 62717 September 2013Dismissed
The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) appealed a High Court order that quashed a charge sheet served on a retired employee, Atma Singh Grewal, on the ground that the departmental proceeding was barred by the Punjab Civil Service Rules. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous and order…
RAMATHAL AND ORS.versusK. RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.
2023 INSC 73717 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, illiterate landowners, executed a limited Power of Attorney (PoA) with the defendant to develop their land, but the defendant surreptitiously added clauses allowing him to sell the property and executed sale deeds on the day of registration. The trial court dismissed the suit, accepting the PoA as genui…
M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.versusRAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED
2022 INSC 84117 August 2022Disposed off
The plaintiff, RAKHEJA ENGINEERS, filed a commercial suit for recovery of money without seeking urgent interim relief. The defendant, M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION, moved to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit violated Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre‑in…
SATYENDER AND ORS.versusSAROJ AND ORS
2022 INSC 83917 August 2022Disposed off
The plaintiffs (respondents) sued for declaration and possession of agricultural land, alleging the defendants were tenants who sub‑let the property. The defendants denied tenancy and filed a counter‑claim for two other plots. The trial court dismissed the suit but allowed the counter‑claim; the first appeal upheld thi…
NARAYAN DEORAO JAVLE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusKRISHNA & ORS.
2021 INSC 40717 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant purchased a mortgaged land in 1964 from the original mortgagors, who had earlier mortgaged the property to the defendant mortgagee. The mortgagee filed a suit for foreclosure in 1965 without impleading the appellant, obtained a decree, and later took possession of the land from the appellant. The appellan…
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
2011 INSC 58317 August 2011Disposed off
The State of Madhya Pradesh filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution challenging the Central Government's notifications issued under sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, which dissolved the M.P. Electricity Board and apportioned its assets. In 2009, the State soug…
M/S SONALI POWER EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.versusCHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI & ORS.
2025 INSC 86417 July 2025Case Partly allowed
The appellant, Sonali Power Equipments, supplied transformers to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board between 1993 and 2004 and faced delayed payments. It referred the dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, obtaining an award in 2010, which the respondents …
V. KALYANASWAMY (D) BY LRS. & ANR.versusL. BAKTHAVATSALAM (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
2020 INSC 45517 July 2020Dismissed
The case involves a property dispute between the branch of Lakshmiah Naidu (respondents) and legatees under a Will (appellants) of Rangaswami Naidu, who died on 01.06.1955 before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellants claimed that Rangaswami Naidu had severed the joint family status through a newspaper notice a…
GURMIT SINGH BHATIAversusKIRAN KANT ROBINSON AND OTHERS
2019 INSC 77017 July 2019Disposed off
The original plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against the vendor. During the pendency of the suit, the vendor, despite an injunction, sold the property to the appellant, who then applied under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to be impleaded as a defendant. The trial court allowed the …
UNION OF INDIAversusIBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR.
2012 INSC 28817 July 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of title over agricultural land, alleging ancestral grant from the Maratha Government and a partition in 1819, while the Union of India contested the title. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision by admitting a Will as add…
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHERversusM/S K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS
2024 INSC 45417 May 2024
The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority filed a batch of review petitions challenging Supreme Court judgments that had dismissed civil appeals and special leave petitions which held land‑acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relyin…
SUDHIR RANJAN PATRA (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusHIMANSU SEKHAR SRICHANDAN & ORS.
2022 INSC 57917 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction, but defendants 2 and 3 failed to file a written statement and were held ex-parte. They later filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC seeking condonation of delay, setting aside the ex-parte decree, and permission to file a written statement. The tria…
BHARATHA MATHA & ANR.versusR. VIJAYA RENGANATHAN & ORS.
2010 INSC 32817 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The predecessor‑in‑interest of Bharatha Matha filed a suit for a share in the property of her brother Muthu Reddiar, who died intestate and allegedly unmarried. Defendant No.1, Rengammal, claimed she was lawfully married to Alagarsami Reddiar (who was alive) and also asserted a live‑in relationship with Muthu Reddiar, …
JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.versusJAGTAR SINGH S/O DARSHAN SINGH
2023 INSC 37317 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff Jagtar Singh claimed a right of pre-emption as a co‑sharer in a joint khewat when the owners Jhabbar Singh sold portions of the land without giving notice. While the trial court and the first appellate court held that a partition order dated 31‑July‑1982 by the Assistant Collector severed the joint status…
POWER MACHINES INDIA LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
2017 INSC 35517 April 2017Dismissed
Power Machines India Ltd obtained an arbitral award under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 directing it to pay a sum to Lakshmi Engineering Industries. The State of Madhya Pradesh, invoking Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh MSME Facilitation Council Rules, 2006, sought recovery of the award amou…
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.versusDESIGNATED AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-DUMPING & ALLIED DUTIES & ORS.
2017 INSC 35617 April 2017Dismissed
The Steel Authority of India, a public sector steel manufacturer, imported graphite electrodes from China and challenged a notification imposing anti‑dumping duty on such imports. The challenge was dismissed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which upheld the Designated Authority's metho…
VIPULBHAI MANSINGBHAI CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER
2017 INSC 35417 April 2017Disposed off
Vipulbhai Mansingbhai Chaudhary, who continued as Chairman of a district cooperative milk union beyond his three‑year term, was served a show‑cause notice under s.76B(1) and (2) of the Gujarat Co‑operative Societies Act, 1961. The Registrar removed him and disqualified him for three years; a later order extended the di…
JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
2014 INSC 28817 April 2014Dismissed
The Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti filed public interest litigations seeking a declaration that the Galta Peeth/Thikana properties are public trust assets, clarification of succession, and a direction for the State to take over its management. The Rajasthan High Court, noting that the same questions were pending befo…
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHERversusM/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS
2023 INSC 25917 March 2023Matter referred to larger bench
The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority sought review of several civil appeals that had been dismissed on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which interpreted Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. After the Consti…
AMAN LOHIAversusKIRAN LOHIA
2021 INSC 19017 March 2021Disposed off
The father (Aman Lohia) filed a guardianship petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking declaration as guardian of his two‑year‑old daughter. The mother (Kiran Lohia) did not file a written statement but filed several applications under CPC, including a Section 151 applicat…
AARIFABEN YUNUSBHAI PATEL & ORS.versusMUKUL THAKOREBHAI AMIN & ORS.
2020 INSC 29717 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The cooperative bank (R‑2) obtained a decree for repayment of a loan from respondents R‑1 and R‑3 and obtained a court order to sell the mortgaged flats. The sale was conducted and the appellants were the highest bidders. R‑1 later filed a writ petition and, after its dismissal, filed an application under Order XXI Rul…
BANK OF BARODAversusKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.
2020 INSC 29917 March 2020Dismissed
The Bank of Baroda sought to enforce a London decree against Kotak Mahindra Bank under Section 44A of the CPC, filing the execution petition 14 years after the decree. The trial court dismissed the petition as time‑barred, applying the 12‑year period of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court ex…
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERALversusM.C. SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS.
2021 INSC 9817 February 2021Dismissed
The Supreme Court considered two Special Leave Petitions filed by the High Court of Madras challenging its own order that granted a refund of court fees to M.C. Subramaniam, who had withdrawn appeal suits after reaching a private out‑of‑court settlement. The key issue was whether Section 69‑A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fe…
NARAYAN SITARAMJI BADWAIK (DEAD) THROUGH LRSversusBISARAM AND OTHERS
2021 INSC 9417 February 2021Disposed off
The appellant, Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (deceased), filed a suit for possession of a property based on a sale deed dated 26‑09‑1978, which the respondents claimed was only a collateral security for a loan. The trial court dismissed the suit, the District Judge reversed the decision, and the High Court, on a second app…
COMPACK ENTERPRISES INDIA (P) LTD.versusBEANT SINGH
2021 INSC 9717 February 2021Disposed off
The dispute concerned a suit for possession and mesne profits of a Delhi industrial property. The High Court had earlier settled that the petitioner was in possession of the entire 5,472 sq ft. and issued a consent decree directing hand‑over of possession and payment of mesne profits, but erroneously recorded a 10% ann…
ADANI GAS LIMITEDversusPETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD AND ORS.
2020 INSC 19917 February 2020Dismissed
The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) conducted the ninth round of bidding for city or local natural gas distribution networks (CGD) in 2018. After opening technical bids, the Board introduced an internal note on 23 July 2018 that suggested a 2%–100% range of total households (based on the 2011 Census)…
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD.versusOCEAN MARINE SERVICES COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
2015 INSC 12417 February 2015Dismissed
Petromarine Products Ltd. filed an admiralty suit in the Bombay High Court seeking a decree and attachment of sale proceeds of the vessel MV Eleni, which was already arrested and placed under the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court where a suit by another creditor had been filed. The Madras Court, exercising exclusiv…
SESHAMBAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.versusM/S. CHELUR CORPORATION CHELUR BUILDING AND ORS.
2010 INSC 10817 February 2010Disposed off
The owners of a commercial premises in Cochin filed an eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming bonafide personal requirement. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissed the petition, finding no such requirement, and the High Court affirme…
BHUDEV MALLICK ALIAS BHUDEB MALLICK & ANR.versusRANAJIT GHOSHAL & ORS.
2025 INSC 17517 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, heirs of the original defendants in a 1965 title suit, were restrained by a permanent injunction that barred them from disturbing the respondents' possession of the suit property. After four decades, the respondents filed an execution application in 2017 alleging breach of the injunction, leading the tr…
BALBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC.versusBALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. ETC.
2025 INSC 8117 January 2025Dismissed
The plaintiffs obtained decrees for specific performance of a sale agreement, directing them to deposit the balance consideration within 20 days and the defendants to execute sale deeds. The trial court decrees were set aside by a first appellate court, but the High Court later restored them in regular second appeals, …
SEETHAKATHI TRUST MADRASversusKRISHNAVENI
2022 INSC 4817 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute concerned a 0.08‑cent portion of a 120‑acre land parcel in Chengalpattu, where the appellant Seethakathi Trust claimed title based on a series of registered sale deeds dating back to 1963, while the respondent Krishnaveni sought specific performance of an earlier agreement and claimed possession of the same…
A.V.M. SALES CORPORATIONversusM/S. ANURADHA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.
2012 INSC 3517 January 2012Case Allowed
The parties entered into a supply agreement at Calcutta (place 'C') and a mutual understanding that any dispute would be litigated exclusively in Calcutta courts. When a dispute arose, the petitioner filed a suit in Calcutta, but the respondent filed a separate suit in Vijayawada (place 'V'), which was decreed in the r…
IL AND FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LTD.versusM/S. BHARGAVARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.
2021 INSC 90416 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, IL & FS Engineering and Constructions Co. Ltd., obtained a decree for recovery of Rs.47,90,088 from defendants Bhargavaram Constructions and others. The defendants appealed the decree and, in the appellate proceedings, filed a miscellaneous application seeking to implead A.P. Transco as a party to the ap…
P. SATYANARAYANAversusNANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY
2021 INSC 90816 December 2021Dismissed
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of agricultural land and an interim injunction against the petitioner. The trial court dismissed the interim injunction, but the High Court reversed that order, granting the injunction based on a certificate issued under Section 38‑E of the Andhra…
G H DSGversusAKG
2019 INSC 137616 December 2019Disposed off
The mother, alleged to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, filed a guardianship petition seeking custody of her minor daughter, while the father sought custody on grounds of the mother’s mental illness and alleged cruelty. The mother counter‑alleged that the father sexually abused the child. Three counsellors reported …
D.N. JEEVARAJU & ANR.versusD. SUDHAKAR & ORS. ETC.
2010 INSC 89316 December 2010Dismissed
Five independent MLAs who had supported the BJP government in Karnataka withdrew their support and were disqualified under paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule. They filed writ petitions challenging the disqualification and sought to amend paragraph 9 of their petitions, which mistakenly stated that they had not left t…
BHAGYODAY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusRAVINDRA BALKRISHNA PATEL DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS
2022 INSC 121016 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant bank granted a loan to a partnership firm which defaulted, leading to a Lavad suit under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. An award was passed in 1988 and a certificate under Section 103 was issued in 1995, creating a deemed decree. The bank filed an execution petition in 1995, which was withd…
KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES & ORS.versusSURENDRA DEO GAUR & ORS.
2020 INSC 64016 November 2020Dismissed
The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming ownership of Khasra No. 238 in Village Basai Darapur, Delhi, while the appellant (Kirpa Ram) contended that the land was Khasra No. 79 in Village Shakarpur and that the dispute was a boundary issue barred under Section 28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954…
VIJAY PULLARWAR & ORS.versusSHRI HANUMAN DEOSTHAN,A PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES
2018 INSC 106616 November 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Shri Hanuman Deosthan, a public trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, sued the defendants for possession of House No.878 in Circle No.3, claiming it was trust property. The trial court decreed possession in favour of the trust, but the first appellate court reversed, finding the…
HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR.versusCHARANJEET SINGH REKHI & ORS. ETC.
2018 INSC 106716 November 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed two suits for specific performance against Charanjeet Singh Rekhi (deceased) and his wife Manjit Kaur, claiming they were parties to a sale agreement. Two other individuals, also named Charanjeet Singh Rekhi from Moradabad and Uttarakhand, filed Interlocutory Applications asserting that they were th…
JOHN D’ SOUZAversusKARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
2019 INSC 114716 October 2019Case Partly allowed
John D’ Souza, a former bus conductor, was dismissed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation after a domestic enquiry that found him guilty of absenteeism. While an industrial dispute concerning his dismissal was pending before the Labour Court, the corporation sought permission to effectuate the dismissal under …