Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1,350 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 601–800.

STATE OF GUJARATversusM/S KOTHARI AND ASSOCIATES

2015 INSC 78816 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat awarded a contract to M/s Kothari & Associates for canal lining, but repeatedly delayed handing over the site, forcing the contractor to seek four extensions of time. Each time the contractor claimed compensation for the delay, the State denied it, and the work was eventually completed in 1980. The

SANT RAMversusDHAN KAUR & ORS.

2015 INSC 79116 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner sought clarification of a Supreme Court order dated 21‑04‑2009, which recorded his statement that he would not press the prayer for mesne profits. The lower courts had awarded mesne profits of Rs.30 per month (with 10% increase every three years) and interest, while the petitioner had given up his claim

SHAILESH DHAIRYAWANversusMOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA

2015 INSC 79616 October 2015Dismissed

The appeal arose from a dispute where the parties, after settling most issues in a suit, referred two remaining differences to arbitration before a retired Supreme Court judge. The arbitrator resigned, and the respondent sought a substitute arbitrator. The High Court appointed a retired judge as a substitute under Sect

SRIHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LR. SMT. CH. NIVEDITHA REDDYversusSYED MAQDOOM SHAH & ORS.

2014 INSC 63116 September 2014Dismissed

The appellant, Srihari (deceased) through his legal representatives, challenged a High Court order that amended a preliminary decree in a partition suit to allocate specific shares among co‑heirs. The amendment was made under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits correction of clerical or acci

GOVT. OF KARNATAKA AND ANRversusK.C.SUBRAMANYA AND ORS

2013 INSC 62316 September 2013Dismissed

The Government of Karnataka appealed a decree granting possession of disputed land to the respondents, seeking to introduce a road map as additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XU Rule 27(1)(aa) of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined whether such evidence could be admitted when it could have been produc

Y. P. LELEversusMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 73216 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Maharashtra State Electricity Board filed a Special Civil Suit for recovery of money against Miraj Electric Supply Co. and its directors. During the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants' counsel withdrew his vakalatnama, and the trial court proceeded under Order XVII Rule 2 CPC, ultimately decreeing the suit ex par

DHARMIN BAI KASHYAPversusBABLI SAHU & OTHERS

2023 INSC 71216 August 2023Dismissed

The petitioner challenged the election of a Gram Panchayat Sarpanch on the ground of insufficient lighting at three polling booths and filed an election petition before the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) seeking only a recount of votes. The SDO ordered a recount, after which the petitioner was declared elected, but the d

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusMODERN TENT HOUSE & ANR.

2017 INSC 74716 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar filed a money suit seeking Rs 41,59,418 against Modern Tent House and others. The defendants denied the claim in their written statement and later applied under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to amend the statement by adding two paragraphs that merely elaborated facts already pl

LEKH RAJ (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. & ORS.versusRANJIT SINGH & ORS.

2017 INSC 74616 August 2017Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit in 1962 seeking a declaration of customary rights over agricultural land under the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court in 1965 decreed in favour of the respondents, and the decree became final as no second appeal was filed.

TERAPALLI DYVASAHATA KUMARversusS.M. KANTHA RAJU (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2017 INSC 74816 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar, filed a petition under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, seeking declarations and injunctions concerning the management of a society. The District Court allowed the petition, holding that "District Court concerned" should be interpreted using t

M/S MISRA AND CO.versusDAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

2017 INSC 75116 August 2017Hearing Adjourned

MIS Misra & Co. was awarded Rs.5,78,873 by an arbitrator in 1988 for a construction contract with Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC). The Civil Court made the award a decree on 16 March 1991, but DVC neither paid nor appealed, and due to repeated objections the formal decree was only prepared on 21 February 2003. Misra f

RAJU JHURANIversusM/S GERMINDA PVT. LTD.

2012 INSC 33516 August 2012Case Partly allowed

The landlord, Raju Jhurni, obtained an eviction decree against the tenant company under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, but the decree did not determine the arrears of rent. He then filed a winding‑up petition before the Company Court under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking recov

K. P. NATARAJAN & ANR.versusMUTHALAMMAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 33716 July 2021Dismissed

The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed, naming a minor as the third defendant and seeking the appointment of a guardian under Order XXXII, Rule 3 of the CPC. The trial court passed an ex‑parte decree and allowed execution without properly appointing a guardian, later dismissing the respond

STATE OF M.P. & ANR.versusDUNGAJI (D) BY LRS. & ANR.

2019 INSC 75816 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged a decree of the High Court that had set aside an order of the Competent Authority under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, which had treated land inherited by the plaintiff's wife as part of the family holding and declared surplus. The plaintiff, Dungaj

ARATHI SANDIversusBANDI JAGADRAKSHAKA RAO AND ORS.

2013 INSC 47316 July 2013Dismissed

Arathi Sandi and Sandi Jagadrakshaka Rao, a married couple residing in the United States, fought a divorce and child‑custody dispute. The US Superior Court initially granted primary custody of their US‑citizen son to the mother, later modifying the order to make the father the custodial parent and issuing a writ of hab

M/S. HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusMR. RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ORS.

2013 INSC 46816 July 2013Dismissed

The Delhi High Court, after substantially hearing an appeal, allowed the appellants to withdraw the appeal and extended the interim relief granted earlier until 10 May 2010. The appellants contended that the High Court, having become functus officio upon permitting withdrawal, could not lawfully extend interim relief o

BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTAversusPRATAP NARAIN VERMA & ANR

2022 INSC 64916 June 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction, together with damages, to evict licensees from his plot. The defendant challenged the suit's pecuniary jurisdiction, arguing that the valuation should be based on the market value of the property (Rs. 1.8 crore) rather than the nominal amounts claimed

LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS.versusGURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 42916 May 2024

The case arose from a suit for perpetual injunction where the plaintiff claimed ownership of land by natural succession, while the defendants relied on a Will that the trial court held to be suspicious and invalid. The trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiff was set aside by the first appellate court, which gra

JINI DHANRAJGIR & ANRversusSHIBU MATHEW & ANR. ETC.

2023 INSC 54416 May 2023Dismissed

The original plaintiff, Mrs. Cherian, sued the Mathew family for title and possession of a 2.81‑acre land parcel. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court later restored it and the decree of possession was finally passed in 2000, with a later modification requiring the defendants to pay compensation. Afte

VINUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATELversusRAJIVBHAI DUDABHAI PATEL & OTHERS

2018 INSC 52116 May 2018Disposed off

The case concerned an attack in which three persons were killed and five injured, allegedly committed by a group of seventeen accused. The Sessions Court convicted four accused and acquitted the rest, but the charges were found to be improperly framed under CrPC sections 211‑213, lacking specific allegations for each d

CHAMAN LALversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2014 INSC 39816 May 2014Dismissed

Chaman Lal, a former truck driver employed by the Fish Farmers Development Agency (a society) and later absorbed into a government department, sought retirement benefits based on his total service. The lower courts dismissed his claim, and he argued that a similarly situated individual, Charanjit Lal, had obtained a pe

S. VALLIAMMAI & OTHERSversusS. RAMANATHAN & ANOTHER

2026 INSC 37216 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, the wife and daughters of a deceased property owner, filed a second suit challenging a power of attorney and seeking injunctions, after having earlier filed a first suit for similar reliefs. The defendants moved to reject the second plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing that the suit was

NAFEES AHMAD & ANR.versusSOINUDDIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 52016 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a High Court order that set aside a First Appellate Court judgment on the ground that it failed to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The central issue was whether non‑compliance with the rule—specifically the omission of "points for determination"—automatically vitia

ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD.versusTATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 33316 April 2024Dismissed

Bhushan Steel (now Tata Steel) filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against several parties, including Arcadia Shipping, alleging non‑payment under a Letter of Credit for galvanized steel shipped from Mumbai to Djibouti. The plaintiff claimed that the cause of action arose in Delhi because the supply order and payment

GANGUBAI RAGHUNATH AYAREversusGANGARAM SAKHARAM DHURI (D) THR. LRS AND ORS.

2025 INSC 35516 March 2025Disposed off

The plaintiff, Gangubai Raghunath Ayare, sued for administration of her father‑in‑law's estate and sought to declare a sale deed by her brother Vishnu null and void. The trial court dismissed the administration claim for lack of necessary parties but declared the sale deed void and ordered possession of half the proper

M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LTDversusKASHIRAM VERMA

2023 INSC 24316 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The employer, M/s. Creative Garments Ltd., appealed against a Labour Court award that reinstated employee Kashiram Verma with back wages. The employee never reported for duty despite multiple communications, and his permanent address was never furnished; only a "care of Union" address was provided. The Supreme Court fo

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERSversusDEV BRAT SHARMA

2022 INSC 31616 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a former freedom fighter, sued the State of Punjab and its officers for Rs.20 lakhs in damages for denial of his freedom‑fighter status. He affixed only Rs.50 as court‑fees, relying on a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision that allowed tentative valuation for fee payment. The trial court ordered him to

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. AMBLCA CONSTRUCTION

2016 INSC 26516 March 2016Reference answered

The case concerned whether an arbitrator could award pendente lite interest when the underlying contract expressly barred interest on delayed payments. The dispute arose from a construction contract between the Union of India and M/s. Ambica Construction, which had undergone multiple arbitrations and court intervention

HARDEEP KAURversusMALKIAT KAUR

2012 INSC 13616 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement where the trial court decreed specific performance, the District Judge reversed the decree and ordered a refund of earnest money, and the High Court allowed a second appeal, set aside the District Judge’s order and restored the trial court de

L.L.C. OF INDIA AND ANR.versusRAM PAL SINGH BISEN

2010 INSC 15116 March 2010Dismissed

The respondent, a Development Officer of LIC, was dismissed following a departmental inquiry that he alleged was conducted without a copy of the inquiry report and without a proper opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice. In the suit challenging his dismissal, the employer (appellant) did not lead any oral e

U. SUDHEERA & OTHERSversusC. YASHODA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 8016 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal heirs of certain defendants, challenged an interim order dated 20 September 2024 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a second appeal (SA No. 518 of 2023) that directed the parties to maintain the status quo without first formulating any substantial question of law as required under Section

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.versusRAMESH KUMAR SHARMA

2020 INSC 4716 January 2020Dismissed

Workmen filed a civil suit in 2005 seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against a fine imposed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The corporation moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to dismiss the suit and refer the matter to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The application a

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION NO.ILL, PANVEL & ANR.versusATLANTA LIMITED

2014 INSC 3216 January 2014Disposed off

The State of Maharashtra, through its Executive Engineer, challenged an arbitral award dated 12 May 2012, filing applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Thane, while Atlanta Limited filed a petition before the High Court of Bombay on the same day. The High Court ordered the trans

J. SAMUEL AND OTHERSversusGATTU MAHESH AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 3116 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a sale contract, but their plaint omitted the mandatory averment under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act that they were ready and willing to perform. After the trial concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment, they sought to amend the plaint under

C. SHAKUNTHALA & ORS.versusH.P. UDAYAKUMAR & ANR.

2012 INSC 2816 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, children and legal representatives of the deceased landlord, filed a contempt petition under Section 11(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondents had abused the process of the court by filing a second application in execution proceedings. The High Court Division Bench on 9 Ju

RAJ KUMAR BHATIAversusSUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA

2017 INSC 124015 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The suit concerned possession of a property claimed to be joint Hindu family property. The appellant, Raj Kumar Bhatia, sought to amend his written statement to elaborate that the property was coparcenary undivided HUF, an argument already contained in his original statement. The Trial Court allowed the amendment under

LALITESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS.versusS. P. SRIVASTAVA (D) THR. LRS.

2016 INSC 114715 December 2016Remitted to Lower Court

The plaintiff Shailendra Prasad Srivastava filed a suit for declaration of title over certain lands against Baidya Nath Prasad Verma, which the trial court dismissed. The High Court, acting as the first appellate court, reversed the trial court's decision and decreed in favour of the plaintiff, but it neither framed sp

LAL SHAH BABA DARGAH TRUSTversusMAGNUM DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 92515 December 2015Case Partly allowed

The Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust filed a suit before the single‑member Maharashtra Waqf Tribunal seeking injunction against alleged illegal development of waqf property. The respondents obtained a civil revision, arguing that the 2013 Wakf (Amendment) Act, which mandates a three‑member tribunal, rendered the one‑member t

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANRversusRUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 120315 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned whether a new industrial unit, Rubfila International Ltd., was entitled to a five‑year exemption from the enhanced power tariff under the Kerala Government Order of 6 February 1992 from the date of commercial production (26 March 1995) or from the date of energisation (16 September 1995). The Kera

IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD.versusHUBTOWN LTD.

2016 INSC 102715 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a summary suit filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., a debenture trustee, to enforce an unconditional corporate guarantee issued by Hubtown Ltd. (formerly Ackruti City Ltd.) on behalf of its subsidiary Vinca. The plaintiff alleged defaults on debentures issued by Amazia and Rubix, while the def

SATISH CHANDER AHUJAversusSNEHA AHUJA

2020 INSC 59915 October 2020Dismissed

Satish Chander Ahuja, the father‑in‑law, owned a house in New Delhi and sued his daughter‑in‑law Sneha Ahuja for mandatory and permanent injunction to remove her from the first floor. Sneha had earlier filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, obtaining an interi

SUMER BUILDERS PVT. LTD.versusNARENDRA GORAN!

2015 INSC 78315 October 2015Dismissed

Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd. entered into a development agreement and MoU with Narendra Goran for a land parcel in Indore. After disputes over payment and possession, the respondent terminated the agreements and invoked the arbitration clause. The developer applied to the Bombay High Court for interim relief under Section

SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYANversusVINAY KUMAR G.B.

2021 INSC 48415 September 2021Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff filed a commercial suit in October 2018 seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement and obtained an ex‑parte interim injunction. Realising the suit was not compliant with the Commercial Courts Act, the plaintiff withdrew it on 27 July 2019 and filed a fresh suit

EDARA HARIBABUversusTULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM & ORS.

2015 INSC 66315 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Edara Hari Babu, was elected Chairperson of a Zilla Praja Parishad (ZPP) after voting for himself despite a whip issued by the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). The District Collector disqualified him under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Chief Executive Officer directed the Vice‑Chairperson

PRALHAD AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 61815 September 2010Case Partly allowed

The land of the appellants was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification dated 5 March 1983 and an award on 1 March 1984. The owners filed a reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation, and while the reference was pending, the 1984 Amendment Act introduced Section 23(1A) and a transiti

AMRO DEVI & ORS.versusJULFI RAM (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 52715 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction, alleging a prior compromise that purportedly made them owners of the disputed land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside that dismissal on the basis of alleged settlement statements, a decisi

SUDIN DILIP TALAULIKARversusPOLYCAP WIRES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 75715 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of Rs.64.18 lakh, while the respondent had earlier instituted a criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was later withdrawn. The trial court and the High Court granted conditional leave to defend, impos

SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT. LTD.versusSHASHI MOHAN KAPUR (DECEASED) THR. L.R.

2019 INSC 75615 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt Ltd, a landlord, obtained a consent order on 1 June 2012 in a suit for eviction of the respondent, the legal representative of the deceased tenant. The respondent failed to vacate the suit house despite extensions and the appellant filed an execution petition. The respondent challe

M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. ETC.versusM. S. MURTHY & ORS. ETC.

2023 INSC 58115 June 2023Disposed off

The case arose from a 1955‑56 partition suit concerning the estate of Nawab Khurshid Jah, where a preliminary decree dated 28‑06‑1963 declared certain lands as Mathruka property. The decree was later used by decree‑holders and their assignees to claim title over the land, leading to numerous execution and claim petitio

ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMAversusDEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 70015 May 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a Special Leave Petition filed by Ishwar Chanda Sharma challenging a High Court order that directed the appointment of a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple in Mathura with a preference for a person from the Vaishnav Sampradaya rather than a practising advocate. The Court examined the long‑standing

ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATIONversusMAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.

2023 INSC 53615 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Alpha G184 Owners Association, a society of housing project allottees, filed several consumer complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking possession, compensation for delay and other reliefs against Magnum International Trading Company, the builder. The builder challenged the assoc

SELVIversusGOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR (D) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

2018 INSC 51315 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a suit for redemption of mortgaged lands where the plaintiffs sought partition of the mortgaged properties. The second defendant, Gopalakrishnan Nair, claimed ownership of an adjoining parcel identified as old Survey No. 988 and repeatedly objected that it should be excluded from the suit property. T

M/S. GMG ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES & ORS.versusM/S ISSA GREEN POWER SOLUTION & ORS.

2015 INSC 43015 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants GMG Engineering Industries and others entered into a sale agreement with the respondents ISSA Green Power Solution, which fell through, leading the respondents to sue for recovery of Rs.1.5 crore and Rs.10 lakh. Both suits were decreed ex-parte after the appellants failed to appear, and the appellants la

J&K ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCYversusRASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

2026 INSC 36815 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The Jammu & Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency (JKERA) engaged Rash Builders for four road projects in J&K, but contractual disputes led the contractor to invoke arbitration. The parties, with the arbitrator’s consent, fixed Srinagar as the seat of arbitration and New Delhi as the venue, later appointing a new sole

JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR.versusM/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

2025 INSC 53315 April 2025Dismissed

The respondent, M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., sued Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and another party for recovery of a sum based on an award. The Commercial Court pronounced a judgment, but the petitioners filed their appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 after a delay of 301 days and so

CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 48315 April 2025Dismissed

The dispute arose when Inox India Ltd filed a trademark suit alleging that Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd and LNG Express infringed its proprietary engineering drawings and related literary works used in cryogenic semi‑trailers. LNG Express moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the drawings w

RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.**

2025 INSC 50815 April 2025

The Supreme Court entertained a miscellaneous application seeking recall of its own judgment dated 03.01.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024 on the ground that the respondents had not been served and therefore did not appear. The Court held that non‑service justified recalling the judgment and ordered the appeal to be

THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONversusB. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 49015 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution, a charitable trust in possession of a Bangalore property since 1905, was sued by respondents who claimed a right to prevent the institution from alienating the land based on an alleged 2018 agreement to sell and an advance cash payment of Rs.75 lakh. The institution filed an ap

DEB RATAN BISWAS AND ORS.versusMOST. ANAND MOYI DEVI AND ORS.

2011 INSC 30015 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a partition suit against the respondents, who had earlier executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of two attorneys to manage rent. While the suit was pending, the parties entered into a compromise, which the trial court approved and decreed. The respondents later filed a miscellan

BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.versusSBI HOME FINANCE LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 30115 April 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Booz‑Allen & Hamilton Inc., sought to refer a mortgage suit filed by SBI Home Finance Ltd. to arbitration under clause 16 of a tripartite deposit agreement. The High Court rejected the application, holding that the dispute was not covered by the arbitration clause, that the appellant had waived its right

MEG RAJ (DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.versusMANPHOOL(DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 37615 March 2019Dismissed

The suit land in Sirsa, Haryana was subject to ceiling proceedings under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and the prescribed authority issued an order on 17 October 1978. Two separate civil suits were filed challenging the legality of that order and seeking its declaration as null and void. The High Cour

LAHARI SAKHAMURIversusSOBHAN KODALI

2019 INSC 38315 March 2019Disposed off

The wife filed for divorce and custody of her US‑citizen children in a US court, which issued an interim order directing the father to appear for conciliation and later granted him temporary physical custody, ordering the children be returned to the US. She then travelled to India and, concealing the US proceedings, fi

BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIAversusKOCHI CRICKET PVT. LTD. AND ETC.

2018 INSC 23815 March 2018Dismissed

The Board of Control for Cricket in India filed a Section 34 challenge to arbitral awards dated June 2015, and the award creditors sought execution. The award debtor argued that the pre‑amended Section 36 imposed an automatic stay on execution until the Section 34 petition was decided, while the High Court applied the

AJAY ARJUN SLNGHversusSHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS

2016 INSC 26415 March 2016Disposed off

The case concerned an election petition filed by Sharadendu Tiwari challenging the election of Ajay Arjun Singh. The dispute centered on whether the petition was accompanied by an affidavit in the statutory Form 25 as required by the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether

NAGENDRAPPA NATIKARversusNEELAMMA

2013 INSC 16815 March 2013Dismissed

The husband and wife married in 1987, after which the wife sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The parties later entered into a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, agreeing that the wife would receive a lump sum of Rs 8,000 as permanent alimony and would not cl

MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusAHSANUL GHANI

2019 INSC 20415 February 2019Dismissed

Mehboob-ur-Rehman filed a suit for specific performance of a 1975 agreement to sell a house, alleging the defendant failed to obtain required land‑ceiling permission. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the first appellate court reversed, holding the plaintiff had not shown continuous readiness and willingness t

PERRY KANSAGRAversusSMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

2019 INSC 21515 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned a custody dispute over a child born to Perry Kansagra and Smriti Madan Kansagra. After mediation failed, the High Court had held that the mediator’s and counsellor’s reports were confidential and could not be used, and later set aside that decision on review. The Supreme Court held that the High Co

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITEDversusABDUL SAMAD & ANR.

2018 INSC 14615 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Sundaram Finance Ltd. granted a loan to Abdul Samad, who defaulted, leading to arbitration under the loan agreement. An ex parte award of Rs.12.69 lakh was made, and Sundaram sought execution of the award in the Morena court, which dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, directing the appellant to first obt

AUTO CARSversusTRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2018 INSC 15015 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a civil suit in the Calcutta High Court for recovery of money and, after failing to serve the defendants by ordinary means, obtained permission to serve them by substituted service through newspaper publication. The summons published on 25 November 2014 instructed the defendants to appear within 15

G. SARASWATHI & ANR.versusRATHINAMMAL & ORS.

2018 INSC 14215 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of an agreement, which the trial court decreed in their favour. The High Court single judge set aside that decree, and the appellants filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the LPA by a

MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHIDversusNILOFER & ANR

2023 INSC 107514 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Mohammed Abdul Wahid against Nilofer & Anr concerning whether a party to a civil suit can also be treated as a witness and whether CPC provisions bar the production of documents for cross‑examination of a party. The High Court had held that a party could not be equated with a witnes

UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusAIR COMMODORE NK SHARMA (17038) ADM/LGL

2023 INSC 107414 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Air Commodore N.K. Sharma, a Judge Advocate General (Air) in the Indian Air Force, claimed that the Ministry of Defence failed to form a policy for filling the upgraded AVM JAG (Air) post and that his promotion was unjustly denied. He filed a complaint under Section 27 of the Air Force Act, which led the Armed Forces T

DESH RAJ & ORS.versusROHTASH SINGH

2022 INSC 127914 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, joint owners of a 23‑kanal property, entered into two sale agreements with the respondent, requiring the sale deed to be executed by 16‑08‑2004 and making earnest money forfeitable if the deadline was missed. The respondent paid part of the consideration as earnest money but failed to appear for executi

VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERSversusDURGA TRADING CORPORATION

2020 INSC 69714 December 2020Reference answered

The Supreme Court of India addressed two interconnected issues: whether landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable, and the scope of judicial review under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case arose from a tenancy agreement containing an ar

URVASHIBEN & ANR.versusKRISHNAKANT MANUPRASAD TRIVEDI

2018 INSC 121214 December 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13 March 1992, alleging that the entire consideration of Rs.32 lakh had been paid but the sale deed was never executed and the property was later sold to a third party. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the

JAMILA BEGUM (D) THR. LRS.versusSHAMI MOHD. (D) THR. LRS. & ANOTHER

2018 INSC 120614 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Shami Mohd., sued Jamila Begum for a declaration that a 1967 mortgage deed and a 1970 sale deed executed by his father, Wali Mohd., in favour of the defendant were void, alternatively seeking redemption of the mortgage. The trial court held the documents valid and dismissed the suit; the first appellate

KANTARU RAJEEVARUversusINDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR. ITS GENERAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

2019 INSC 124814 November 2019Directions issued

The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's 28 September 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which struck down the exclusion of women aged 10‑50 from the Sabarimala temple. The Court examined whether any material error or patent mistake existed in the earlier judgment, parti

RENJITH K.G. & OTHERSversusSHEEBA

2024 INSC 77314 October 2024Dismissed

The appellants, representing the original decree holder, sought to enforce a partition decree dated 9 March 1970 that awarded them a share of a one‑acre property in Kerala. The decree was engrossed on stamp paper in 1990 and an execution petition for possession was filed in 1991, resulting in the plaintiff taking posse

KAPIL KUMARversusRAJ KUMAR

2022 INSC 109414 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kapil Kumar sued Raj Kumar for recovery of Rs 1 lakh, alleging that Raj Kumar had borrowed the sum and executed a promissory note in Kapil's favour. The trial court, after evaluating the handwriting expert and deed‑writer testimony, held that the note was executed and decreed in favour of the plaintiff; the first appel

GANESANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2020 INSC 59614 October 2020Dismissed

Ganesan was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 based solely on the testimony of a 13‑year‑old victim (PW‑3). The trial court sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment (the minimum under Section 8) and ordered Rs 1 lakh compensatio

SAMEER SINGH AND ANOTHERversusABDUL RAB AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 72114 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Sameer Singh and another, challenged an order of a Sub‑Judge’s execution court that it had become functus officio and therefore could not entertain their application under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 of the CPC concerning a disputed immovable property. The execution court had earlier executed a decre

RAJNI RANI & ANR.versusKHAIRATI LAL & ORS.

2014 INSC 72214 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit for declaration of ownership of a share in land and an injunction. The defendants filed a counter‑claim asserting title under a Will dated 18‑May‑1995, which the trial judge dismissed as barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC because the plea had not been raised in the earlier suit. The High C

ESSAR HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusARCELLOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED

2022 INSC 95714 September 2022Dismissed

Essar Steel deposited roughly Rs 35 crore and Rs 47 crore as refundable security deposits with Essar House Private and Essar Services respectively. After Essar Steel entered corporate insolvency resolution, the resolution applicant Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (Arcellor) sought repayment of those deposits and filed Sect

ABDUL KHUDDUSversusH.M. CHANDIRAMANI (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS.

2021 INSC 47414 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Abdul Khuddus, a statutory tenant under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, was evicted when the Bangalore City Corporation demolished the dilapidated building under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. The tenant filed suits for injunction, possession and damages, which the High Court allowed, holding

ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LTD.versusESSAR BULK TERMINAL LTD.

2021 INSC 47814 September 2021Case Partly allowed

Arcelor Mittel Nipp​on Steel India Ltd. and Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. entered into a cargo‑handling agreement containing an arbitration clause. The appellant invoked the clause, the respondent claimed the dispute was non‑arbitrable and filed Section 9 applications for interim relief in the Commercial Court. While the Hi

AJMERA SHYAMversusSMT. KOVA LAXMI & ORS.

2025 INSC 99214 August 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Ajmera Shyam, challenged the election of Smt. Kova Laxmi, alleging that she failed to disclose income shown in her income‑tax returns for four financial years in the Form 26 affidavit, marking it as “Nil”. The High Court dismissed the election petition, holding that the omission was not a substantial def

SANJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.versusSARDAR INDERJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 98814 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents, both claiming to be trustees of a charitable trust, were involved in a dispute that led the respondents to file a suit for perpetual injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit under Section 92 of the CPC, prompting an appeal during which the parties agreed to arbitration and later ac

SMT. ARIFA & ORS.versusABHIMAN APARTMENT COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 87514 July 2025Dismissed

The petitioners, who had earlier entered into a sale agreement with the cooperative society and executed a power of attorney (PoA) that was later cancelled, filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. The High Court, on remand, dismissed the se

PANDURANGANversusT. JAYARAMA CHETTIAR & ANR.

2025 INSC 82514 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Pandurangan, purchased a property from Hussain Babu, who had earlier bought it from Jayam Ammal. He later discovered that Defendant No. 1, claiming co‑ownership, had obtained an ex‑parte decree in a 1996 partition suit that the appellant alleged was collusive and fraudulently obtained. The appellant file

DHANASINGH PRABHUversusCHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 83114 July 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, Dhanasingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of Rs.21 lakh to the respondents who were partners of the partnership firm “Mouriya Coirs”. The respondents issued a cheque in the name of the firm which was dishonoured, prompting the appellant to serve a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

BINOD PATHAK & ORS.versusSHANKAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

2025 INSC 84214 July 2025Case Partly allowed

The plaintiffs filed a title suit in 1984 which was dismissed by the trial court but later allowed by the first appellate court. The defendants appealed, and the High Court set aside the first appellate court's decree, holding that several defendants had died during the pendency of the first appeal and their legal heir

ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKARversusKAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL AND ORS.

2020 INSC 45314 July 2020Dismissed

The appellant, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, was elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly but his election was challenged on the ground that two of his nomination papers were filed after the statutory deadline. The High Court relied on video recordings of the Returning Officer's office, produced by the Election Commi

KIRPAL KAURversusJITENDER PAL SINGH & ORS.

2015 INSC 49414 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Kirpal Kaur filed a partition suit seeking her late husband's share in a Delhi building (schedule ‘B’ property). The trial court and the Delhi High Court held the property to be self‑acquired by her father‑in‑law and denied her any share. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the father‑in‑law’s

ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHERversusHAFEEZ UR RAHMAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 46014 June 2024Dismissed

The respondents filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC seeking recovery of Rs. 1,04,16,576 and later submitted a memo under Rule 3(6)(b) asking the trial court to decree the suit. The trial court rejected the memo, but the Karnataka High Court set aside that order and directed the trial court to accept the

M/S DHANBAD FUELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR

2025 INSC 69614 May 2025Dismissed

The Union of India filed a money suit of over Rs 8.73 crore in a Commercial Court in August 2019 without first complying with the pre‑institution mediation requirement of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant, Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd., raised a preliminary objection and sought rejection of the pl

MAHILA RAMKALI DEVI AND OTHERSversusNANDRAM (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 41214 May 2015Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit in 1964 seeking declaration of title and possession of agricultural land based on a will executed by Ajuddhibai. The trial court upheld the will, rejected alleged sale deeds and granted possession to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, and the High Court reversed the decision, also reject

M/S. SPEEDLINE AGENCIESversusM/S. T. STANES & CO. LTD.

2010 INSC 32614 May 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Speedline Agencies, occupied a building and land leased from United Coffee Supply Co. Ltd., later renamed Stanes Tea and Coffee Ltd., for over four decades. The landlord filed a petition under sections 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking eviction f

GANESH PRASADversusRAJESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS.

2023 INSC 22814 March 2023Dismissed

The appellant, who was the original defendant, challenged a lower‑court order that allowed the plaintiffs to amend their suit seeking redemption of a mortgage and possession of a shop. The plaintiffs had earlier filed a small‑cause suit that was dismissed for non‑prosecution, and later filed a civil suit under Section

SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED ANDversusSHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

2022 INSC 30314 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, holder of the trademark ‘SHYAM’, sued the appellants for infringement and sought a temporary injunction. The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court refused an interim injunction, granting the appellants time to file an affidavit and postponing the matter. The plaintiff appealed this order to the Divisio

SRI BISWANATH BANIK & ANR.versusSMT. SULANGA BOSE & ORS.

2022 INSC 30014 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a title suit seeking a declaration under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, a permanent injunction and related reliefs, alleging continuous possession of the property for over twelve years. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to have the plaint rejected

POORAN SINGHversusDHANIRAM (SINCE DEAD) THR. LEGAL HEIRS AND ANR.

2019 INSC 36714 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant’s predecessor sold tribal agricultural land to the respondent’s predecessor in 1964. After the 1980 amendment inserting Section 170B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, the appellant’s successor (Beniram) sought reversion of the land, and the Collector ordered the land restored to him. The respondent

RAJASTHAN STATE TPT CORPN. & ANR.versusBAJRANG LAL

2014 INSC 19214 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation) appealed against judgments that had upheld a civil suit filed by its former trainee conductor, Bajrang Lal, challenging his removal from service for alleged embezzlement. The lower courts had found that the disciplinary enquiry violated principles of natu

KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusVINCENT PAUL & ANR.

2011 INSC 20414 March 2011Disposed off

The Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) took over a defaulting borrower under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and invited tenders for the sale of the borrower’s assets. Vincent Paul submitted the sole tender, paid earnest money and was later offered a price of Rs. 8.25 lakh subject to conditions

M/S B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONSversusR N NADIGAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 21414 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons, had obtained a permanent injunction against the State of Karnataka in O.S. No.80 of 1978 concerning a parcel of land, and the decree became final after being upheld by appellate courts. Later, former students of a government school and other citizens filed a representative sui

PRAKASH CORPORATESversusDEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED

2022 INSC 18014 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Prakash Corporates filed a money suit against Dee Vee Projects Limited on 21‑12‑2020. The defendant failed to file a written statement within the 30‑day period and sought extensions, which were granted up to 15‑04‑2021, but the 120‑day deadline fell on 06‑05‑2021. The trial court and the High Court refused further exte

C. DODDANARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.versusC. JAYARAMA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 18514 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, C. Doddanarayana Reddy, claimed he was a minor at the time of his father's death in 1963 and therefore sought partition of his share in the family property, alleging that a release deed executed that year was void. To prove minority, he relied on a school leaving certificate, but the certificate was not

M/S. Z. ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & ANRversusBIPIN BIHARI BEHERA & ORS.

2020 INSC 19614 February 2020Disposed off

In a suit for partition, the plaintiffs filed the suit through power of attorney holders. The appellants sought to impound the powers of attorney under Order XIII Rule 8, contending that they were conveyances within the meaning of Article 23 of the Stamp Act (as amended by the Orissa Act, 2003) and therefore insufficie

CEMENT WORKERS’ MANDALversusGLOBAL CEMENTS LTD. (HMP CEMENTS LTD.) & ORS

2019 INSC 19714 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Cement Workers' Union filed a Special Civil Application (SCA) in the Gujarat High Court seeking to compel Indian Bank and Global Cements Ltd. to pay outstanding wages to workers of a cement factory in Porbandar, Gujarat, and to set aside a Debt Recovery Tribunal order that transferred sale proceeds to the bank. The

NEHA ARUN JUGADAR & ANRversusKUMARI PALAK DIWAN JI

2011 INSC 12114 February 2011Dismissed

The petitioners filed a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to move a motor accident claim (MACT No. 138 of 2009) from the MACT Court in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh to a competent court in Pune, Maharashtra, alleging that the Uttar Pradesh court lacked jurisdiction. The Suprem

CUDDALORE POWERGEN CORPORATION LTDversusM/S CHEMPLAST CUDDALORE VINYLS LIMITED AND ANR.

2025 INSC 7314 January 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff, Chemplast, entered into an agreement to sell a parcel of land to the appellant, Cuddalore Powergen, but registration of the sale deed was blocked by a Government Order (GO) that reserved the land for a power project. The plaintiff filed a first suit seeking a permanent injunction against the appellant an

SUNILversusSAKSHI @ SHWETA & ANR.

2015 INSC 4114 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Family Court initially proceeded ex parte when the wife could not be served. The wife later appeared, the ex parte order was set aside, and the case was adjourned for conciliation, but she remained absent at subsequent hearings. The Fa

B.S. KRISHNA MURTHY AND ANR.versusB.S. NAGARAJ AND ORS.

2011 INSC 4614 January 2011Disposed off

The case involved a dispute between two brothers concerning family and business matters. The petitioners sought relief from the High Court, but the Supreme Court examined whether the parties should be directed to resolve the dispute through mediation. Relying on the purpose of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure

CELIR LLPversusMR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.

2024 INSC 97813 December 2024Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered contempt petitions filed by the successful auction purchaser (Celir LLP) against the original borrower, a subsequent transferee, and the bank, alleging wilful disobedience of the Court’s 21 September 2023 judgment that confirmed the 9th auction of a secured asset and directed issuance of a

A. MANJUversusPRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R & ORS

2021 INSC 88113 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

In a 2019 Lok Sabha election for the Hassan constituency, the appellant A. Manju, who finished second, filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 alleging that the elected candidate, Prajwal Revanna, had committed corrupt practices by filing a false affidavit and concealing ma

SRI PRABODH CH. DAS AND ANR.versusMAHAMAYA DAS AND ORS.

2019 INSC 137113 December 2019Disposed off

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits, which was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court's decision was set aside by the first appellate court, and the defendants appealed the decree in a second appeal before the High Court of Tripura. On the scheduled hearing date, th

MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSUNDARAM INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION

2013 INSC 83313 December 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Sundaram Industries Ltd., directed its moulders to place production bags on an electronic weighing scale after their shift, which required extra effort and time without additional pay. Thirteen moulders refused, were suspended and later dismissed for alleged misconduct, persistent disobedience and insubo

AKHILESH YADAV ETC. ETC.versusVISHWANATH CHATURVEDI & ORS.

2012 INSC 60713 December 2012Disposed off

The Supreme Court reviewed a 2007 order that directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to inquire into alleged disproportionate assets of a political family and to submit its report to the Union of India. The petitioners sought a review, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to order a CBI inquiry without

TRIBHUVANSHANKARversusAMRUTLAL

2013 INSC 75413 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Tribhuvansankar, purchased a property and sued the defendant, Amrutlal, under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction and mesne profits. The defendant denied any landlord‑tenant relationship and pleaded adverse possession, claiming 18‑19 years of uninterrupted possession. The tria

VINOD KUMARversusGANGADHAR

2014 INSC 70813 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Vinod Kumar filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to purchase a house; the trial court dismissed the suit and the High Court, acting as the first appellate court, affirmed the dismissal. The appellant contended that the High Court had not examined the evidence, ignored the submissions and grounds of appea

DR. T. VARGHESE GEORGEversusKORA K. GEORGE & ORS.

2011 INSC 76413 October 2011Dismissed

The case concerned the T. Thomas Educational Trust, founded by a Christian philanthropist to run schools and a college. After the founder's death, allegations of mis‑management by his widow led three interested persons to file a suit under Section 92(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a scheme for the trust.

TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 76513 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, land owners, challenged the appointment of Shri V.I. Gohil as the Competent Authority under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, arguing that his salary, allowances, accommodation and transport were paid by the private gas‑pipeline company whose project

KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHINGversusKENN RAIKHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 68913 September 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a Member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, was elected from the Saikul constituency in 2022. The respondent filed an election petition alleging that the appellant concealed assets worth about Rs. 2 crore and falsified her income, thereby committing corrupt practices. The appellant moved an application

M/S. SHIVALI ENTERPRISESversusSMT. GODAWARI (DECEASED) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 95213 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

M/S. Shivali Enterprises entered into an agreement to sell land to the respondents, receiving Rs.1,50,000 of the Rs.1,65,000 purchase price and taking possession, while the respondents were required to obtain an Income‑Tax Clearance certificate and have the revenue records mutated before execution of the sale deed. The

GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

2022 INSC 95313 September 2022Disposed off

The case concerned a lease of 540 acres of land granted by the Sri Udasin Mutt, a charitable religious institution, to Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. The State of Telangana sought eviction on the ground that the land is agricultural and, under Section 82 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endow

DHARAMPAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusPUNJAB WAKF BOARD & ORS.

2017 INSC 89913 September 2017Dismissed

The Punjab Wakf Board sued Dharampal (deceased) and others for possession of land it owned. Dharampal's heirs claimed title by adverse possession, asserting continuous possession since 1953 through his father. The lower courts initially upheld the board's claim, rejecting the adverse possession plea. On appeal, the Sup

MANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

2017 INSC 129713 September 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals arising from the acquisition of 561.38 acres in Haryana where the High Court had fixed compensation at Rs.1.46 crore per acre by applying a 15% cumulative annual increase and relying heavily on the Swaran Singh judgment. The Court held that such reliance was improper because prior awa

KAMAL GUPTA & ANR.versusM/S L.R BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ETC.

2025 INSC 97513 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an oral family settlement reduced to a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) signed by Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG) but not by KG's son Rahul Gupta (RG). PG and others filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointme

MADHUKAR NIVRUTTI JAGTAP & ORS.versusSMT. PRAMILABAI CHANDULAL PARANDEKAR & ORS.

2019 INSC 89213 August 2019Case Partly allowed

The plaintiffs entered into agreements dated 20‑09‑1965 and 28‑04‑1966 for the sale of 50 acres of agricultural land, paying part of the consideration and taking partial possession. The defendants contended that the documents were merely collateral security for a loan. The Supreme Court held that the agreements were un

PURSHOTTAM DAS TANDON DEAD BY LRS.versusMILITARY ESTATE OFFICER & ORS.

2014 INSC 54113 August 2014Dismissed

The appellant, the estate of the deceased, claimed ownership of a bungalow and the land on which it stood, asserting title derived from a purchase in 1848. The Union of India contended that an 1836 grant vested only the building in the appellant’s ancestors, with the land remaining subject to a right of resumption. The

LALDHARI MISTRI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusVIJAY KUMAR

2017 INSC 61113 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved a residential house in Munger, Bihar, owned by Hira Mistry, whose eviction decree against tenant Surendra Narayan Sinha was eventually reversed. An agreement to sell the house to Vijay Kumar was executed in 1983 while eviction proceedings were pending, leading to a specific‑performance suit in 1986

M/S. NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD.versusHEAVY ENGINEERING CORP. LTD. & ANR.

2016 INSC 51813 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Northern Coalfield Ltd., a government-owned corporation, entered into two contracts with Heavy Engineering Corp. Ltd. which contained an arbitration clause. Disputes were referred to the Government's "permanent machinery of arbitration" and awards were made, which Northern Coalfield challenged before the Law Secretary

VIJAY MALLYAversusENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MIN. OF FINANCE

2015 INSC 49313 July 2015Dismissed

Vijay Mallya, Chairman of United Breweries Ltd., was summoned under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) to appear before the Enforcement Directorate regarding alleged violations of foreign exchange rules in a Benetton advertising agreement. He failed to appear on several summons, leading to a

SOMAKKA (DEAD) BY LRSversusK.P. BASAVARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS

2022 INSC 64213 June 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, sister of the respondent, filed a suit for partition of ancestral lands (items 1 and 2 of Schedule ‘A’) and a self‑acquired land (item 3 of Schedule ‘A’) claiming a one‑fourth share in the former and a one‑half share in the latter. The trial court granted these shares and ordered specific performance of

KATTUKANDI EDATHIL KRISHNAN & ANR.versusKATTUKANDI EDATHIL VALSAN & ORS.

2022 INSC 64313 June 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a partition suit claiming a half‑share in the coparcenary property of the Kattukandi Edathil family, asserting that the first plaintiff was the legitimate son of Damodaran and Chiruthakutty. The defendants denied that a marriage existed between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty and contended that the pla

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusSCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 66813 May 2025Rejected

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) alleged that Schott Glass India abused its dominant position in the neutral glass tubing market by offering volume‑based target rebates, functional "no‑Chinese" rebates, a long‑term supply agreement with its joint‑venture Schott Kaisha, and by allegedly tying clear and amber tu

HARJIT SINGH UPPALversusANUP BANSAL

2011 INSC 40113 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed a petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 to evict the tenant for alleged rent arrears, and the Rent Controller fixed a provisional rent and ordered payment. The tenant applied to recall that order, alleging the controller had ignored his payment records, but the controller re

RUCHI MAJOOversusSANJEEV MAJOO

2011 INSC 39513 May 2011Disposed off

The mother, Ruchi Majoo, filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking interim custody of her 11‑year‑old son who had been residing in Delhi for three years, while the father, Sanjeev Majoo, contested jurisdiction, claiming the child’s ordinary residence was in the United States and invoking the prin

SUCHA SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS.versusBALDEV RAJ WALIA & ANR.

2018 INSC 33813 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The original plaintiff, Sucha Singh, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant in 1996, which he later withdrew with the court's permission to pursue appropriate proceedings before a competent forum. He subsequently filed a fresh suit for specific performance of the same agreement, which the defendant

RISHABH CHAND JAIN & ANOTHERversusGINESH CHANDRA JAIN

2016 INSC 31713 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that a municipal survey Khatiyan was null and void. The defendants moved to frame a preliminary issue that the suit was barred by res judicata and that there was no cause of action. The trial court dismissed the suit on those grounds without formally framing any issue. T

THE GUJARAT MARITIME BOARDversusG.C. PANDYA

2015 INSC 98913 April 2015Case Partly allowed

G.C. Pandya, a former Deputy Engineer of the Gujarat Maritime Board, was disciplined and censured in 2002 and superannuated as Superintending Engineer. He sued for a declaration that the departmental enquiry and punishment were illegal and sought promotion to Chief Engineer effective 1 January 2002. The Board did not f

RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGHversusRAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS

2019 INSC 35713 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff and his brother executed a registered gift deed in 1981 transferring land to the appellant, the appellant's son. Neither the plaintiff nor his brother contested the deed for about 22 years; the appellant filed a partition suit in 2001, in which the plaintiff was a defendant. In 2003 the plaintiff filed a

GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusLEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS.

2019 INSC 35613 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction alleging ownership of land and challenged a will executed by the deceased brother. The trial court upheld the plaintiff's claim, but the first appellate court reversed that decision after re‑appraising the evidence and deeming the will genuine. The High Court, exercis

M/S TOMORROWLAND LIMITEDversusHOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 20713 February 2025Disposed off

M/s Tomorrowland Limited, the highest bidder for a 5‑star hotel site, paid the first instalment but argued that HUDCO (Housing and Urban Development Corporation) was obliged to obtain statutory approvals and execute a sub‑lease before demanding further payments. HUDCO failed to secure the necessary approvals and a perp

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusMAHADEO KRISHNA NAIK

2025 INSC 21813 February 2025Disposed off

Mahadeo Krishna Naik, a bus driver for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), was dismissed after a fatal accident in 1996. The Labour Court upheld his dismissal, but the corporation later obtained a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award that placed sole blame on the lorry driver, a fact it failed

NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 13113 February 2017Dismissed

The appellants were admitted to MBBS courses in Madhya Pradesh through a systematic fraud involving computer manipulation, roll‑number tampering and assistance from meritorious candidates. Vyapam cancelled their admissions, a decision upheld by the High Court and earlier by this Court. The appellants sought relief unde

MANIK MAJUMDER AND OTHERSversusDIPAK KUMAR SAHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS

2023 INSC 3413 January 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title over land based on two sale deeds dated 3 September 1968 and 29 September 1968, the first executed by plaintiff 2 as an attorney of the original owner who allegedly executed a power of attorney (PoA) in East Pakistan. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed t

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS & ORS.versusDR. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

2020 INSC 3513 January 2020Disposed off

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) took cognizance of media reports of large‑scale child trafficking in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, and sought information from the state police and the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR). The Additional Director General of Police (ADG

SHASIDHAR & OTHERSversusSMT.ASHWINI UMA MATHAD &ANR.

2015 INSC 3013 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a partition suit filed by the daughters of Shashidhar against his father, step‑mother and step‑sisters over extensive family properties. The trial court granted a preliminary decree allocating shares, which the defendants appealed. The Karnataka High Court disposed of the first appeal in a brief orde

NAVRATAN LAL SHARMAversusRADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS.

2024 INSC 97012 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Navratan Lal Sharma, filed a suit for declaration and injunction which was dismissed, leading him to file a first appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties executed a compromise deed that provided for the restoration of the appeal if the respondents failed to honor payment obligations. The H

G H JASMEET KAURversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2019 INSC 136112 December 2019Disposed off

The petitioner, a U.S. citizen, married a U.S. citizen husband and had two children who are U.S. citizens. After a visit to India, the petitioner refused to return to the United States with the children, prompting the husband to obtain custody orders in a Connecticut Superior Court and later file a habeas corpus petiti

BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUFversusASHWIN DESAI

2018 INSC 119512 December 2018Disposed off

The appellant, a landlord, stepped into the shoes of a lessor who had executed a 99‑year lease in 1992. After the lessee defaulted on rent, the appellant filed a suit in 2007 for recovery of possession, mesne profits and an injunction. The lessee sought dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, arguing that t

EMBASSY HOTELS PVT.LTD.versusMIS. GAJARAJ & CO. & ORS.

2014 INSC 102612 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Embassy Hotels Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for specific performance of a 1978 agreement for sale of land that had been mortgaged by the vendor, M/s. Gajaraj & Co., to Srinivasa Perumal Financing Corporation. The mortgaged land was sold by court auction to the appellant, who obtained a sale certificate that was confirmed by

MAHESH GOVINDJI TRIVEDIversusBAKUL MAGANLAL VYAS & ORS.

2022 INSC 107212 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a defendant in a 2004 suit for specific performance, filed a counter‑claim on 7 September 2018, well after his written statement but before the suit's issues were framed. The Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowed the counter‑claim on 2 May 2019 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Division B

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS.versusVISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR.

2018 INSC 97012 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed a small‑cause suit for eviction, rent and damages against the tenant. The suit, originally valued at Rs.21,175, was later amended to Rs.27,775 and transferred to an Additional District Judge (ADJ) because its value exceeded the then pecuniary limit of Rs.25,000 for a Small Causes Court. While the sui

SANJEEV KUMAR JAINversusRAGHUBIR SARAN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS.

2011 INSC 75512 October 2011Disposed off

The appellant Sanjeev Kumar Jain appealed against a Delhi High Court order that awarded the respondents Rs 45,28,000 as costs in an appeal concerning a vacated interim injunction. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could award such a sum, given the provisions of Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure

GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR.versusCHAKIRI YANADI & ANR.

2011 INSC 75712 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

A suit for partition of a Mitakshara coparcenary property was filed by a son (respondent No.1) against his father, brother and two sisters (the appellants). The trial court passed a preliminary decree in 1999, amended in 2003, determining the parties' shares, but a final decree had not been rendered. While the suit was

RAJUL MANOJ SHAH ALIAS RAJESHWARI RASIKLAL SHETHversusKIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ANR.

2025 INSC 110912 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that her sister‑in‑law could not sell a jointly owned bungalow and that an agreement to sell dated 21‑10‑2011 was void. After the sister‑in‑law died, the court substituted a Nazir as defendant No.1. In 2021 the respondent (defendant No.2) applied to amend his wri

VANEETA PATNAIKversusNIRMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI & ORS.

2025 INSC 110612 September 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a faculty member of NUJS, filed a complaint on 26 December 2023 alleging sexual harassment by the Vice‑Chancellor, claiming the last incident occurred in April 2023. The Local Complaint Committee dismissed the complaint as time‑barred because the filing was beyond the three‑month statutory period and the

A. VALLIAMMAIversusK.P. MURALI AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 82312 September 2023Disposed off

A. Valliammai entered into an agreement to sell land to K. Sriram in 1988, with an advance paid and the balance due by May 1989, later extended to November 1989. After disputes and notices in 1991 indicating Valliammai's refusal to perform, Sriram filed an injunction suit, which was later dismissed, and assigned his ri

YASHODA (ALIAS SODHAN)versusSUKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 94612 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged 1993 agreement to sell land, after an earlier suit for declaration was withdrawn without liberty to re‑file. The plaintiff’s plaint stated that no litigation was pending concerning the agreement, while the earlier suit and its withdrawal were not disclos

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.versusMANDIR SRI LAXMAN SIDH MAHARAJ

2017 INSC 88612 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Bharat Bhushan Bharti, calling himself the Mahant and Manager of the ancient Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj temple, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the temple and its surrounding five‑acre land and a permanent injunction restraining the State and the Divisional Forest Officer from interfering with h

AMARDEEP SINGHversusHARVEEN KAUR

2017 INSC 89612 September 2017Disposed off

Amardeep Singh filed a civil appeal challenging the Family Court's order granting a waiver of the six‑month cooling‑off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a mutual‑consent divorce. The parties had been living separately for over eight years, had settled all pending disputes including a mas

SARDAR TAJENDER SINGH GHAMBHIR AND ANOTHERversusSARDAR GURPREET SINGH & OTHERS

2014 INSC 62712 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction and later amended the plaint, increasing the valuation and creating a deficiency in court fee. The trial court did not order a time limit for payment of the deficit fee. The defendants appealed; the first appellate court observed the lack of a time order and al

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (PREVIOUSLY STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH)versusMOHAN SINGH & OTHERS

2012 INSC 39012 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttarakhand appealed against the Board of Revenue’s order that had allowed a second appeal under Section 331(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, declaring that respondents had acquired Bhumidar rights by adverse possession. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 331(4) inc

SHRI AMBYA KALYA MHATRE (D) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 67012 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of Ambya Kalya Mhatre, owned land acquired for the New Bombay project and were awarded compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied, they applied under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a reference to the civil court, initially seeking only an increase for the

S. M. ASIFversusVI RENDER KUMAR BAJAJ

2015 INSC 56412 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant, who admitted the tenancy but claimed an agreement to sell the premises and alleged payment of Rs. 82.5 lakhs, also filing a suit for specific performance. The trial court invoked Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC and passed a decree for eviction on the basis of the tenan

STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.versusLAXMI NARAYAN DAS (DEAD) THR. LRS & ORS.

2023 INSC 61912 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents claimed ownership of land that had been recorded in the 1962 Record of Rights and later allotted to the Reserve Bank of India. They appealed to the Settlement Officer in 1990, filed a civil suit in 2003 (withdrawn in 2007 without permission to re‑file), and finally filed a writ petition in 2008 seeking

ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD.versusALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS

2022 INSC 71312 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., the licensor, granted individual shop licenses to various shopkeepers, including the respondents, and later revoked those licenses. The respondents filed suits seeking a declaration that their licenses were irrevocable and perpetual. While the suits were pending, they applied to amend their p

FAROOQI BEGUM (D) BY LRS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 70712 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh sued Farooqi Begum for declaration, possession and mesne profits of a 20‑bigha land that was claimed to be a government grove. The land had been granted rent‑free to Begum in 1924 by the Nawab of Rampur, but the successor allegedly resumed the grant in 1930 and the State took possession. Begu

G H PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LTD.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2019 INSC 75512 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Pam Developments Private Ltd., was awarded a sum of Rs.2.87 crore by an arbitrator in a dispute with the State of West Bengal over a highway repair contract, but the award remained unpaid. The State filed a Section 34 petition challenging the award and later sought a stay of its operation under the amend

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERSversusVIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANOTHER

2011 INSC 48512 July 2011

The Supreme Court examined the Jaipur Development Authority’s attempt to regularise illegal land allotments in the Lal Kothi Scheme, which were based on a letter dated 6 December 2001 purporting to be a government policy. The Court held that the letter was not a valid policy order under Article 166 because it was not i

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. KRAFTERS ENGINEERING & LEASING (P) LTD.

2011 INSC 48312 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India challenged an arbitral award that granted interest on amounts payable to M/s. Krafters Engineering & Leasing (P) Ltd. under a works contract, arguing that Clause 1.15 of the General Conditions expressly prohibited any interest on such amounts. The High Court had upheld the award, but the Supreme Cour

THIRUNAGALINGAMversusLINGESWARAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 67212 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, but the trial court passed an ex‑parte decree after the defendants stopped appearing. The defendants later obtained condonation of delay for earlier applications under Order IX Rule 13, but the Supreme Court dismissed those condonation petitions i

SURESH PRASAD SINGHversusDULHIN PHULKUMARI DEVI AND ORS.

2010 INSC 31412 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2018 INSC 32912 April 2018Disposed off

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

KUSUM HARILAL SONIversusCHANDRLKA NANDLAL MEHTA AND ANR.

2016 INSC 31012 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

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

KEDAR MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2016 INSC 30412 April 2016

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

SMT. NEENA VIKRAM VERMAversusBALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM & ORS.

2013 INSC 25112 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAJ KUMAR SHIVHAREversusASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANOTHER

2010 INSC 20612 April 2010Dismissed

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

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

2019 INSC 34912 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

SIVAKAMI & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2018 INSC 22612 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

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

JOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDYversusVERONICA THOMAS RAJKUMAR & ANR

2013 INSC 15612 March 2013Dismissed

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

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

2026 INSC 15012 February 2026Dismissed

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

SUKHDEV SINGHversusSUKHBIR KAUR

2025 INSC 19712 February 2025Reference answered

The case arose from a decree of nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein the Punjab & Haryana High Court had held the marriage void. The appellant contested whether, despite the void status, the spouse could claim permanent alimony under Section 25 and interim maintenance under Section 24 of th

GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusPRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR.

2024 INSC 10212 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAVINDER NATH AGARWALversusYOGENDER NATH AGARWAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 8612 February 2021Disposed off

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

H. S. GOUTHAMversusRAMA MURTHY AND ANR. ETC.

2021 INSC 8212 February 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2020 INSC 17312 February 2020Directions issued

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

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search