Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1,350 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 801–1,000.

M/S SCG CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD.versusK. S. CHAMANKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 18712 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

In a commercial suit, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 6.94 crore. The defendant was served on 14 July 2017 but failed to file a written statement within the statutory 120‑day period. The trial court initially extended time to 15 December 2017 on condition of payment of costs, and later, despite the amendment to th

U.P.S.R.T.C.versusKM. MAMTA & ORS

2016 INSC 16412 February 2016

The appellant corporation’s bus collided with a motorcyclist, leading to a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded Rs.24,73,252, which the corporation appealed to the Allahabad High Court under Section 173 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal witho

RAVEESH CHAND JAINversusRAJ RANI JAIN

2015 INSC 11112 February 2015Dismissed

The mother (respondent) sued her son (appellant) for possession of a property she claimed to have purchased with her own funds and for damages. The son contended the property was a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) asset bought with ancestral money. An earlier partition suit filed by the son was dismissed, which the mother

TAPAS KUMAR SAMANTAversusSARBANI SEN & ANR.

2015 INSC 11012 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Tapas Kumar Samanta filed an eviction suit against Sarbani Sen and others alleging non‑payment of rent, personal necessity to demolish the existing building for his own residence and business, waste, nuisance and unauthorized construction, invoking Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court dismissed

NASIB KAUR AND ORS.versusCOL SURAT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS & ORS.

2013 INSC 9512 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a dispute over ownership and possession of land sold by Col. Surat Singh, the plaintiff, to Col. Girdhar Singh, who later sold it to the defendants. The plaintiff filed suits for declaration of title and permanent injunction, but the trial courts and the first appellate court found that the plaintiff

KISHORILAL (D) THR. LRS & ORS.versusGOPAL & ORS.

2026 INSC 4812 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff Gopal sued the deceased vendor Kishorilal for specific performance of a sale agreement; the vendor's heirs and the purchasers (appellants 2 and 3) were joined in the suit which was decreed in Kishorilal's favour. An appeal (F.A. No.213 of 2000) was filed, but Kishorilal died and his four legal heirs were

ASMA LATEEF & ANRversusSHABBIR AHMAD & ORS

2024 INSC 3612 January 2024Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction over a property, alleging an oral gift, while the defendants contested the suit's maintainability under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The trial court, ignoring the written statement of one defendant and the pending jurisdictional objecti

RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTAversusPRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS.

2011 INSC 3412 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed suit No.1301 of 1997 and subsequently lodged an application to withdraw the suit. Before the court could rule on that application, he filed a second application seeking to withdraw the earlier withdrawal application. The Allahabad High Court held that the filing of a withdrawal application automatic

DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.

2024 INSC 104911 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit in 2017 seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 04‑12‑2004, alleging fraud and claiming they only became aware of the deed on 31‑03‑2017 when a revenue notice was issued. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the thre

MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRAversusROOP RANI MEHRA & ORS.

2017 INSC 121211 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a partition suit for a family property and later sought to amend the plaint to claim a share in the sale proceeds of another family property sold in 2000. The amendment application was filed on 17 January 2011, before any evidence had been led, although issues had been framed and a date for recordin

TRILOK SINGH CHAUHANversusRAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.

2017 INSC 121311 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed a suit in the Small Causes Court for recovery of rent and eviction of the tenant, claiming a rent of Rs.1500 per month. The trial court upheld this claim and decreed eviction, but the tenant obtained a revision from the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which

PURNO AGITOK SANGMAversusPRANAB MUKHERJEE

2012 INSC 57311 December 2012Dismissed

In the 2012 presidential election, petitioner Purno Agitok Sangma challenged the election of Pranab Mukherjee on the ground that Mukherjee held two "offices of profit" – Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) and Leader of the House in the Lok Sabha – at the time of filing his nomination, which would disqua

AJAY MAKENversusADESH KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

2012 INSC 57711 December 2012Disposed off

The Delhi High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the 2009 Lok Sabha election of Ajay Maken on grounds of alleged corrupt practices. The appellant argued that the petition should be thrown out for (i) the copy served on him not being a true copy under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act,

KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERSversusKAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 130711 November 2025Dismissed

The case concerned a long‑standing dispute between two sections of the Kuruba community over the performance of rituals and custody of idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy. A compromise decree dated 1 November 1933 required the respondents to pay half the pooja expenses, to rotate the idols every six months and to appoint tr

S.D. JOSHI & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY & ORS.

2010 INSC 76911 November 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, who are Judges of Family Courts in Maharashtra, sought elevation to the Bombay High Court, arguing that they hold a "judicial office" under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether Family Courts qualify as courts in the constitutional sense, whether their judges are par

UNION OF INDIAversusUZAIR IMRAN & ORS.

2023 INSC 90111 October 2023Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against the Tribunal and High Court orders that directed the appointment of Ankur Gupta (the third respondent) as Postal Assistant, after he was excluded from training on the basis of his vocational‑stream intermediate qualification. The dispute centered on whether the amendment to the 1990

MALTHESH GUDDA POOJAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2011 INSC 75111 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged a notification and the handling of a review petition concerning a writ appeal that had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The review petition was heard by a different Division Bench under a 29‑December‑2008 notification and was allowed on 17 December 2009, thereby r

DAYARAMversusSUDHIR BATHAM & ORS.

2011 INSC 73711 October 2011Disposed off

The case concerned the validity of the fifteen directions issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil for verification of caste certificates and the procedural rights of parties challenging the orders of the State Level Screening Committee. Dayaram, the President of the Scheduled Caste Employees Association, ch

HEMAVATHI AND ORS.versusV. HOMBEGOWDA AND ANR.

2023 INSC 84811 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants obtained a decree for partition of property in 2012. The defendants filed a regular appeal after a delay of 2,945 days, which the first appellate court dismissed. They then filed a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC before the Karnataka High Court, which condoned the delay, remanded the m

NARAYANA GRAMANI & ORS.versusMARIAMMAL & ORS.

2018 INSC 80211 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction over a parcel of land, which the trial court decreed in their favour. The defendants appealed, first unsuccessfully, and then filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal by framing a single substantial questi

C. P. JOHNversusBABU M. PALISSERY & ORS.

2014 INSC 62511 September 2014Dismissed

C.P. John, a losing candidate, filed an election petition challenging the election of Babu M. Palissery on grounds of bribery, false pamphlet distribution and alleged suppression of criminal convictions. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding it lacked material facts and was non‑compliant with Section 83 of the

TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOWversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 96611 August 2025Disposed off

Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd filed Civil Suit No.447/2025 seeking an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) granted the injunction without recording reasons or complying with the proviso requiring delivery of the application, affidavit, plaint and supporting

VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERINGversusSATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. AND ANOTHER.

2010 INSC 50111 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Venture Global Engineering, a US‑based company, entered into a joint‑venture with Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (the first respondent) and later obtained an arbitral award ordering it to transfer its shares in the joint venture to Satyam. After the award, Satyam’s chairman confessed to massive financial fraud, leading

R. M. SUNDARAM @ MEENAKSHISUNDARAMversusSRI KAYAROHANASAMY AND NEELAYADHAKSHI AMMAN TEMPLE (THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER) NAGAPATTINAM, TAMIL NADU

2022 INSC 66511 July 2022Dismissed

The appellant claimed that 26 pieces of suit jewellery kept in the temple's Kudavarai were his personal inheritance as the adopted son of Muthuthandapani Chettiar and sought exclusive possession. The respondent temple argued that the jewellery had been donated by the ancestors of Muthuthandapani as a specific endowment

HEMANTHA KUMARversusR. MAHADEVAIAH & ORS.

2022 INSC 69411 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement and, together with defendants 1 and 2, applied under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC for a consent decree, stating that the dispute was settled and the full consideration had been paid. The trial court referred the matter to a Lok Adalat, which, befo

MOHAMED ALIversusV. JAYA & ORS.

2022 INSC 69611 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Mohamed Ali sued for specific performance of a sale agreement. The trial court passed an ex‑parte judgment and decree in 2012. The defendants filed applications to set aside the decree after delays of 1,522 days (defendant 1) and 2,345 days (defendants 2‑4); the trial court refused to condone these delays. The defendan

ASHA RANI GUPTAversusSRI VINEET KUMAR

2022 INSC 68411 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Asha Rani Gupta, the plaintiff‑lessor, filed an eviction suit against Sri Vineet Kumar, the defendant‑lessee, for non‑payment of rent and damages. The trial court struck off the defendant’s defence under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC for failing to deposit the admitted rent, a decision affirmed by the revisional court. Th

HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITEDversusPRADEEP SHANTIPERSHAD JAIN & ORS

2022 INSC 68511 July 2022Directions issued

HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. invested USD 60 million in Avitel, a company owned by the respondents. The Supreme Court, affirming a 2014 order, directed the respondents to maintain a USD 60 million balance in a Corporation Bank account. The respondents failed to comply, repeatedly sought exemption, and claimed lack

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDIWAN CHAND ANAND & ORS

2022 INSC 66811 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a trial court decree that declared land acquisition notifications void and restrained DDA from dispossessing co‑owners of the land. The High Court dismissed the appeal as abated because several respondents had died and their legal representatives were not brought on record

NANDA DULAL PRADHAN & ANR.versusDIBAKAR PRADHAN & ANR.

2022 INSC 68111 July 2022Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and title, and the original defendants 2 and 3 failed to file a written statement despite several extensions, leading the trial court to pass an ex‑parte decree. The defendants applied under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree; the trial court dismissed the app

MATHAI M. PAIKEDAYversusC.K. ANTONY

2011 INSC 48211 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed two suits for recovery of money against the respondent, a retired Deputy Conservator of Forest drawing a pension of Rs 10,500, and obtained decrees in his favour. The respondent appealed the decrees before the Kerala High Court and sought to prosecute the appeals as an indigent person under Order 44

MAKARDHWAJ RAMversusJAGDISH RAI (DEAD) TH. LRS. & ANR.

2026 INSC 63611 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 95.80‑acre family property originally transferred in 1960 to the appellant, Makardhwaj Ram, and his mother. Subsequent sales by a cousin acting under a General Power of Attorney were later cancelled, leading to multiple suits challenging those sales, all of which were dismissed. The appellant la

VIJAY ARJUN BHAGAT & ORS.versusNANA LAXMAN TAPKIRE & ORS.

2018 INSC 49111 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership of certain properties. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court set it aside in their favour. The respondents appealed to the High Court, which admitted the second appeal and framed six substantial questions of law under Section

SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS.versusN.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY (D) THR. LRS.

2018 INSC 50611 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant (defendant) sought to enforce a maintenance decree against her husband, during which the husband executed a sale deed of the disputed property to the plaintiff. The decree was later executed by a court auction, where the decree‑holder purchased the property, and the sale was confirmed after the plaintiff'

VIMALESHWAR NAGAPPA SHETversusNOOR AHMED SHERIFF & ORS.

2011 INSC 38111 May 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet, bought a dwelling house from several co‑sharers of a deceased owner but the agreement of sale did not include the minor grandson (Defendant No. 3). The minor did not join the sale and later offered to purchase the 9/11 share, prompting the High Court to fix a market value and di

AMAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 38211 May 2011Dismissed

Amar Singh filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging that his telephone conversations were intercepted by the Government of India and the Delhi administration at the behest of a political party, and sought an injunction and damages. The petition relied on annexes that were later shown to be forged and were obtain

VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 38311 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose under a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) between the Government of India and a consortium that included Videocon Industries Ltd. The PSC stipulated Kuala Lumpur as the seat of arbitration, but due to the SARS epidemic the arbitral tribunal held hearings in Amsterdam and London, recording a consent to

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRANVANCORE LTD. & ANR.versusGENERAL SECRETARY FACT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2019 INSC 51411 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Government directed the public sector undertaking FACT to reduce the retirement age of pre‑1978 employees from 60 to 58 years. Trade unions challenged the order in the Kerala High Court; the Single Judge and the Division Bench dismissed the petitions and the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitio

M/S KAUSHIK COOP. BUILDING SOCIETYversusN. PARVATHAMMA & ORS.

2017 INSC 33511 April 2017Disposed off

The Kaushik Cooperative Building Society claimed ownership of land in Survey No.129/68 Paiki based on a 1976 decree in a specific‑performance suit (CCCA No.14 of 1972). Subsequent land‑grabbing suits (LGC Nos.46/1989, 29/1992, 15/1996) were dismissed, confirming the same title. Later, a new land‑grabbing case (LGC No.4

ANNAPURNAversusMALLIKARJUN & ANR.

2014 INSC 26811 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The judgment debtor sought to set aside a court‑sale of his house under Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC but failed to make the mandatory deposit of the sale price. The executing court rejected his application and the appellate court dismissed his appeal. He then filed a writ petition, and the High Court, relying on a late

RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL & ANR.versusGOPI KRISHAN (DEAD THROUGH L.RS.) & ORS.

2013 INSC 23911 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The land in question was jointly owned and was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. One co‑owner (the appellants) filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhanced compensation without impleading the other co‑owner (the respondent). The Reference Court awarded compensation to both parties, after whic

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMAJOR GENERAL SHRI KANT SHARMA & ANR.

2015 INSC 20611 March 2015Disposed off

The case concerned several writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The Union of India argued that Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, together with Articles 136(2) and 227(4) of the Constitution, bar High Court jurisdiction

OM PRAKASH GUPTA ALIAS LALLOOWA (NOW DECEASED) & ORS.versusSATISH CHANDRA (NOW DECEASED)

2025 INSC 18311 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from two second appeals concerning specific performance suits where the respondents died during pendency. The heirs of the deceased respondents filed substitution applications, but the High Court dismissed applications for condonation of delay and held the appeals abated. The Supreme Court examined the p

CANARA BANKversusAJITHKUMAR G.K.

2025 INSC 18411 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The father of Ajithkumar G.K. died in service of Canara Bank in December 2001, and the son applied for a compassionate appointment under the bank's 1993 scheme. The bank rejected the claim on grounds of sufficient family pension, terminal benefits and the son's age exceeding the limit, prompting a writ petition that wa

THE STATE OF MEGHALAYAversusMELVIN SOHLANGPIAW

2020 INSC 17111 February 2020Disposed off

The respondent, a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe, was charged with murder and concealment of dead body under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and was initially ordered to stand trial before the Sessions Court. He filed a petition seeking transfer of the case to the District Council Court of the Khasi Hills Autonomo

VELAGACHARLA JAYARAM REDDY & ORS.versusM.VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. ETC

2022 INSC 3111 January 2022Dismissed

The dispute concerned a 3.25‑cent plot allotted in 2000 by the Jayanagar Housing Welfare Society, a cooperative society, to a member (defendant No.2, M. V. Ramana). Former office‑bearers of the society, a welfare association and a couple of shop owners (plaintiffs) claimed the plot was earmarked as a parking area in th

RAMJI SINGH PATELversusGYAN CHANDRA JAISWAL

2018 INSC 2311 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent operated a flour mill and related businesses from his residential premises, initially using electricity but from 2003 switched to diesel engines that caused severe vibrations and air pollution affecting the adjoining house of the appellant. The appellant filed a suit in 2004 seeking a perpetual injunctio

UNITED FINANCE CORPORATIONversusM.S.M. HANEEFA

2017 INSC 4511 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

United Finance Corporation, the decree‑holder, purchased a property at a court auction and sought delivery of possession under Order XXI Rule 95 of the CPC. The judgment‑debtor filed applications to set aside the sale and obtained a stay of execution, which was later dismissed on 9 July 2003. The appellant filed the po

MR. JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.)versusJANEKERE C. KRISHNA & ORS. ETC.

2013 INSC 3111 January 2013Disposed off

The Karnataka Lokayukta post of Upa‑Lokayukta became vacant and the Chief Minister advised the Governor to appoint Justice Chandrashekaraiah without consulting the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, as required by s.3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The High Court quashed the appointment, holding th

GAYATHRI WOMEN WELFARE ASSOCIATIONversusGOWRAMMA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 3011 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Gayathri Women Welfare Association sued for a permanent injunction to protect its possession of land. The trial court granted the injunction, but the Karnataka High Court set aside the decree and remanded the case. After remand, the respondents amended their written statement to add a counter‑claim for demolition a

JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSAHNULAL & ANR.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 71910 December 2024Disposed off

The case involved a suit for specific performance of a 1996 sale agreement concerning a half‑acre land in Bilaspur. The trial court granted specific performance, but the first appellate court set aside that part of the decree, ordering only a refund of earnest money, citing alleged hardship under Section 20(2)(b) of th

MURTHY & ORS.versusC. SARADAMBAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 86210 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased E. Srinivasa Pillai executed a will bequeathing his house to his only son S. Damodaran, excluding his daughters. The will was produced fifteen years after the testator's death by the son’s widow, C. Saradambal, who sought Letters of Administration, while the daughters contested its validity alleging fabric

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S. VISAKHA INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 135210 December 2019Disposed off

The appellant, Google India Private Limited, was summoned under a criminal complaint alleging defamation (IPC ss.120B, 500, 501 r/w s.34) for articles posted in a Google Group hosted by it. It filed a petition under CrPC s.482 seeking to quash the summons, arguing it was not an intermediary and that Section 79 of the I

BGS SGS SOMA JVversusNHPC LTD.

2019 INSC 134910 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners BGS SGS SOMA JV sought to enforce an arbitral award concerning a hydro‑electric project, while the respondent NHPC Ltd filed a Section 34 petition in the Faridabad court to set aside the award. The petitioners applied under Section 151 CPC to have the petition returned to the appropriate court, and the

BALURAMversusP. CHELLATHANGAM & ORS.

2014 INSC 85810 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement entered into by the trustees of the Subbaiah Paniker Family Welfare Trust. The appellant, a beneficiary of the trust, applied to be impleaded as a defendant, alleging prejudice if the sale proceeded at the agreed price. The trial court allowed his impleadmen

CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM CO. & ANRversusHALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. & ORS.

2013 INSC 81710 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Co. invoked the arbitration clause in a restructuring agreement dated 12 January 2002, seeking ICC arbitration over a dispute with Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Haldia contended that a later agreement dated 8 March 2002, which granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Calcutta courts, nullifie

KEDAR SHASHIKANT DESHPANDE ETC. ETC.versusBHOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2010 INSC 87110 December 2010Dismissed

The appellants were elected as councillors of Bhor Municipal Council on the ticket of the NCP, later left the party and formed a new political front. Respondents filed a disqualification petition under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986, alleging that the appellants had voluntarily given

MITC ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.versusM/S RENUKA REALTORS AND ORS.

2025 INSC 130010 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.2.5 crore. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the mandatory pre‑institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant cha

SURESH G. RAMNANIversusAURELIA ANA DE PIEDADE MIRANDA @ ARIYA ALVARES (DEAD THR. LRS) & ORS.

2022 INSC 119610 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought a review of a High Court order and filed a miscellaneous application requesting that the review be heard by Justice G.S. Patel, who had earlier decided the matter. The respondent opposed, arguing that under Chapter XXX Rule 3(1) of the Bombay High Court Rules, the review should be placed before the

BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.versusVCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD.

2022 INSC 119310 November 2022Dismissed

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (now part of ICICI Bank) granted a term loan and overdraft facility to VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., which defaulted. The bank sought recovery of the debt before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act).

GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD)versusK. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.

2025 INSC 113410 September 2025Disposed off

The heirs of cultivating tenant Govindappa Gounder sued the landowners K. Vijayakumar and others, who sought eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 alleging that the tenants had cut trees, dug pits and caused damage to the land. The Revenue Court, relying on a commissi

KHURSHEED & ANR.versusSHAQOOR

2024 INSC 76410 September 2024Dismissed

The dispute concerned agricultural land in Haridwar where the mother of Petitioner No.1 allegedly fraudulently claimed inheritance and executed a sale deed on 09‑08‑2016 by impersonation, a deed the Respondent sought to cancel. The Respondent filed a civil suit for cancellation, but the defendant filed an application i

MADHYA PRADESH STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITYversusPRATEEK JAIN & ANR.

2014 INSC 62110 September 2014Disposed off

The dispute arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act between Prateek Jain (complainant) and Rakesh Kumar Jain (accused). While a criminal appeal was pending, the parties settled and filed a joint application under Section 147 seeking compounding and requested that the matter be taken before a Lok Adala

LAFARGE AGGREGATES & CONCRETE INDIA P. LTDversusSUKARSH AZAD & ANR

2013 INSC 60210 September 2013Dismissed

Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India Ltd. (appellant) lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a cheque of Rs.2.5 lakh issued by the managing director of the respondents was stopped, leading to its dishonour. The respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC offering to p

RATUL MAHANTAversusNIRMALENDU SAHA

2021 INSC 39010 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Ratul Mahanta filed a title suit seeking a declaration that a common public drain forming the western boundary of his and adjoining properties could be used by him and that the respondent could not obstruct it, also seeking a permanent injunction. The respondent contended that the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 19

THE CORPORATION OF MADRAS & ANR.versusM. PARTHASARATHY & ORS.

2018 INSC 68910 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed four suits for permanent injunction over a 3600 sq. ft. land parcel, which the trial court dismissed. In their first appeals they sought and were granted permission under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence, which the appellate court admitted and relied upon to set aside the trial c

VED PAL (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.versusPREM DEVI (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

2018 INSC 69210 August 2018Case Partly allowed

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of a second appeal in a civil suit on the basis of an alleged compromise, subsequently decreeing the suit. The appellants filed a review petition challenging this disposal, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not properly examined th

J. VASANTHI & ORS.versusN. RAMAN! KANTHAMMAL (D) REP. BY LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 73110 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The original plaintiff, J. Vasanti & Ors., filed a suit seeking a declaration that several sale deeds relating to her inherited property were null and void and also sought a permanent injunction. The defendants argued that the plaintiff, being a party to the sale deeds, was effectively seeking cancellation of those dee

UNIWORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.versusINDEV LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.

2024 INSC 51510 July 2024Dismissed

The appellant and respondent entered into a leave‑and‑license agreement for a warehouse, which the respondent later terminated for non‑payment of storage charges. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction and vacant possession, expressly reserving the right to claim arrears of rent and damages, and was grant

YOGESH GOYANKAversusGOVIND & ORS.

2024 INSC 51010 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased farming land from a seller during the pendency of a suit challenging earlier release deeds, and obtained a registered sale deed while fully aware of the litigation. He applied to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, but the Additional District Judge dismissed the applica

THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 50210 July 2024Directions issued

The State of West Bengal filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Union of India’s registration of cases by the CBI after the State withdrew its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act is unconstitutional, and asked for an injunctio

EASWARIversusPARVATHI & ORS.

2014 INSC 48310 July 2014Dismissed

The plaintiffs, as legal heirs of the deceased Ponnangatti Gounder and his predeceased wife, sued for declaration and injunction over two properties (Schedule A – ancestral, Schedule B – self‑acquired). The trial court decreed in their favour for both properties. The first appellate court reversed the decree concerning

NITIN GUNWANT SHAHversusINDIAN BANK & ORS.

2012 INSC 27510 July 2012Dismissed

The petitioner, Nitin Gunwant Shah, claimed to be a monthly tenant of a flat in Mumbai based on a 1989 "Leave and Licence" agreement and sought a declaration to that effect. The Indian Bank, holding a mortgage over the same property, obtained a decree for recovery of dues and sought to sell the flat, also asking the co

M/S PURBANCHAL CABLES & CONDUCTORS PVT. LTDversusASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER

2012 INSC 28010 July 2012Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered two appeals by suppliers of aluminium conductors against the Assam State Electricity Board concerning claims for interest on delayed payments under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. The Court held that a suit seeking only intere

MRUGENDRA INDRAVADAN MEHTA AND OTHERSversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

2024 INSC 40110 May 2024Dismissed

The plaintiffs sued the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation seeking either compensation for the loss of 974 square metres of land or, alternatively, an allotment of land of that size in any town planning scheme. The trial court granted the alternative relief of land allotment but rejected the compensation claim, prompting

BHASKER & ANR.versusAYODHYA JEWELLERS

2023 INSC 73010 May 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The appeal concerned the appropriate starting point of limitation for filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after a property was sold in execution. The sale was confirmed on 16 July 2009, a sale certificate was issued on 5 February 2010, and the purchaser filed a Rule‑95

ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS.versusINTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 67310 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a group of 44 buyers, had booked office and shop spaces in the Intellicity project and the builder failed to deliver possession within the agreed four‑year period. They filed a class action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund, interest and compensation, but the Nat

PRAMOD KUMAR & ANR.versusZALAK SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 66610 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Pramod Kumar and another, challenged two separate alienations of ancestral land by their father Tikaram. They filed a suit in 1963 to set aside the first sale deed (21‑01‑1959) and later, in 1971, a second suit to set aside the second sale deed (11‑02‑1959). Both suits were dismissed by the trial court

KIRODI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRversusRAM PARKASH & ORS.

2019 INSC 67410 May 2019Dismissed

The appellant filed a regular second appeal alleging that the appeal was decided without framing a substantial question of law, relying on decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the 1976 Amendment Act

VOHRA SADIKBHAI RAJAKBHAI & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2016 INSC 39810 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of agricultural land adjacent to the Mazum dam, claimed compensation for loss of fruit‑bearing trees after the State of Gujarat released 60,000 cusecs of water from the dam during heavy monsoon rains. The respondents argued that the release was necessitated by an act of God and was in the public

PREMAversusNANJE GOWDA AND OTHERS

2011 INSC 37210 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an unmarried daughter, sought to increase her share in a joint Hindu family property after the Karnataka legislature inserted Section 6A into the Hindu Succession Act, granting daughters equal coparcenary rights. A preliminary decree in the partition suit had already fixed her share at 1/28th, but the fi

MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA & ORS.versusSHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI & ORS.

2024 INSC 29310 April 2024Dismissed

The appellants (the Gala family) claimed a right of way over a 20‑ft road (the disputed rasta) situated on the respondents' land, asserting that the easement was acquired by prescription, necessity, or a 1994 sale deed. The trial court initially decreed in their favour, but the appellate courts set aside that decree, h

CHHOTANBEN AND ANR.versusKIRITBHAI JALKRUSHNABHAI THAKKAR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 31910 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, sisters and co‑owners of ancestral land, alleged that their brothers fraudulently executed a registered sale deed in 1996, forging their signatures and thumb impressions, and transferred the property without their knowledge. Upon discovering the fraud in late 2012, they filed a suit for declaration and

MRS. HEMA KHATTAR & ANR.versusSHIV KHERA

2017 INSC 32410 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into a written construction contract on 06‑06‑2009 containing an arbitration clause. Disputes over construction quality led to a meeting where the contract was terminated by mutual consent and an oral agreement was made with the husband of the original contractor to supervise the work, under which h

S. KESARI HANUMAN GOUDversusANJUM JEHAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 23310 April 2013Disposed off

The appellant, S. Kesari Hanuman Goud, filed a suit for specific performance of a 1977 agreement to sell land, asserting that he was always ready and willing to fulfil his part of the contract. The respondent, Anjum Jehan, contended that the appellant lacked the financial capacity and therefore was not ready, subsequen

VENKATARAJA & ORS.versusVIDYANE DOURERADJAPERUMAL (D) THR.LRS. & ORS.

2013 INSC 23610 April 2013Dismissed

The appellants sought a declaration of title to a property in Pondicherry, alleging that a prior sale by a Hindu widow who held only a life estate was void. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of a claim for possession, a decision upheld by the High Court, which also held that the widow had acquired absolute ti

HARDIAL SINGHversusBALBIR KAUR & ANR.

2022 INSC 29110 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of title and injunction based on a will dated 19 April 1998 of the deceased Sucha Singh. The trial court upheld the will, but the first appellate court reversed, finding the will forged and upholding a later will executed by the mother. The plaintiffs then filed a second

GAS POINT PETROLEUM INDIA LTD.versusRAJENDRA MAROTHI & ORS.

2023 INSC 11910 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The decree holder obtained a judgment against National Ginni Enterprises for non‑performance of an LPG gas agreement and initiated execution proceedings. The judgment debtor's property was auctioned on 18‑Oct‑2011 and sold to respondent No.1, who deposited 25% of the price on 3‑Nov‑2011 and the balance on 4‑Nov‑2011. T

RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ETC.

2020 INSC 16010 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, brothers residing in the UK, sought recovery of Rs.1.20 crore from their maternal uncle (appellant No.3) after the uncle advanced the sum for a land sale and later demanded repayment. The uncle issued four cheques, two of which were dishonoured; a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable I

ATMA RAMversusCHARANJIT SINGH

2020 INSC 16210 February 2020Dismissed

The petitioner entered into a 1994 agreement to purchase land for Rs.4,38,000 and paid earnest money, with performance due on 7 Oct 1996. After the seller cited pending litigation, the petitioner issued a notice on 12 Nov 1996 and filed a suit on 13 Oct 1999 seeking a mandatory injunction to compel execution of the tra

M/S CHAKRESHWARI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusMANOHAR LAL

2017 INSC 126310 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd., the owner of a shop leased to Manohar Lal, filed an eviction petition under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 alleging subletting and lack of alternative accommodation. After the trial evidence was closed, the appellant sought to amend the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC t

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST VIRUDHUNAGARversusCHANDRAN & ORS.

2017 INSC 12510 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff claimed to have purchased 2.73 acres of land that he said formed part of Survey No. 188 and sought a declaration of title and a mandatory injunction to have his name entered in the revenue records. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the plaintiff had not correctly described the suit p

PRATIMA CHOWDHURYversusKALPANA MUKHERJEE & ANR.

2014 INSC 8710 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Pratima Chowdhury, a member of a West Bengal cooperative housing society, sought to transfer her flat and membership to Kalpana Mukherjee, claiming the transfer was a gift without consideration. The arbitrator found the transfer invalid, noting that the letters effecting the transfer were likely drafted by Partha Mukhe

JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR.versusTARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 6469 December 2024Disposed off

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 1 September 2019. The defendants, while admitting the existence of the agreement, denied its validity, calling it a sham, and denied other material facts. The plaintiffs sought an order under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the CPC that the defendants

M/S ALCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.versusCELEM S.A. OF FOS 34320 ROUJAN, FRANCE & ANR.

2016 INSC 11209 December 2016Dismissed

The appellant, Alcon Electronics, challenged the execution in India of an English Court order that dismissed its jurisdictional plea and ordered it to pay costs of £12,229.75. The central question was whether such an interlocutory order is a conclusive foreign judgment under Section 13 of the CPC and whether it qualifi

MIS. DISHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GOA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 8419 December 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Disha Constructions and others, entered into a contract to construct a school auditorium and were partially paid, leaving a balance due from September 2006. They served a notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the first defendant on 19 February 2009, which was received on 27 February 2009, and filed a su

M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRSversusV. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS

2019 INSC 12319 November 2019Disposed off

The instant appeals arose from five suits between 1950 and 1989 over a 1500 sq yard land in Ayodhya, claimed by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram (Ram Janmabhumi) and by Muslims as the site of the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court had directed a three-way partition of the disputed site, which the Supreme Court

MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 7619 November 2010Case Partly allowed

Malayalam Plantations Ltd., a private plantation company, owned five estates in Kerala and sought exemption of 2,588 hectares of land from the vesting provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, on the grounds that the land was planted with eucalyptus before vesting and used for firewoo

SANTHINIversusVIJAYA VENKETESH

2017 INSC 10239 October 2017Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether video conferencing could be used in matrimonial disputes under the Family Courts Act, 1984, particularly in transfer petitions. It held that Section 11 of the Act obliges the court to hold proceedings in camera if either party desires, and that allowing video conferencing on the conse

RAZIAAMIRALI SHROFF AND OTHERSversusM/S NISHUVI CORPORATION AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 7629 October 2015Disposed off

The petitioners filed a Notice of Motion (No.3616 of 2010) in the Bombay High Court seeking interim reliefs during the pendency of a suit. The Single Judge declined to grant any ad‑interim order, directing the parties to file affidavits and setting a hearing date. The petitioners appealed, but the Division Bench upheld

SRI GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ANR.versusMEENAKSHI AMMAL & ORS.

2014 INSC 6939 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved three interconnected suits concerning a lease of property owned by a private trust: O.S.5/78 filed by the tenants challenging the trust's ownership, and O.S.6/78 and O.S.7/78 filed by the trust for arrears of rent. All three suits were tried together, resulting in a common judgment but separate decree

K. N. NAGARAJAPPA & ORS.versusH. NARASIMHA REDDY

2021 INSC 4619 September 2021Dismissed

The appellants challenged two second appeals decided by the Karnataka High Court, which had reversed a trial court's decree in favour of the respondent concerning ownership of certain parcels of land. The High Court, invoking its power under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, re‑examined documentary evidence (

KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2011 INSC 6679 September 2011Dismissed

The appellants, Khatri Hotels Private Ltd. and another, claimed title and sought an injunction over land they alleged to have purchased. The land had been urbanised under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and transferred to the Delhi Development Authority (DOA) by notification under the Delhi Development Act, 1

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusSTEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.

2010 INSC 5879 September 2010Case Partly allowed

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) received a complaint that Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) had abused its dominant position by entering an exclusive supply agreement with Indian Railways. The CCI formed a prima facie view and directed the Director General to investigate under s.26(1) of the Competition Act

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ANR.versusJOSEPH AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 6939 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 30-cent parcel of government "puramboke" land in Kudayathoor village, which the claimants alleged they had possessed since 1940 and sought title by adverse possession. The High Court, in a second appeal, held that the claimants were entitled to ownership based on long possession, overturning the

SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALAversusHEMANT VITHAL KAMAT & ORS.

2021 INSC 3879 August 2021Leave Granted & Dismissed

The suit property, originally owned by the mother of the first respondent, was inherited by him and his brother, mortgaged to Karnataka State Finance Corporation (KSFC), and later auctioned to the third respondent, who obtained a sale deed and a decree for possession. The first respondent subsequently filed a suit chal

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.versusB. RANGA REDDY (D) BY LRS & ORS.

2019 INSC 8869 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Three civil suits involving the State of Andhra Pradesh were tried together, two of which (suits No. 274/1983 and 276/1983) were dismissed while the third (suit No. 141/1984) was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The State appealed the decree in the third suit, arguing that the findings on the title issue in the fir

SANTHINIversusVJJAYA VENKETESH

2017 INSC 7309 August 2017Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioner sought transfer of a divorce and child‑custody petition from the Family Court in Alappuzha, Kerala to the Family Court in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The respondent argued that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishna Veni Nagam, the matters could be dealt with via video‑conferencing instead of transf

ETHIOPIAN AIRLINESversusGANESH NARAIN SABOO

2011 INSC 5569 August 2011Disposed off

The respondent filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission alleging delay and damage to a consignment shipped by Ethiopian Airlines. The State Commission dismissed the complaint; the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside that order and remitted the case for f

G.M. SHAHUL HAMEEDversusJAYANTHI R. HEGDE

2024 INSC 4939 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a civil suit challenging a sale deed, while the respondent filed a counter suit. During the respondent's suit, a General Power of Attorney (GPA) that was insufficiently stamped was tendered as evidence; the trial court admitted it and marked it as an exhibit without any objection or judicial determi

M/S AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD.versusPRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 5009 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerned an auction of land owned by Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., which was mortgaged to a bank and later assigned to ARCIL. The Tahsildar conducted the auction without observing the mandatory 30‑day notice period and issued the sale certificate and possession to the appellant, Al‑Can Export Pvt. Ltd.,

DAHIBENversusARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS & ORS.

2020 INSC 4509 July 2020Dismissed

The plaintiffs sold agricultural land to respondent No.1 in 2009 and alleged that only a small part of the sale consideration was paid, seeking cancellation of the sale deed. They filed the suit in December 2014, more than five years after the deed, claiming the cause of action arose only when they discovered alleged f

IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA ETC.versusUJAGAR SINGH & ORS. ETC.

2010 INSC 3429 June 2010Disposed off

The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, acquired land and was awarded compensation which it failed to pay, leading to the attachment and auction of the property in 1992. The auction purchaser, Jagan Singh & Co., paid Rs.22.65 lakh, but the Trust later filed objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, which were dismissed in defaul

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC.versusANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2025 INSC 6569 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Wikimedia Foundation, as a defendant in a defamation suit filed by ANI Media, appealed a High Court order directing it to delete Wikipedia pages and discussion threads that commented on the court's proceedings, alleging that the order violated its freedom of speech and the sub judice principle. The High Court had h

KARUNA KANSALversusHEMANT KANSAL & ANR.

2019 INSC 6629 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Hemant Kansal, had two wives: his first wife, who obtained an ex parte decree of dissolution, and his second wife, Karuna Kansal, the appellant. The first wife appealed the Family Court's refusal to condone the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, seeking to set aside the ex parte decr

BEEMANENI MAHA LAKSHMIversusGANGUMALLA APPA RAO (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS.

2019 INSC 6569 May 2019Dismissed

The appellant, a vendor, entered into an agreement to sell land to the respondent, the vendee, on 30‑12‑1985, with part payment of Rs.55,000 and the balance to be paid within three months, subject to the vendor measuring the land and delivering the original sale deed and land‑ceiling clearance documents. The vendee pai

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITEDversusADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED & OTHERS

2019 INSC 6639 May 2019Disposed off

Birla Corporation filed a criminal complaint alleging that respondents had stolen or misappropriated 54 confidential company documents and sought prosecution under IPC sections 379, 403, 411 read with 120B. The trial magistrate, relying on vague statements of the company representative and an employee, issued summons a

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.versusKINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS.

2017 INSC 4629 May 2017Hearing Adjourned

The consortium of banks sought recovery of large debts from respondents, including guarantor Respondent No.3, who received US$40 million and was ordered by the Supreme Court on 7 April 2016 to disclose all assets. Respondent No.3 failed to disclose the overseas account used for the transfer and subsequently transferred

VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHIversusNANASAHEB GOPAL JOSHI

2017 INSC 4599 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The father‑in‑law filed a suit in the Judge, Small Causes Court seeking possession of a flat, claiming he was the licensor and the daughter‑in‑law a gratuitous licensee. The daughter‑in‑law filed a counter‑claim for a residence order under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The issu

COFFEE BOARDversusM/S. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

2014 INSC 3919 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Coffee Board, a statutory body, failed to provide International Coffee Organization (ICO) export stamps to Ramesh Exports, causing loss of shipment and recall costs. The exporter filed two suits: O.S. No.3150 of 1985 for loss due to delayed shipment and O.S. No.4763 of 1986 for costs arising from the recall. The tr

MAURICE W. INNISversusLILY KAZROONI @ LILY ARIF SHAIKH

2026 INSC 3409 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned the execution of a compromise decree dated 14 July 2017 that divided a 51‑R plot of land between the parties. The defendant, as decree holder, obtained an order from the executing court that altered the portions of land allotted to each party, citing impracticalities such as non‑conforming construc

R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHERversusRAJMANI AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 4789 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a High Court order that remanded a suit to the trial court for a fresh trial on the issue of limitation, despite both the trial court and the first appellate court having held the suit hopelessly barred by limitation. The dispute arose from a family property that had been sold and subsequently

SHAILNDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERSversusMAYA PRAKASH JAIN AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 5019 April 2019Disposed off

In 1966 a son filed a suit for partition of his parents' joint family property, which was decreed by compromise among the parents and three brothers. After the decree, in 2006 one of the brothers (Maya Prakash Jain) filed a suit claiming exclusive ownership of certain properties, asserting a later family settlement. Sr

JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHERversusSHIVNATH & OTHERS

2019 INSC 4939 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of several khasra lands, alleging that their fathers were lessees under a patta-lease. The appellants-defendants contended that the land had been auctioned in 1929 to their grandfather Gaya Din, who obtained a valid patta-lease (Ex.D‑20) an

UMA PANDEY & ANR.versusMUNNA PANDEY & ORS.

2018 INSC 3149 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, members of a family, filed a partition suit for agricultural land which was decreed in their favour by the trial court. The defendants appealed and the first appellate court reversed the decree, relying on a document labelled Ex‑A. The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal, which the Patna High Court di

GOBIND SINGH AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2026 INSC 2119 March 2026Dismissed

The appellants, Gobind Singh and others, sued the Union of India and others for a declaration of title and permanent injunction over land in Gwalior. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the respondents appealed; during the appeal the appellants filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce certif

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANRversusKURIEN E. KALATHIL AND ANR.

2018 INSC 2249 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) contracted with Kurien E. Kalathil to construct a dam, after which a government notification raised minimum wages, leading the contractor to claim labour‑escalation charges with interest (Ex.P‑20) and additional work charges (Ex.P‑59). The High Court ordered KSEB to pay amounts

KRISHNA VENI NAGAMversusHARISH NAGAM

2017 INSC 2249 March 2017Disposed off

The wife, residing in Hyderabad with her minor daughter, sought transfer of a divorce proceeding filed by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court of Jabalpur, citing hardship in traveling to the forum. The petition raised whether a transfer under Section 25 of the CPC was appropriate

B. R. PATILversusTULSA Y. SAWKAR & ORS.

2022 INSC 1659 February 2022Dismissed

The appeal concerned a partition suit filed by the sisters of the deceased R.M. Patil seeking one‑fifth shares in five properties alleged to be self‑acquired by him. The appellant argued that the suit should fail for non‑joinder of his uncle, for omission of certain properties, and on the ground of ouster, claiming he

M/S. SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERSversusN. SAILESH PRASAD AND ORS.

2022 INSC 1679 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a property gifted to the plaintiff during minority, later revoked, and a development agreement executed with the developer. The plaintiff's father obtained a compromise decree in 2015 granting the plaintiff rights over the property. After attaining majority, the plaintiff filed a suit in 2018 see

RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENAversusDINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 559 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Dinesh Kumar Mahto, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Reena, in 2022, yet she continued to live apart, alleging mental cruelty, dowry demands, and a miscarriage. Reena filed a maintenance suit under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2019 and was awarded ₹10,000 per month. The

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusPAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2025 INSC 699 January 2025Dismissed

The State of West Bengal and other public authorities sued PAM Developments for alleged wrongful debarment arising from a road‑strengthening contract. After a series of debarment orders and procedural challenges, the respondent sought to amend its plaint to include later debarment orders, arguing that they formed a con

HANSRAJversusMEWALAL AND ORS.

2019 INSC 419 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Hansraj, was the original bhumidhar of Plot No.677 in Village Bahria, Basti, and a co‑sharer with respondents who had acquired a half‑share by sale. Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the Assistant Consolidation Officer initially proposed chaks for all co‑sharers on the pitch road that r

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusB.P.L. LIMITED

2015 INSC 199 January 2015Dismissed

B.P.L. Ltd., facing severe financial distress, sought approval of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (the appellant) was a secured creditor with a hypothecation charge registered against B.P.L. but later argued that a consent arbitratio

C.N. PARAMSIVAN & ANR.versusSUNRISE PLAZA TR. PARTNER & ORS.

2013 INSC 229 January 2013Dismissed

The appellants purchased a mortgaged property at a public auction conducted by a Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB Act). The auction was later set aside by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the appellants were not bona‑fide purchas

NEPA LIMITED THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL)versusMANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL

2022 INSC 12638 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The arbitral award dated 14‑04‑2000 directed Nepa Ltd to pay Rs 14,49,300 to Manoj Kumar Agrawal with 18% interest from the award date. The High Court, on a stay order, required Nepa to deposit 50% of the amount (Rs 7,78,280) which the respondent withdrew on 08‑11‑2001 after giving a personal undertaking. The responden

SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS.versusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2021 INSC 8428 December 2021Dismissed

The appellants, sons of M. Krishna Reddy, claimed that 8 guntas of land in Survey No.13, which they alleged was left out of a 1971 acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), had been illegally allotted to other parties. They filed writ petitions seeking cancellation of those allotments, while earlier hav

SRI LANKAPPA & ORS.versusKARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION & ORS.

2021 INSC 8418 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of agricultural land since 1929, sued for declaration of title and injunction against Karnataka Industrial Corporation (KIC). KIC claimed title based on a 1968 government grant and filed a separate suit for injunction, which was dismissed along with the appellants' suit, the courts holding the gr

A. ANDISAMY CHETTIARversusA. SUBBURAJ CHETTIAR

2015 INSC 9008 December 2015Disposed off

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction over a disputed property and lost at trial. He appealed, and during the pendency of the appeal filed an application seeking scientific examination of a will's signature. The first appellate court allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27, but the defendant obtain

M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

2024 INSC 8618 November 2024

The petitioner, Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., entered into two agreements to sell agricultural land with the respondents in 1997, paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and sought specific performance after the respondents refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, the High

STATE BANK OF PATIALAversusMUKESH JAIN & ANR.

2016 INSC 10078 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of Patiala had advanced a term loan of Rs.8 lakh to Mukesh Jain, who defaulted and the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act, issuing a notice under Section 13(2). Jain challenged the SARFAESI proceedings by filing a civil suit, prompting the bank to move an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC asserti

AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2012 INSC 5128 November 2012Disposed off

The appellant, Aymubkhan Noorkhan Pathan, was appointed as a senior clerk in the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation under a Scheduled Tribe reservation based on a caste certificate that declared him a member of the Bhil Tadvi tribe. Respondent No.5, a general‑category citizen, alleged that the appellant, being a Muslim,

PANKAJAKSHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusCHANDRIKA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 7608 November 2010Hearing Adjourned

The appeal challenged a Kerala High Court Division Bench order that dismissed an appeal against a trial court decree on the ground of a difference of opinion between the two judges on the genuineness of a will. The bench relied on Section 98(2) of the CPC, which the appellant argued should not apply because the disagre

M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD.versusM/S AROUSH MOTORS & ANR.

2025 INSC 12028 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a commercial dispute where the plaintiff, Aroush Motors, sued Anvita Auto Tech Works for recovery of monies after terminating a dealership agreement. The defendant failed to file its written statement within the statutory 120‑day period and sought multiple extensions, eventually filing the statement

MILKHI RAMversusHIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

2021 INSC 6388 October 2021Dismissed

The appellant, a daily‑wage employee of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, challenged his termination by filing a civil suit invoking Sections 25B and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking reinstatement, regularisation and back wages. The civil court entertained the suit, held that the appellant had

AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD.versusMRS. NISCHINT BHALLA & ORS.

2015 INSC 7538 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The suit concerned the administration of the estate of the deceased Durga Devi Hitkari, wherein a property at Chembur was to be sold. The appellant, Avenue Supermart Ltd., submitted the highest bid of Rs.20,15,00,000, which was accepted by all parties and an order dated 10‑02‑2009 by the single judge of the Bombay High

HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMAM CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 7008 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased Har Narain, entered into an agreement for sale of eight kanals of land with the owner, Mam Chand, who later executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 2‑6 on 2 August 1971. The deed was registered on 3 September 1971, after the appellant had filed a suit for s

OMPRAKASH VERMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

2010 INSC 6918 October 2010Dismissed

The appellants challenged the validity of the State's allocation of land in Survey No. 83 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, arguing that the land was agricultural and that the earlier High Court judgments declaring the proceedings void should stand. The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine

MALLEESWARIversusK. SUGUNA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 10808 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a daughter of a co-parcener, sought to amend a 2003 preliminary decree in a partition suit to claim a one‑third share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The trial court dismissed her application, the High Court set aside that dismissal, but the respondent obtained a review order that reman

VIJAY SINGHversusSHANTI DEVI AND ANR.

2017 INSC 8748 September 2017Dismissed

Vijay Singh, a co‑sharer, filed a pre‑emption suit against Shanti Devi after a sale of jointly owned land. An ex‑parte decree was passed in his favour in 1990, but the decree was later set aside on the ground that the defendant had not been properly served. The amendment to Section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 191

BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.versusRAM DEO PRASAD SINGH & ORS.

2011 INSC 6638 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, former security guards of the Patratu Thermal Power Station, were dismissed in 1975 and filed a civil suit in Patna in 1979 seeking reinstatement, which the trial court allowed. The Bihar State Electricity Board appealed, and the appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Patna, and later by th

MAYA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSMT. RAJ KUMARI BATRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 5858 September 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Maya Devi, sought to enforce a decree for recovery of Rs.60,000 against the judgment debtor, Raj Kumari Batra, whose property was attached and sold at auction in 1978. The parties later entered a compromise whereby the decree‑holder would deposit Rs.35,000 and receive vacant possession, and the executing

KISHUNDEO ROUT & ORS.versusGOVIND RAO & ORS.

2025 INSC 9568 August 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a title suit in 1999 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed; the First Appellate Court, however, introduced a new issue of adverse possession—never pleaded in the plaint—and decreed in favour of the plainti

SAU RAJANIversusSAU SMITA & ANR

2022 INSC 8058 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

S. Rajani, the appellant, owned a residential tenement and alleged that S. Smita, the first respondent, had constructed illegal rooms on an open vacant site in the same building, infringing Rajani's easements of light, air, privacy and water supply. Rajani filed a regular civil suit seeking removal of the unauthorized

KAMLESH VERMAversusMAYAWATI AND ORS.

2013 INSC 5268 August 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court reviewed a petition filed by Kamlesh Verma seeking a review of its July 6, 2012 order that quashed FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 against Mayawati, finding that the order was correctly based on the earlier judgment that the 18 September 2003 direction did not authorize a separate FIR on disproportionate asse

BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI

2024 INSC 4788 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The dispute arose from a slum redevelopment project where the respondent, Samir Narain Bhojwani, alleged default by the appellant, Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited, leading to arbitration and an award in favour of the respondent. The appellant challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitratio

HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS.versusCANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS.

2024 INSC 4678 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Har Narayan Tewari filed a title suit seeking declaration of his ownership and possession over 0.30 acres of land in Ramgarh village. The Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, contested the claim, while an earlier suit (Title Suit No. 8/64) filed by Maharani sought title over the entire 5.38 acres, including the disputed 0.30 acr

FUERST DAY LAWSON LTD.versusJINDAL EXPORTS LTD.

2011 INSC 4798 July 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of Special Leave Petitions arising from orders of the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts that refused to enforce foreign arbitral awards or to award interest. The central question was whether an order that is not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 co

NANDIESHA REDDYversusMRS. KAVITHA MAHESH

2011 INSC 4808 July 2011Dismissed

In the 2008 Karnataka Assembly election, the returned candidate Nandiesha Reddy's election was challenged by Kavitha Mahesh, who alleged that her nomination paper, signed by ten electors, was illegally rejected by the Returning Officer. The petitioner filed an election petition and the returned candidate sought to stri

RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC.versusU.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3848 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants Rakesh Kumar Goel and others purchased two government plots in Ghaziabad through an auction purportedly held under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. The High Court set aside the auction on the ground that the appellants failed to deposit the required 25% of the bid immed

BALWANT SINGH (DEAD)versusJAGDISH SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 3888 July 2010Dismissed

The landlord Balwant Singh filed an eviction suit which was appealed up to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the sole appellant died on 28 November 2007. The legal representatives filed applications on 15 April 2010, 778 days after the death, seeking to be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and

ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLAversusJAGAT DHARI

2026 INSC 4638 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought specific performance of a sale deed for 3.75 acres of land, and the trial court decreed payment of the balance consideration within a month or deposit in court. The appellant failed to pay or deposit until November 2020, while the respondent filed an appeal that was dismissed for non‑prosecution in

SHEIKH NOORUL HASSANversusNAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 3918 May 2024Dismissed

The election petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate on grounds of non‑disclosure of bank accounts, a vehicle, spouse's occupation and other material facts. The returned candidate’s written statement introduced explanations for these allegations, prompting the petitioner to seek leave to file a rep

NILESH LAXMICHAND AND ANOTHERversusSHANTABEN PURUSHOTTAM KAKAD (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS

2019 INSC 6508 May 2019Dismissed

The landlords sued the tenants for eviction under sections 16(1)(c), 16(1)(e) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, alleging illegal sub‑letting, nuisance from a food‑stuff business and non‑use of the premises as a book‑shop for more than six months before the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, but t

MR. VIKRAM BAKSHI & ORS.versusMS. SONIA KHOSLA (DEAD) BY LRS.

2014 INSC 3818 May 2014Disposed off

Two business groups that had entered into a joint venture fell out over shareholding and director appointments, leading to a cascade of more than 80 proceedings, including company law petitions, contempt suits and criminal complaints under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court noted the deadlock and, rather than adjudi

M/S BEST SELLERS RETAIL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusM/S ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. & ORS.

2012 INSC 2148 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. (and A.C. Thirumalaraj), challenged a temporary injunction granted to respondent Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. that restrained the defendants from leasing or encumbering a suit property pending a suit for specific performance. The trial court and High Court had held a prima

M/S CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusHARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.

2026 INSC 3358 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited (the appellant) owned a property whose building plan was affected by an interim order dated 24‑12‑2025 issued in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, which kept certain provisions of the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025 in abeyance. The High Court refused to implead the appellant in that writ pro

KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYAversusAMINUL HAQUE LASKAR & ORS.

2024 INSC 2828 April 2024Case Allowed

The appellant, Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, contested the dismissal of his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of an election petition filed by Aminul Haque Laskar alleging false statements in the appellant's nomination affidavit and improper acceptance of his nomination. The Supreme Court examined whet

K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL)versusGYANENDRA PRATAP & ORS.

2024 INSC 2818 April 2024Dismissed

The appellant, K.B. Lal, sought to set aside a 2006 ex-parte order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Barabanki by filing applications under Order IX, Rule 7 of the CPC, first in 2017 and again in 2020, after a delay of about 14 years. The delay was explained by the appellant as due to non-receipt of summons and neglige

RAKESH & ORS.versusBOARD OF REVENUE U.P. & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 3368 March 2019Case Partly allowed

Pursottam, a Sirdar, deposited twenty times the land revenue and applied for Bhumidhari rights for three plots, subsequently executing a sale deed. His applications for two plots were rejected and a revision petition was pending when the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (la

ABDULRASAKHversusK. P. MOHAMMED & ORS.

2018 INSC 2208 March 2018Dismissed

The appellant, Abdulrasakh, was elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in May 2016. Two voters filed an election petition under Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 alleging corrupt practices, and presented the petition on 1 July 2016. The High Court Registry returned the petition for defects; i

UMMERversusPOTTENGAL SUBIDA & ORS.

2018 INSC 2198 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an elderly man, was served with an ex parte decree by a family court for alleged non‑payment of gold ornaments and maintenance. He applied under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree and sought condonation of delay, but both applications were dismissed. He then filed a miscellaneous appeal

G.M. SIDDESHWARversusPRASANNA KUMAR

2013 INSC 1428 March 2013Dismissed

The case concerned an election petition challenging the 2009 Lok Sabha election of G.M. Siddeshwar, wherein the petitioner Prasanna Kumar alleged corrupt practices. The petitioner filed an affidavit in the form prescribed by Rule 94‑A (Form No.25) but the affidavit was not in exact format and the verification was defec

CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS.versusPEDDA JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR.

2010 INSC 1308 March 2010Dismissed

The case concerned a 29‑acre property originally owned by Pedda Jeeyangar Mutt, which was subject to a permanent lease patta dated 11‑03‑1931 in favour of Mandaram Munikannaiah and subsequently sold to the appellants. The Mutt sought eviction of the appellants on the ground of non‑payment of rent under the Andhra Prade

BALVEER BATRAversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.

2024 INSC 3618 February 2024Disposed off

The appellant, father of a deceased motor‑vehicle accident victim, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Nainital. The Tribunal, after hearing witnesses, held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and, on that basis alone, dismissed the cl

A. SUBRAMANIAN & ANR.versusR. PANNERSELVAM

2021 INSC 658 February 2021Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession of a property he claimed to have purchased from the heirs of a former owner. The trial court upheld the injunction, finding the plaintiff in possession, but the First Appellate Court set aside the decre

MAHANTH SATYANAND @ RAMJEE SINGHversusSHYAM LAL CHAUHAN AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 1178 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a civil suit in which the original defendant, Swami Sheo Dharmanand, died during the pendency of a second appeal before the Patna High Court. Two rival claimants each filed applications under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC, seeking to be recognized as the legal representative of the deceased and to be

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusBRIJESH REDDY & ANR.

2013 INSC 868 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had acquired certain lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1995 Brijesh Reddy purchased a portion of such land and later filed a suit in a civil court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the BDA from interfering with his possession. The tr

PARIMALversusVEENA @ BHARTI

2011 INSC 1108 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Parimal filed a divorce suit against his wife Veena. The wife repeatedly refused to accept the court's notice, after which the trial court proceeded ex‑parte and granted a decree of divorce. Four years later she applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, alleging improper service, fraud and lack of suf

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