Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1,350 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1,001–1,200.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHERversusR.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 488 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

R.K. Pandey, a former lab assistant of a state‑run medical college, claimed that his superannuation age should be 60 years and sought relief through arbitration, relying on an alleged 1957 arbitration agreement between the municipal board and the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. He unilaterally appointed two arbitrators who

H. GURUSWAMY & ORS.versusA. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

2025 INSC 538 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a High Court order that condoned a six‑year delay in filing an application for recall under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, overturning a trial court decision that had rejected the application. The respondents had sought to revive a suit originally filed in 1977, which had been abated after repeated d

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.versusSMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 958 January 2025Disposed off

The plaintiff, Smt. Prabha Jain, inherited a one‑third share of a plot that was illegally partitioned and sold by her brother-in‑law; the buyer later mortgaged the plot to Central Bank of India, which took possession under the SARFAESI Act. Jain filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deed and mortgage dee

STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.versusAMBER BUILDERS

2020 INSC 168 January 2020Disposed off

The State of Gujarat awarded a contract to Amber Builders for highway work, which the contractor completed but later faced a claim of defective repair and a demand for Rs.1.09 crore. The State issued a notice seeking payment, which the contractor challenged in the Gujarat High Court, leading to a writ petition that was

MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC THRU THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MS. NATALIA VORUZ & OTHERSversusNUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. THRU THE DIRECTOR & OTHERS

2019 INSC 358 January 2019Disposed off

Monsanto Technology LLC sued Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. for permanent and temporary injunctions alleging infringement of its patented cotton biotechnology (patent No. 214436) and misuse of its trademarks. The defendants filed a counter‑claim under Section 64 of the Patents Act seeking revocation of the patent on the ground t

NAGAIAH AND ANOTHERversusSMT. CHOWDAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 68 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, two brothers, filed a suit in 1985 seeking a declaration that they were entitled to two‑thirds of a family property and that a sale deed executed by their father in favour of the second defendant was not binding on their share. The suit was filed on behalf of the younger brother, who was a minor at the

CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2016 INSC 328 January 2016Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court had earlier held that there is no reservation in promotion by selection for Group‑A posts (salary up to Rs 5700) in banks, only a concession, but the judgment also contained a contradictory paragraph stating that reservation applies to posts with salary less than Rs 5700 (pre‑revised) and thus directe

M/S. GIAN CHAND & BROTHERS AND ANOTHERversusRATTAN LAL @ RATTAN SINGH

2013 INSC 188 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a partnership firm, sued the defendant for recovery of advances allegedly given to him, relying on entries and the defendant's signatures in their cash book. The defendant denied ever borrowing and contested the signatures, but offered no specific denial in the pleadings and produced no documentary evid

PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS.versusDUWADA PARSURAM CHOWDARY & ORS.

2010 INSC 228 January 2010Dismissed

The tenants (Pinninti Kistamma and others) claimed tenancy rights over 19.80 acres of land and obtained a permanent injunction against the landlords (Duwada Parsuram Chowdary and others). The landlords filed cross‑suits for a larger 181.90 acres and challenged the Tehsildar's order that declared the tenants as cultivat

MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

2021 INSC 8367 December 2021Case Partly allowed

The builders Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt Ltd and TDI Infrastructure Ltd appealed orders of the State Consumer Commission directing them to refund home‑buyers, arguing that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDC) should not require deposit of the entire decretal amount as a condition

RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS.versusDWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2018 INSC 11677 December 2018Disposed off

Nineteen allottees of a housing project filed a collective consumer complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging delayed possession and various deficiencies, but they did not obtain the permission of the District Forum as required by Section 13(6) and Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC. The Na

GOPAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSWARAN SINGH & ORS.

2018 INSC 11687 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The land in question was sold under a restricted auction pursuant to the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and later the sale was cancelled by an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28 March 1985, which became final. The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming they were bonafide purchasers and seeking a d

ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusEIH LIMITED & ORS.

2016 INSC 11077 December 2016Disposed off

EIH Ltd. entered into a Technical Services Agreement with Balaji Hotels (BHEL) for operating a hotel, and paid Rs 15.21 crore as financial accommodation. BHEL later obtained financial assistance from IFCI and TFCI, which sold the hotel unit to Robust Hotels under SARFAESI proceedings despite an interim injunction that

MOTI RAM (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusASHOK KUMAR & ANR.

2010 INSC 8597 December 2010Hearing Adjourned

In a landlord‑tenant dispute, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Chandigarh Mediation Centre. The mediation did not result in an agreement, and the mediator submitted a report that disclosed the parties' settlement offers. The Court held that mediation proceedings are strictly confidential under CPC s.89(2) a

M/S HPCL BIO-FUELS LTD.versusM/S SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD

2024 INSC 8517 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, HPCL Bio‑Fuels Ltd., entered into turnkey contracts with the respondent, Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, for equipment supply. After a dispute over unpaid dues arose in 2014, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause and filed a Section 11(6) application in the Bombay High Court in February 2018, which he unc

E. BAPANAIAHversusSRI K.S. RAJU ETC.

2014 INSC 7657 November 2014Disposed off

E. Bapanaiah, a depositor, filed a contempt petition against K.S. Raju, promoter director of Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., alleging wilful breach of an undertaking given to the Company Law Board (CLB) to repay deposits. The High Court division bench set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by a single judge, finding Raj

PREM AGGARWALversusMOHAN SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12147 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Prem Aggarwal, entered into an agreement to purchase a property in 1989, paid Rs.25,000 as earnest money and later sued for specific performance, which the Supreme Court dismissed on the ground of bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, but awarded her Rs.2 crore as compensation. The respondents deposited

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR.versusAMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2025 INSC 11907 October 2025Disposed off

Lifestyle Equities sued Amazon Technologies for alleged trademark infringement and obtained a money decree of Rs.336.02 crore. Amazon appealed and sought a stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3) of the CPC without depositing the decretal amount. The Delhi High Court granted an unconditional stay, prompting

V. PRABHAKARAversusBASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. & ANR.

2021 INSC 6267 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought declaration and possession of a house based on a registered Will (Exhibit P4) executed by the deceased in his favour, which was attested by his brother and witnessed by his sister. The respondents admitted the existence of Exhibit P4 but contested it by producing an unregistered Will (Exhibit D1) a

NITABEN DINESH PATELversusDINESH DAHYABHAI PATEL

2021 INSC 6297 October 2021Case Partly allowed

The wife (Nitaben Dinesh Patel) filed a counter‑claim in her husband’s divorce suit seeking a declaration that his alleged second marriage to Hinaben Manubhai Panchal was void and that their child was illegitimate. The trial court allowed amendment of her written statement to include facts about the second marriage (pa

ONGC LTD.versusM/S. MODERN CONSTRUCTION AND CO.

2013 INSC 6837 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, ONGC Ltd., challenged a High Court order that allowed the respondent, M/s Modern Construction, to claim interest on a decree from the date the suit was originally filed in 1986 before a court that lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that when a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule

SURYA BAKSH SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2013 INSC 6817 October 2013Hearing Adjourned

Surya Baksh Singh, a convicted offender, appealed his conviction before the High Court, which affirmed the conviction ex parte without his presence or counsel and rejected his request for remand. The Supreme Court examined the growing misuse of the appellate process whereby convicts obtain bail or exemption from surren

BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS & ANR.versusKOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY & ORS .

2017 INSC 8677 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Bhargavi Constructions filed a civil suit for specific performance of a land sale, which was later settled by a written compromise and an award was passed by a Lok Adalat on 22‑08‑2007. The plaintiffs later alleged fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining that award and instituted a suit seeking its declaration as void

M/S VIRGO INDUSTRIES (ENG.) P.LTD.versusM/S.VENTURETECH SOLUTIONS P.LTD.

2012 INSC 3837 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Virgo Industries (Eng.) Ltd filed two suits in 2005 seeking a permanent injunction against VentureTech Solutions Ltd to prevent alienation of two parcels of land. In 2007, while those suits were still pending, Virgo filed two additional suits for specific performance of the same sale agreements. The High Court held the

STATE OF HARYANAversusSATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND ANOTHER

2010 INSC 5737 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Satish Kumar Mittal, an Assistant District Attorney, discovered an error in his recorded date of birth nine years after joining the Haryana government service and sought correction. The service rules required any application for correction of date of birth to be filed within two years of entry, a deadline he missed. Af

M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANYversusTHE UNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 5877 August 2024Dismissed

The petitioner, M/s D. Khosla & Co., obtained an arbitration award in 1997 that granted simple interest of 12% for the pre‑award period and 15% for the post‑award period, both described as payable on the "amount awarded" (the principal compensation of Rs.21,56,745). The petitioner later claimed that the 15% post‑award

NAWAL KISHORE SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 5347 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former seaman of the Shipping Corporation of India, was declared medically unfit and his registration was cancelled by the Shipping Department in Mumbai. He filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking disability compensation, claiming that a refusal letter was sent to his residence in Gaya, B

RIJU PRASAD SARMA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

2015 INSC 4877 July 2015Dismissed

The case concerned the management of the Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple in Assam, where the traditional custom allowed only male members of the four Bordeori families to elect the head priest (Doloi), excluding women and Deuris. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 25A of the Assam State Acquisition of

BALWINDER SINGHversusNATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. & ORS.

2014 INSC 9817 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Balwinder Singh and Ram Swaroop, employees of National Fertilizers Ltd., obtained declarations from the trial courts confirming their appointments and salary entitlements. The employer appealed the decrees in second appeals before the High Court. The High Court admitted the appeals and reversed the lower courts' judgme

K. NAINA MOHAMED (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusA.M. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3727 July 2010Dismissed

The testator’s 1951 Will gave life interest in two houses to her sisters and, after their deaths, vested absolute title in the male heirs, subject to a clause that any sale must be to the other male heirs at market price and not to strangers. After a partition, Rukmani Ammal and her son sold one house (property B) to K

DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSIONversusTATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED

2026 INSC 4617 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) approved a power purchase agreement (PPA) for the Rithala Combined Cycle Power Plant with a six‑year operational period, after which the plant ceased supplying electricity in March 2018. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) later sought to recover the re

M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. & ANR.versusM/S BANSAL INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6407 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants Jindal Steel issued a work order to Bansal Infra and obtained an unconditional bank guarantee to secure an advance payment. After alleged delays, quality deficiencies and termination of the contract, the appellants threatened to encash the guarantee unless a debit balance was paid. Bansal filed a Section

MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS.versusM/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6467 May 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned 53 acres of land in Survey No.83/2, claimed by the original owners (appellants) and by M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (respondents) who relied on sale agreements dated 19 March 1982 that were never registered. The appellants argued that the unregistered agreements could not convey title an

HEMAREDDI (D) THROUGH LRS.versusRAMACHANDRA YALLAPPA HOSMANI AND ORS.

2019 INSC 6337 May 2019Dismissed

The appellants, brothers Hemareddi and his late sibling, sued the wife of Basavareddi for a declaration that the first defendant was not an adopted son and had no right to the joint family property. The trial court dismissed the suit, upholding the adoption, and the brothers appealed. During the pendency of the appeal

BHIVCHANDRA SHANKAR MOREversusBALU GANGARAM MORE & ORS.

2019 INSC 6437 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bhivchandra Shankar More, challenged an ex‑parte decree passed in a partition suit. After an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree was dismissed, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC, withdrew it, and later filed a fresh appeal with a condonation of delay applica

ARULMIGHU NELLUKADAI MARIAMMANversusTAMILARASI (DEAD) BY LRS.

2019 INSC 6427 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction which was decreed by the District Munsif and affirmed by the first appellate court. The defendant appealed to the High Court under Section 100 CPC, which set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff challenged this on a special leave petition, arguing that the High

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORSversusB.D. KAUSHIK

2012 INSC 2037 May 2012Disposed off

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had been directed by the Supreme Court in 2011 to identify regular practitioners for voting rights under the "One Bar One Vote" principle. While the Implementation Committee was carrying out this task, the SCBA held a General Body Meeting on 16 January 2012 that passed resolutio

M/S. JEEVAN DIESELS & ELECTRICALS LTD.versusM/S JASBIR SINGH CHADHA (HUF) & ANR.

2010 INSC 2967 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the tenant, alleging that the lease had expired and a termination notice had been served. The tenant denied that the tenancy had been terminated and contested the landlord's claim of admission. The landlord sought a judgment on admission under Order 12

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusRAM KISHORI GUPTA & ANR.

2025 INSC 4547 April 2025Disposed off

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

M/S CHATHA SERVICE STATIONversusLALMATI DEVI & ORS.

2025 INSC 4687 April 2025Dismissed

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

RAKESH KUMAR VERMAversusHDFC BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 4737 April 2025Disposed off

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

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.versusRABINDRA KUMAR BHARTI

2022 INSC 4057 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

PADMAKUMARI & ORS.versusDASAYYAN &ORS.

2015 INSC 2887 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2010 INSC 2007 April 2010Dismissed

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

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

2022 INSC 2687 March 2022Directions issued

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

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

2019 INSC 3307 March 2019Directions issued

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

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

2017 INSC 2047 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

MOHAN KUMARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2017 INSC 2057 March 2017

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

PUNJAB WAKF BOARDversusSHAM SINGH HARIKE

2019 INSC 1577 February 2019Disposed off

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

RAJINDER KUMARversusSHRI KULDEEP SINGH & OTHERS

2014 INSC 847 February 2014Disposed off

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

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

2013 INSC 807 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2013 INSC 837 February 2013Dismissed

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

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

2026 INSC 327 January 2026

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

THE PROPERTY COMPANY (P) LTD.versusROHINTEN DADDY MAZDA

2026 INSC 337 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusSRI BALA & CO.

2025 INSC 427 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SNEH LATA GOELversusPUSHPLATA & ORS.

2019 INSC 227 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusGRAM VIKAS SAMITI, SHIVDASPURA

2019 INSC 177 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2019 INSC 257 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

HARDEVINDER SINGHversusPARAMJIT SINGH & OTHERS

2013 INSC 137 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2010 INSC 197 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2023 INSC 10516 December 2023

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

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 8276 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

SATISH CHAND SURANAversusRAJ KUMAR MESHRAM

2021 INSC 8296 December 2021Case Partly allowed

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

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

2018 INSC 11626 December 2018Disposed off

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

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

2017 INSC 11966 December 2017Dismissed

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

VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12836 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SURESH KUMAR THROUGH GPAversusANIL KAKARIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 10776 November 2017Dismissed

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

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

2015 INSC 8376 November 2015Case Partly allowed

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

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

2023 INSC 8776 October 2023Case Partly allowed

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

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

2022 INSC 9316 September 2022Case Partly allowed

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

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusSUDERA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 9286 September 2022Dismissed

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

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S PUNA HINDA

2021 INSC 4486 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

UMESH KUMARversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

2013 INSC 5906 September 2013Disposed off

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

BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO.versusKAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICE, INC.

2012 INSC 3796 September 2012Reference answered

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

GEETA DEVI & ORS.versusPURAN RAM RAIGAR & ANR.

2010 INSC 5706 September 2010Dismissed

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

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

2021 INSC 3856 August 2021Disposed off

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

STATE OF M.P. & ANR.versusANSHUMAN SHUKLA

2014 INSC 5256 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

KARAN KAPOORversusMADHURI KUMAR

2022 INSC 6616 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

ALKA CHANDEWARversusSHAMSHUL ISHRAR KHAN

2017 INSC 5936 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

SH JOGENDRASINHJI VIJAYSINGHJIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2015 INSC 4856 July 2015Disposed off

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

ABCversusTHE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2015 INSC 4826 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

PONNALA LAKSHMALAHversusKOMMURI PRATAP REDDY & ORS.

2012 INSC 2746 July 2012Dismissed

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

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

2010 INSC 3586 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2010 INSC 3626 July 2010Dismissed

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

HABBAN SHAHversusSHERUDDIN

2026 INSC 4516 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

MOHIT SURESH HARCHANDRAI & ORS.versusHINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED

2025 INSC 8126 May 2025Disposed off

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

SATHYANATH & ANR.versusSAROJAMANI

2022 INSC 5296 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2020 INSC 3856 May 2020Dismissed

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

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARDversusK. A. NAGAMANI

2019 INSC 6316 May 2019Disposed off

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

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

2019 INSC 6256 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS.versusRAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.

2016 INSC 3886 May 2016Dismissed

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

SUBRATA ROY SAHARAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 3676 May 2014Dismissed

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

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

2014 INSC 3616 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAJIV GHOSHversusSATYA NARYAN JAISWAL

2025 INSC 4676 April 2025Dismissed

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

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

2019 INSC 3186 March 2019Dismissed

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

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

2018 INSC 2046 March 2018Dismissed

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

SITARAMversusRADHEY SHYAM VISHNAV & ORS.

2018 INSC 2126 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

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

MRS. A. KANTHAMANIversusMRS. NASREEN AHMED

2017 INSC 2026 March 2017Dismissed

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

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

2026 INSC 1326 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHERversusT. USHAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 1346 February 2026Dismissed

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

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

2019 INSC 1526 February 2019Dismissed

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

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LIMITEDversusKS INFRASPACE LLP LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 46 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

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

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2014 INSC 9026 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

REVANASIDDAYYAversusGANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA & ANR.

2017 INSC 11715 December 2017Disposed off

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

DIPALI BISWAS & ORS.versusNIRMALENDU MUKHERJEE & ORS.

2021 INSC 6165 October 2021Dismissed

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

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

2012 INSC 4565 October 2012Dismissed

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

GAYTRI BAJAJversusJITEN BHALLA

2012 INSC 4505 October 2012Dismissed

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

MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusHARTAR SINGH SANGHA

2010 INSC 6725 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2022 INSC 9105 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

S. N. D. P. SAKHAYOGAMversusKERALA ATMAVIDYA SANGHAM

2017 INSC 8535 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGHversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

2017 INSC 8525 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2017 INSC 8605 September 2017Disposed off

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

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

2017 INSC 8575 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

SIDDALINGAYYAversusGURI. LINGAPPA & ORS.

2017 INSC 8555 September 2017Dismissed

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

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

2011 INSC 6515 September 2011Dismissed

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

ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusVIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 9285 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

RUCHI RAWATversusPRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT ETAH & ANR.

2022 INSC 13145 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2021 INSC 3845 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S EXL CAREERS AND ANOTHERversusFRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

2020 INSC 4775 August 2020Disposed off

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

BUDH RAM & ORS.versusBANSI & ORS.

2010 INSC 4815 August 2010Dismissed

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

S. NARAHARI AND ORSversusS.R. KUMAR AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6045 July 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court examined whether a liberty granted to approach the High Court for review, after an earlier Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed, automatically places the matter in the escalation matrix and permits filing a fresh SLP. The Court held that Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC bars an SLP against an order

ARUN DEV UPADHYAYAversusINTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. & ANR.

2023 INSC 6105 July 2023Dismissed

The dispute arose from a representation agreement between D.M.C. Management Consultants Ltd. and Integrated Sales Service Ltd., which contained an arbitration clause. After the arbitrator awarded US $6.9 million against DMC, the award was sought to be enforced against non‑signatory parties, including Arun Dev Upadhyaya

THE NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS (I) PVT. LTD.versusTHE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & PRESIDENT DISTRICT SPORTS COMPLEX EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

2017 INSC 5905 July 2017Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Navnirman Development Consultants, was awarded a contract to construct a sports complex for a government agency, completed the work, but was not paid for its bills. The parties' agreement contained an arbitration clause, and when the respondent failed to constitute an arbitral tribunal, the appellant inv

AJAY GUPTAversusRAJU @ RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV

2016 INSC 4995 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff was required to file a suit by 31 December 2010, the last day of the court's winter vacation. 1 January 2011, a Saturday, was a non‑working day for judges but the registry remained open. The suit was filed on 3 January 2011. The trial court and the High Court held that the filing was within the limitation

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusGOPALI & ORS.

2012 INSC 2715 July 2012Dismissed

The case involved a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act after the death of Nanag Ram, a 36‑year‑old machine operator, in a road accident. The claimants sought Rs.24 lakh, while the insurer challenged the award on several grounds. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court should ha

HIMANI ALLOYS LTD.versusTATA STEEL LTD.

2011 INSC 4575 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Tata Steel (respondent) sued Himani Alloys Ltd. (appellant) for recovery of a sum and filed an application for a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6, claiming the appellant had admitted liability for Rs 74.57 lakhs in minutes of a meeting dated 9 December 2000. The Calcutta High Court, finding an admission for Rs

M/S. BHANWARLAL DUGAR & ORS.versusBRIDHICHAND PANNALAL & ORS.

2010 INSC 3455 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords appealed against a High Court revision that had set aside the trial and appellate courts' findings that the tenant was a wilful defaulter and that the landlords required the commercial premises for their own business. Both the trial court and the first appellate court, exercising jurisdiction under Sectio

VINOD SETHversusDEVINDER BAJAJ AND ANR.

2010 INSC 3475 July 2010Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff, a builder, sued the owners of a residential property for specific performance of an alleged oral collaboration agreement to develop the land. The High Court, noting the suit's low chance of success and heavy court dockets, ordered the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking to pay Rs.25 lakhs as damages if h

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAM PRAKASH

2010 INSC 3505 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Prakash, a former Indian Air Force officer, was released after 15 years of service with a composite disability of 90% (retinal detachment and immature cataract). The Release Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board both opined that his disabilities were neither attributable to nor aggravated by Air Force servi

SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD.versusTHE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

2020 INSC 4135 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. filed a suit on 23 February 2005 seeking true accounts and refund of excess interest/commission charged by the Central Bank of India. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, holding the suit barred by the three‑year limitation period in Article 113 of the Lim

SAROJ SALKANversusHUMA SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 6325 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Saroj Salkan, filed a partition suit under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act seeking division of five properties inherited from her father, Major General Budh Singh, against the legal heirs of her brother and sister. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 o

SWADESH KUMAR AGARWALversusDINESH KUMAR AGARWAL & ORS, ETC., ETC.

2022 INSC 5175 May 2022Disposed off

The parties, who were family members, referred their property dispute to a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent without any written arbitration agreement. The arbitrator was later alleged to have delayed the proceedings, leading respondents to file applications under section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conci

MUDDASANI SAROJANAversusMUDDASANI SAROJANA

2016 INSC 3735 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff purchased a property from Buchamma, the sole surviving sister of the deceased Balaiah, under a registered sale deed dated 25‑04‑1981. After the widow Yashoda's death, the plaintiff took possession, but Defendant No.3 (Sarojana) evicted him, claiming to be Yashoda's adopted daughter and thus an heir. The p

STATE OF ORISSAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2010 INSC 2705 May 2010Dismissed

The State of Orissa filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Borra group of villages belonged to it, asserting that the area was part of the Jeypore (Imparible) Estate transferred to Orissa in 1936. The State of Andhra Pradesh contested the suit, arguing that the disputed area w

DEEP MUKERJEEversusSREYASHI BANERJEE

2024 INSC 2745 April 2024Case Partly allowed

The husband and wife were married in 2013, lived together in the United Kingdom for over seven years and later separated in 2021. The wife filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging non‑consummation due to the husband’s alleged impotency. The husband filed an application under

NONIHAL SINGHversusMAYA DEVI

2018 INSC 3085 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant, was ordered by the Rent Tribunal to vacate the premises within six months and to pay arrears of rent. The High Court later directed the tenant to deposit the arrears by 31 December 2017 and to pay mesne profits from 1 November 2017. The tenant failed to meet the deadline, applied for an extensi

ASPI JAL & ANR.versusKHUSHROO RUSTOM DADYBURJOR

2013 INSC 2185 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, owners of a building, filed three eviction suits against the same tenant. The first two suits (2004) sought eviction on the ground of non‑use for several years, while the third suit (2010) sought eviction on the ground of non‑use for a continuous period of at least six months immediately before the suit

PERIYAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.versusV. RAJAMANI & ANR. ETC.

2025 INSC 3295 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants obtained a decree for specific performance and possession of a suit property against the vendors, but the vendors failed to execute the sale deed. The appellants sought execution of the decree, while the respondents (nephews of the vendors) claimed to be cultivating tenants and objected to the delivery o

MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD.versusFORWARD FOUNDATION AND ORS.

2019 INSC 3155 March 2019Disposed off

The petitioners alleged that the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board had allotted ecologically sensitive land for a software technology park, resulting in encroachment of storm‑water drains (Rajakaluves) and damage to the Bellandur lake catchment. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) found violations of wetland an

P.M. LOKANATH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 2025 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of a property in Bangalore, filed two civil suits to protect their possession and claim ownership. Respondent No.2, a rival heir, lodged an FIR under IPC sections 448 and 506 alleging threats by the appellants to withdraw the suits, leading to a criminal case. The appellants sought quashing of th

ASGAR & ORS.versusMOHAN VARMA & ORS.

2019 INSC 1445 February 2019Dismissed

The appellants, Asgar and others, were lessees occupying a large tract of land in Kerala and sought a declaration that they could remain in possession and claim compensation for improvements under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958. They first raised this claim in an execution application under

THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusS.S. SARVESH

2019 INSC 1475 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (the Authority) appealed a civil suit decree against it, but its first appeal was dismissed in default when its counsel failed to appear. The Authority sought restoration of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but the appellate court refused and

DAMODAR LALversusSOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 85 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Damodar Lal, sought eviction of his tenants on the ground that they had made unauthorised structural alterations to the rented premises. Both the trial court and the first appellate court found that material alteration had occurred and dismissed the tenants’ appeal. The tenants appealed to the High Court,

SRI AUROBJNDO ASHRAM TRUST AND ORS.versusR. RAMANATHAN AND ORS.

2016 INSC 95 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking removal of the trustees of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, alleging that the trustees failed to act against an objectionable biography of Sri Aurobindo. The High Court held the suit within the ambit of Section 92 and refused to revoke

NARWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2011 INSC 115 January 2011Dismissed

The wife of Narwinder Singh, who was pregnant, committed suicide within four years of marriage. The trial court convicted the husband and his parents under Section 304‑B IPC for dowry death, but the High Court, finding no dowry demand at the time of death, converted the husband's conviction to Section 306 IPC (abetment

ATHAR HUSSAINversusSYED SIRAJ AHMED & ORS.

2010 INSC 75 January 2010Dismissed

The father of two minor Muslim children (a 13‑year‑old girl and a 5‑year‑old boy) sought guardianship and interim custody after the mother’s death and his subsequent remarriage. The children’s maternal grandfather, aunt and uncles applied under Sections 7, 9 and 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for appointment as

VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA @ MANJUversusRAGHUNANDAN SHARMA @ BABURAM & ORS.

2010 INSC 85 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and his brother were involved in two civil suits concerning a will. The trial court dismissed the suits under Order 7 Rule 11, directing the parties to arbitrate based on a declaration by their deceased father that any future disputes should be referred to a named arbitrator. The appellant appealed, and w

C. VENKATA SWAMYversusH. N. SHIVANNA (D) BY L.R. & ANR. ETC.

2017 INSC 11664 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed suit O.S. No. 6640/1996 for declaration and injunction over a piece of land, while the respondent filed a cross‑suit O.S. No. 2150/1992; both suits were clubbed and the trial court dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the cross‑suit. The appellant then filed two first appeals under Section 96

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

2015 INSC 8904 December 2015Reference answered

The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 regarding the time allotted to the opposite party to file its version after a complaint is admitted. The petitioner argued that the 30‑day period could be extended beyond the statutory ceiling of 15 days, relying on the lat

KAREDLA PARTHASARADHIversusGANGULA RAMANAMMA (D) THROUGH L.RS & ORS.

2014 INSC 8354 December 2014Directions issued

The deceased K. Satyanarayna died intestate, and his brother Karedla Parthasaradhi claimed inheritance of the suit house. Defendant Gangula Ramanamma (defendant No.1) asserted that she was the deceased's legally married wife, having lived with him for over three decades, and thus claimed ownership as a Class‑I heir. Th

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHERversusMANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI JADEJA

2012 INSC 5644 December 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat and the Mamlatdar sought to enforce the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 against Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja, whose 587 acres of land were declared surplus. Jadeja contended that the lands were "urban land" under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and therefore o

SADIQ B. HANCHINMANIversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. R1: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R2: CHNDRUMAL R3: SANJAY R4: NANDKUMAR R5: VIJAY

2025 INSC 12824 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, filed a private criminal complaint alleging that the accused had forged an e‑stamp rent agreement to illegally occupy his property and had committed offences under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and 420 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) referred the matter to the

RAJNESHversusNEHA & ANR.

2020 INSC 6314 November 2020Disposed off

The husband appealed against a Family Court order granting interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month to his wife and Rs 10,000 per month to his son under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which was affirmed by the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' orders, directed the husband to pay the full arre

K. KARUPPURAJversusM. GANESAN

2021 INSC 6104 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement that required the defendant to evict tenants and deliver vacant possession before executing the sale deed. The trial court found the plaintiff ready but not willing to accept the property with tenants and therefore dismissed the suit, ordering the

MOHD. RAZA & ANR.versusGEETA @ GEETA DEVI

2021 INSC 6094 October 2021Dismissed

The plaintiff, Geeta, sued the defendants for possession, injunctions and mesne profits, asserting ownership of a Delhi property and that Defendant No.1 was her tenant who had sub‑let to Defendant No.2. In their written statement the defendants claimed they were the owners, stating that Defendant No.2 had purchased the

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.versusK. S. INFRASPACE LLP & ANR.

2019 INSC 11354 October 2019Dismissed

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. filed a suit in the Vadodara Commercial Court seeking specific performance of a mortgage deed concerning a parcel of land. The respondents contended that the dispute did not fall within the definition of a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 20

RAVI SETIAversusMADAN LAL AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 11244 October 2019Dismissed

Ravi Setia filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 10‑11‑1989, seeking execution of the sale deed on 30‑04‑1990. The trial court held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform, relying solely on a certificate from the Sub‑Registrar that he was present on the said date, despite the defe

NUSLI NEVILLE WADIAversusIVORY PROPERTIES & ORS.

2019 INSC 11384 October 2019Reference answered

The petition sought clarification on the scope of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra amendment) concerning the court's "jurisdiction to entertain" a suit and whether a plea of limitation could be decided as a preliminary issue. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had held that Section 9A inc

VISHNU (DEAD) BY L.RSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 6714 October 2013Dismissed

The appellant, a contractor, entered into five irrigation contracts with the State of Maharashtra in 1983. After abandoning the work in 1985, he sought damages and later invoked Clause 30 of the contracts, claiming it was an arbitration clause that made the Superintending Engineer’s decision binding as an arbitral awar

SANDU (D) BY LRS.versusGU LAB (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 6394 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned land originally owned by a tribal person that had been sold to a non‑tribal transferee. The Assistant Collector initially dropped restoration proceedings under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, because the tribal transferor was unwilling to repurchase th

OPERATION ASHAversusSHELLY BATRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 9324 August 2025Dismissed

Operation Asha, a not‑for‑profit society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, provides health services to the under‑privileged. After the society’s CEO terminated co‑founder Dr. Shelly Batra, she and her mother filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging financial impropriety

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, VARANASIversusRAKHI SINGH AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 7024 August 2023Disposed off

The petitioners, the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, sought a declaration that they could perform Hindu rituals at the Gyanvapi Mosque and moved to dismiss the suit under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The trial court, exercising discretion under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code o

U. MANJUNATH RAOversusU. CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.

2017 INSC 7084 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged a Karnataka High Court judgment that dismissed a first appeal against a trial court order directing rectification of a partition deed. The High Court had merely reproduced portions of the trial court judgment and quoted documents without analysing the evidence or addressing the legal issues rai

Y. SLEEBACHEN ETC.versusSUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WRO/PWD &ANR.

2014 INSC 5194 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The contractors Y. Sleebachen and others obtained three arbitration awards against the Government of Tamil Nadu for contracts. The government challenged the awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but while the petitions were pending the parties negotiated a settlement in which the contra

BABU LAL & ORS.versusM/S VIJAY SOLVEX LTD. & ORS.

2014 INSC 5184 August 2014Disposed off

The appellants filed a suit seeking declaration, mandatory and permanent injunctions, and rendition of accounts concerning immovable properties, companies and partnership firms, alleging a family settlement dated 20‑12‑2007. The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the parties from selling or charging

M/S. MILKFOOD PVT. LTD.versusM/S. GMC ICE CREAM (P) LTD.

2011 INSC 5444 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into a manufacturing agreement that contained an arbitration clause specifying Delhi as the venue and jurisdiction. The respondent sued the appellant in the Munsif Court, Gaya, and the appellant sought a stay of the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Subsequent applications were fil

BAKSHI DEV RAJ & ANR.versusSUDHIR KUMAR

2011 INSC 5454 August 2011Dismissed

The appellants Bakshi Dev Raj & Anr. challenged a decree modified by the High Court in a second appeal, alleging that their counsel settled the matter without a written agreement and that the subsequent review petition was barred because their Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been dismissed as withdrawn. The Supreme Co

M/S. V.K. ENTERPRISES AND ANR.versusM/S. SHIVA STEELS

2010 INSC 4784 August 2010Dismissed

The respondent filed a suit under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC to recover a cheque amount that was dishonoured. The petitioner applied for leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 3, alleging that the cheque dated 11‑10‑2006 was originally dated 11‑10‑2000 and had been tampered with, and that the cheque was given only

DHEERAJ SINGHversusGREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS

2023 INSC 5944 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a District Judge fixed compensation at Rs.267 per square yard with solatium. The respondent (Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority) appealed the award, and the appellants filed cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC seeking

ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.versusBUILDWORTH PVT. LTD.

2017 INSC 5874 July 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an arbitral award granting Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. price‑escalation, idling‑charges and interest against Assam State Electricity Board. The Board argued that the award exceeded the contractual ceiling for escalation, ignored the claimant’s contributory delay, and that interest could not be award

R.K. ROJAversusU.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 4914 July 2016

R.K. Roja was elected to the Nagiri Assembly Constituency and a respondent filed an election petition challenging her election. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to have the petition rejected, first as a counter‑affidavit and later as a formal application. The High Court declined to

VISHWANATH S/O SITARAM AGRAWALversusSAU. SARLA VISHWANATH AGRAWAL

2012 INSC 2694 July 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging mental cruelty by his wife, who had publicly defamed him, hidden his clothes and keys, and made false criminal allegations. The trial court and appellate courts dismissed the petition, deeming the evidence unreliable a

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.versusJ.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. & ANR.

2011 INSC 4214 July 2011Case Partly allowed

The State of Rajasthan raised the royalty on limestone through notifications, prompting lessees to file writ petitions challenging the increase and obtain interim stays that allowed them to pay the lower rate. After the writs were dismissed, the lessees paid the differential royalty but the State demanded interest on t

THE SECRETARY, SH. A. P. D.JAIN PATHSHALA & ORS.versusSHIVAJI BHAGWAT MORE & ORS.

2011 INSC 4274 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Grievance Redressal Committee created under Maharashtra's Shikshan Sevak Scheme, which had been reconstituted by the High Court to function as a quasi‑judicial tribunal headed by a retired judge. The petitioners, private schools, challenged the committee's authority to adj

SMT. RAMKANYA BAI & ANR.versusJAGDISH & ORS.

2011 INSC 4424 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent Jagdish obtained a right of way over the appellants' land under Section 131 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which the Tahsildar approved. The appellants challenged this by filing a civil suit for a declaration that no easement existed and that the Tahsildar's order was illegal. The trial court d

MANGLURAM DEWANGANversusSURENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 4284 July 2011Case Partly allowed

In a suit for declaration, possession and damages, the sole plaintiff died and the appellant sought to be added as the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, claiming entitlement under a will. The trial court rejected the application, found the will unproved and dismissed the suit for lack of a legal he

JOSEPH SALVARAJ A.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2011 INSC 4414 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Joseph Salvaraj A., was charged under IPC sections 406, 420 and 506(1) for allegedly failing to pay Rs 10 lacs to a cable operator after promising to broadcast his channel "God TV" in Ahmedabad. The complainant, a mediator, lodged an FIR claiming the appellant had breached a contract, but no written agre

V. SUMATIBEN MAGANLAL MANANI (DEAD) BY L.R.versusUTTAMCHAND KASHIPRASAD SHAH AND ANR.

2011 INSC 4474 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a landlady, leased a shop to the tenant (defendant No.1) for a grocery business. The tenant allegedly sublet the premises to a milk vendor (defendant No.2) and failed to use the shop for its intended purpose for more than six months before the suit, as shown by electricity bills, a Court Commissioner’s r

RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS.versusNIRMALA DEVI & ORS.

2011 INSC 4504 July 2011Disposed off

The case arose from a long-running family dispute over a residential property where the appellants repeatedly filed suits and applications for over four decades, causing extensive delay and waste of judicial resources. The Supreme Court examined whether the trial courts should impose actual, realistic costs on parties

KUMUD LALLversusSURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 4434 May 2026Disposed off

The husband of a patient filed a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence by Dr. P.B. Lall, which was partly upheld by the District Forum awarding compensation. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the award, and the matter proceeded to the National Co

SHUBHKARAN SINGHversusABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 6284 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioner challenged the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's rejection of his application to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined the scope of that rule, noting that it confers a power exclusively on the court trying the suit to recall and re‑examine a witness, and that parties

KANIMOZHI KARUNANIDHIversusA. SANTHANA KUMAR & ORS

2023 INSC 4994 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition filed under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which alleged that the returned candidate, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, had suppressed her spouse's PAN and income‑tax details in Form 26. The Court held that the petition contained only vague, bal

DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRSversusSHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE & ORS

2023 INSC 4914 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought possession of a 3‑acre agricultural field based on a registered sale deed dated 21‑04‑1979. The defendants argued that the deed was a sham, executed as collateral for a money‑lending transaction, and that the sale violated the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Ac

T.N. GENERATION & DISTBN. CORPN. LTD.versusPPN POWER GEN. CO. PVT. LTD.

2014 INSC 2484 April 2014Dismissed

The appellant, a power distribution company, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the respondent, a power generator, and disputed accounting details and rebate claims arising from monthly invoices. The dispute was taken before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) which adjud

GANESH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusASHOK & ANR.

2011 INSC 2584 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, minor sons of a pre‑deceased son, filed a suit seeking to declare a 1978 decree that transferred agricultural land to other family members null and void, asserting their right to inherit the land as ancestral property. The defendants contended that the land was not ancestral and had been allotted to the

U. SOWRI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS.versusB. SUSEELAMMA AND ORS.

2011 INSC 2614 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a judgment debtor, was sued for recovery of principal and interest on a promissory note, resulting in an ex‑parte decree. The plaintiff obtained an execution decree and the appellant's immovable property was sold to satisfy the decree. The appellant applied under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC to set aside the sal

SMT. LAVANYA C & ANR.versusVITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DESEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

2025 INSC 3254 March 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellants, originally defendants in a suit concerning a Joint Development Agreement, gave an undertaking through their counsel in 2007 not to alienate the subject property, which the trial court later incorporated into a court order. In 2011 the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A alleging br

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