THANGAM AND ANOTHERversusNAVAMANI AMMAL
2024 INSC 1644 March 2024Dismissed
The case concerned a registered Will dated 9 October 1984 executed by the deceased Palaniandi Udayar in favour of Navamani Ammal, the daughter of his brother. The widow (Thangam) and the minor daughter of the testator challenged the Will, alleging that the testator was ill‑health, that the Will was executed under suspi…
ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
2020 INSC 2744 March 2020Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined whether a District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could extend the time for filing a response to a complaint beyond the 30 days plus a statutorily permitted 15‑day extension under s.13(2)(a), and where the 30‑day period begins. The Court held that s.13(2)(a) uses mandatory lang…
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusM/S. SHREYANS INDUS LTD. ETC.
2016 INSC 2434 March 2016Dismissed
The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court’s decision that the Commissioner of Excise and Taxation could not extend the three‑year limitation period for passing a sales‑tax assessment after that period had expired. The assessee, M/s Shreyans Indus Ltd., had filed returns for assessment years 2000‑01 to 2003‑04…
PESARA PUSHPAMALA REDDYversusG. VEERA SWAMY AND ORS.
2011 INSC 1814 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined two procedural questions under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: whether a Special Tribunal or Special Court must obtain a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer before taking cognizance of a land‑grabbing case, and whether they must publish a notice of cognizance in t…
H. SIDDIQUI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusA. RAMALINGAM
2011 INSC 1854 March 2011Disposed off
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell a one‑third share of a property, alleging that the respondent’s brother, acting under a power of attorney, had entered into the sale. The respondent denied ever executing a power of attorney authorising his brother to alienate the pro…
M/S EMINENT COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusRAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ORS.
2026 INSC 1164 February 2026Disposed off
The appellant, a construction contractor, entered into a contract with the Rajasthan Housing Board for the construction of houses and later claimed non‑payment of escalation costs. Clause 23 of the contract provided for a Standing Committee to settle disputes, but the Board failed to constitute such a committee, prompt…
AJANTA LLPversusCASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD.
2022 INSC 1514 February 2022Dismissed
The appellant Ajanta LLP sued Casio for alleged infringement of its registered design on a scientific calculator marketed as ORPAT FX‑991ES PLUS. The parties mediated and entered into a settlement agreement on 16 May 2019, which the High Court incorporated into a decree on 3 July 2019. The appellant later filed an appl…
G H RAM LAL & ORS.versusSALIG RAM & ORS.
2019 INSC 1294 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, owners of Khasra No.146 in Himachal Pradesh, sued the defendants alleging encroachment on their land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court remitted additional issues and appointed a Local Commissioner to demarcate the land. After the commissioner’s report and objections, the…
TEK SINGHversusSHASHI VERMA AND ANR.
2019 INSC 1314 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a revision petition challenging the lower courts' refusal to grant an interim mandatory injunction in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act concerning possession of a shop. The High Court set aside the appellate court's findings of fact and entertained the revision, despite the order bei…
ARIKALA NARASA REDDYversusVENKATA RAM REDDY REDDYGARI & ANR.
2014 INSC 764 February 2014Disposed off
The 2009 Legislative Council election for Nizamabad saw a narrow result, leading the defeated candidate to file an election petition alleging wrongful rejection of three votes and wrongful acceptance of one vote. The appellant, who had been declared elected, filed a recrimination petition under Section 97 of the Repres…
COAL MINES P.F. COMMR. THR. BOARD OF TRUSTEEversusRAMESH CHANDRA JHA
2012 INSC 34 January 2012Dismissed
The Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner (appellant) challenged a Jharkhand High Court order that upheld a suit filed by a former lower‑division clerk (respondent) who had been removed from service. The central issue was whether the Commissioner, as a public officer under Section 2(17) of the Code of Civil Procedure …
SECRETARY/GENERAL MANAGER CHENNAI CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANR.versusS. KAMALAVENI SUNDARAM
2011 INSC 94 January 2011Case Partly allowed
The landlady sued the tenant for arrears of rent and claimed 18% interest. The plaint was returned for defects on 20‑Jan‑2000 and was not re‑presented until 20‑July‑2005, a delay of five years and six months. The trial court awarded 6% interest for the periods 9‑Sept‑1998 to 21‑Jan‑2000 and from 21‑July‑2005 to payment…
ABHISHEK GUPTAversusDINESH KUMAR & ORS.
2025 INSC 14063 December 2025Disposed off
The appellant, Abhishek Gupta, was allotted a fair‑price shop licence after the licence of respondent No.1 was revoked for breach of conditions. The revocation and its affirmation were challenged by respondent No.1 in a writ petition under Art.226, where the appellant was not impleaded. The Single Judge set aside the r…
M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR.versusK.P. DWIVEDI
2021 INSC 8163 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board entered into a construction contract with K.P. Dwivedi, which was later rescinded by the Board. The contractor invoked the arbitration clause, and the High Court, by consent of both parties, appointed the Housing Commissioner as arbitrator. The arbitrator …
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT-4), MUMBAIversusM/S RELIANCE TELECOM LIMITED
2021 INSC 8153 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The Commissioner of Income Tax (IT‑4) Mumbai challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that, under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, recalled its earlier 2013 order favoring the Revenue in a dispute with M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd over the taxability of software payments. The Supreme Court held …
RAM KARAN GUPTAversusJ.S. EXIM LTD. AND ORS.
2012 INSC 5593 December 2012Dismissed
In a partition suit, the suit property was ordered to be sold by public auction. J.S. Exim Ltd., the highest bidder, paid 25% of the bid amount by demand drafts on the auction day and the remaining 75% within the statutory period. The judgment debtor, Ram Karan Gupta, challenged the sale alleging non‑compliance with Or…
MMTC LIMITEDversusANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PVT. LIMITED
2025 INSC 12793 November 2025Dismissed
MMTC Limited entered a Long Term Agreement with Anglo American Metallurgical Coal for the supply of coking coal, but a dispute arose over the price and unlifted quantities, leading to an arbitral award in favour of Anglo. MMTC challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was reje…
MARINGMEI ACHAMversusM MARINGMET KHURIPOU
2022 INSC 11603 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant's father filed a declaratory suit in 2014 claiming hereditary chiefship of Lamdan Kabui village and sought a temporary injunction. He died during the pendency of a civil miscellaneous appeal against the trial court's refusal of the injunction. The appellant applied to be recognized as his father's legal r…
SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusVINOD KUMAR RAWAT & ORS.
2020 INSC 6273 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Shri Ram Sahu (deceased) through LRS, filed a suit seeking declaration that a 1995 sale deed was void and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit; the appellant appealed to the High Court, which also dismissed the appeal but observed that the appellant was in act…
ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS.versusIL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
2023 INSC 8673 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, nine defendants in a commercial suit filed by IL and FS Financial Services Ltd, failed to file written statements within the 30‑day period (ending 8 March 2020) and the 120‑day outer limit (ending 6 June 2020). They sought an extension on 20 January 2021, invoking the Supreme Court's suo motu orders tha…
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S TEJPARAS ASSOCIATES EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
2019 INSC 11123 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant Oriental Insurance filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Jaipur District Court to set aside an arbitral award, but the court returned the petition for presentation before the Jodhpur court, fixing 2 April 2008 as the date of re‑presentation. The appellant r…
VIRUDHUNAGAR HINDU NADARGAL DHARMA PARIBALANA SABAI & ORS.versusTUTICORIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
2019 INSC 11173 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, Virudh... Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalan Sabha, filed a suit seeking declaration that a notice convening a General Body meeting of the respondent society was illegal and obtained an interim injunction restraining the respondents from holding the meeting. The respondents filed a civil revision before th…
PANKAJBHAI RAMESHBHAI ZALAVADIYAversusJETHABHAI KALABHAI ZALAVADIYA (DECEASED)
2017 INSC 9893 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a suit in 2008 to cancel a 1995 sale deed of land that had been purchased by defendant No. 7, who had died before the suit was instituted. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s application to bring the deceased defendant’s legal representatives on record under Order 22 Rule 4, deeming it non‑mai…
SYEDA RAHIMUNNISAversusMALAN BL (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ANR. ETC.
2016 INSC 9383 October 2016Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, Syeda Rahimunnisa and Syed Hyder Hussaini, sued the respondents (legal heirs of Haji Mian) for eviction and damages, asserting a landlord‑tenant relationship. The respondents counter‑claimed title to the land by adverse possession and filed three related suits. The trial court and the first appellate co…
RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAMversusVANSHMANI PRASAD VERMA AND ANR.
2016 INSC 9423 October 2016Appeal(s) allowed
Rajendra Kumar Meshram was elected to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Deosar constituency. A petition was filed by the opposing candidate alleging that Meshram's nomination was improperly accepted because he failed to furnish the electoral roll of the constituency where he was a registered voter (Singr…
VINOD KAPOORversusSTATE OF GOA & ORS.
2012 INSC 4443 October 2012Dismissed
Vinod Kapoor challenged the construction of a bungalow on C‑land in Goa, alleging violations of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and the Coastal Regulation Zone notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Bombay High Court dismissed his writ petition on the basis of a technical report and late…
C.P. FRANCISversusC.P. JOSEPH AND OTHERS
2025 INSC 10713 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute concerned the succession to the suit‑schedule property of the deceased parents, C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius, who had executed a joint will bequeathing the property to the appellant C.P. Francis. The respondents, other children of the deceased, challenged the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capa…
ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS.versusBHIM SINGH & ANR.
2024 INSC 6513 September 2024Dismissed
The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a 2005 sale agreement, which was eventually decreed by the appellate court directing the appellants to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration. While the execution application was pending, the appellants sought rescission of the contract u…
VAIBHAV JAINversusHINDUSTAN MOTORS PVT. LTD.
2024 INSC 6523 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Vaibhav Motors, was a dealer of Hindustan Motors and was sued for compensation after a Hindustan Motors employee died in a test‑drive accident involving a vehicle that had not been sold to the dealer. The key question was whether the dealer could be deemed the "owner" of the vehicle and thus jointly liab…
CHOUDAPPA & ANR.versusCHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.
2024 INSC 6913 September 2024Dismissed
A suit filed in 1963 for possession and correction of mutation was decreed in 1973, directing an inquiry into mesne profits from the suit's filing date under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC. After execution, the respondents obtained possession in 2005 and, in 2014, filed an application under Section 141 CPC or Order XX Rul…
SAKHARAM SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS & ANR.versusKISHANRAO
2022 INSC 13123 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed
Two sons of Tukaram filed a suit for declaration and possession of immovable property against two sons of Gangaram, with their mother as a proforma defendant. The suit was dismissed, but the first appeal reversed the decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a second appeal, during which the proforma de…
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA
2012 INSC 3143 August 2012Dismissed
The Bar Council of India challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 22‑A to 22‑E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (as inserted by the 2002 Amendment), arguing that they were arbitrary, violated Articles 14 and 21, denied a right of appeal and encroached on the jurisdiction of special statutes. The Su…
M/S. KAPIL COREPACKS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusSHRI HARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
2010 INSC 4673 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff sued Kapil Corepacks Pvt Ltd and others for recovery, alleging that the defendants had executed a sale agreement that was later claimed to be a forged document. The defendants filed a criminal complaint alleging forgery and denied signing the agreement. The trial court examined the managing director under…
BHIARU RAM AND ORS.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.
2010 INSC 4703 August 2010Dismissed
The petitioners, accused in a CBI case under the Prevention of Corruption Act for abetting the possession of disproportionate assets by a senior income‑tax officer, filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to move the trial from the Special Court, CBI, Greater Mumbai to a Sp…
BIMLESH & ORS.versusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
2010 INSC 4723 August 2010Case Partly allowed
The owner of a Jeep, who also drove the vehicle, died in a road accident and his dependants filed a claim for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurer contended that the petition was not maintainable because the deceased was not a third party and the policy covered only third‑party …
SOPANRAO & ANR.versusSYED MEHMOOD & ORS.
2019 INSC 7193 July 2019Dismissed
The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit in 1987 seeking declaration that certain lands were Inam lands of Niyamatullah Shah Dargah and also seeking possession of those lands from the defendants (appellants). The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and non‑joinder of parties. The District Judge …
JASPAL KAUR CHEEMA AND ANR.versusM/S INDUSTRIAL TRADE LINKS AND ORS. ETC.
2017 INSC 5843 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, claiming personal necessity for premises they alleged they owned and had leased to the respondents. During the trial the respondents sought to amend their written statement to deny the appellants' ownership, assert…
NITHYA ANAND RAGHAVANversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
2017 INSC 12953 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The mother, Nithya Anand Raghavan, removed her seven‑year‑old daughter Nethra from the United Kingdom to India and the father filed a writ of habeas corpus in Delhi seeking the child's production and compliance with a UK court order directing her return. The Delhi High Court ordered the mother to produce the child and …
D. N. JOSHI (D) THR. LRS. & OTHERSversusD. C. HARRIS & ANOTHER
2017 INSC 5783 July 2017Dismissed
The appeal concerned a suit for eviction filed by D.C. Harris (respondent) against tenants D.N. Joshi and others (appellants) who challenged the respondents' title to the premises. The title derived from a 1949 gift deed by Akhtari Begum to her brother Zamir Ahmad, followed by a 1965 sale deed to the respondents. The l…
K. S. VARGHESE & ORS.versusST. PETERS & PAULS SYRIAN ORTH. & ORS.
2017 INSC 5803 July 2017Dismissed
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals concerning the administration of Parish Churches within the Malankara Church, which has been divided between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction. The core dispute was whether the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church or individual Udampady agreements (such as those f…
SATTI PARADESI SAMADHI & PHILLIAR TEMPLEversusM. SANKUNTALA (D) TR. LRS. & ORS.
2014 INSC 4673 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Pillayar Temple, filed a suit in 1997 seeking a declaration that three settlement deeds dated 27 March 1978, executed by a former trustee in favour of his daughters and granddaughter, were void, and also sought possession of the trust land. The defendant contended that the suit w…
M/S. SWASTIK GASES P. LTD.versusINDIAN OIL CORP. LTD.
2013 INSC 4223 July 2013Dismissed
Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. entered into a consignment agency agreement with Indian Oil Corp. that contained a clause stating the agreement was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata. When a dispute arose, Swastik filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Rajas…
SHAMBHU PRASAD SHARMAversusSHRI CHARANDAS MAHANT & ORS.
2012 INSC 2623 July 2012Dismissed
The appellant, an independent candidate, filed an election petition challenging the acceptance of nomination papers of the other candidates on the ground that their affidavits were not in the prescribed format required under the Representation of People Act and Election Commission directions. The High Court dismissed t…
A. NAWAB JOHN & ORS.versusV.N. SUBRAMANIYAM
2012 INSC 2633 July 2012Dismissed
The appellants filed a suit for specific performance but initially paid only a deficient court fee. After multiple representations and condonation of delay, the trial court allowed the deficit fee to be paid well beyond the limitation period. The second defendant, a pendente‑lite purchaser, was impleaded and challenged…
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CHARITABLE TRUST & EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANversusM/S PONNIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON/ MANAGING TRUSTEE
2012 INSC 2643 July 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society (appellant) challenged the Madras High Court Division Bench’s reversal of a single judge’s order rejecting the plaint against it in a suit for specific performance filed by M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust (respondent). The Supreme Court examined wh…
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHALversusMAMTA BISHT AND ORS.
2010 INSC 3363 June 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The Uttaranchal Public Service Commission advertised 35 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) with both vertical (SC/ST/OBC) and horizontal (women, physically handicapped) reservations. Ms. Mamta Bisht, a resident woman of Uttaranchal, applied for the horizontal women’s reservation but was not selected. She filed a wr…
KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSUKHI RAM & ORS.
2024 INSC 3743 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, heirs of a predecessor in interest, were decreed in a pre-emption suit to deposit a balance amount of Rs. 9,214 minus a fifth already paid, by 10 October 1988. Due to a clerical miscalculation, they deposited Rs. 7,600 instead of the correct Rs. 7,614, leaving a shortfall of Rs. 14, which they sought to…
GANESAN REP BY ITS POWER AGENT G. RUKMANI GANESANversusTHE COMMISSIONER, THE TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BOARD & ORS.
2019 INSC 6233 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant Ganesan challenged the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board Commissioner's order condoning a 266‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 69 of the Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959. The central issue was whether the Commissioner, a statutory authority, is a "court" f…
M.B. RAMESH (D) BY LRS.versusK.M. VEERAJE URS (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
2013 INSC 3083 May 2013Dismissed
The respondents filed a suit claiming title to ancestral land based on a will dated 24‑10‑1943 executed by the testatrix, Smt. Nagammanni, and registered the next day. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the will was not proved because it did not satisfy Section 63(c) of the S…
ISHWARDAS ROHANIversusALOK MISHRA & ORS.
2012 INSC 1983 May 2012Matter referred to larger bench
The appellant, a returned candidate, challenged an election petition filed by the respondent alleging corrupt practices under Sections 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court, despite noting deficiencies in the petition, directed the respondent to amend the pleadings and verify them, rather th…
M/S M.R.F. LTD. ETC.versusMANOHAR PARRIKAR AND ORS.
2010 INSC 2623 May 2010Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined the validity of two Goa Government notifications (15‑May‑1996 and 1‑Aug‑1996) granting a 25% electricity tariff rebate to industrial consumers. The appellants argued that the notifications were lawful government decisions, while the State contended they were issued by the Power Minister witho…
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusJAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR
2024 INSC 2623 April 2024Dismissed
The Union of India filed a civil appeal seeking restoration of a writ petition that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution in 2006, but the application for restoration was filed after a delay of 12 years and 158 days. The High Court declined to condone this delay, prompting the Union to challenge the order before the S…
BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THR. LRS.versusPURUSHOTTAM & ORS.
2020 INSC 3273 April 2020Dismissed
The appellant, Bhagwat Sharan, a grandson of Umrao Lal, filed a partition suit claiming six houses and several agricultural lands as joint Hindu family (HUF) property of his ancestors Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal. The defendants denied the existence of an HUF, asserting the properties were self‑acquired and that a will…
HAMMAD AHMEDversusABDUL MAJEED & ORS.
2019 INSC 4603 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned a dispute over who should serve as Chief Mutawalli of Hamdard Laboratories (India) after the death of the previous Chief Mutawalli, Abdul Mueed. The appellant, Hammad Ahmed, claimed that the senior-most male descendant of the Wakif Mutawalli, as stipulated in the 1948 Deed as amended in 1973, was ent…
SUBODH KUMARversusSHAMIM AHMED
2021 INSC 1463 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed
In 1994 the landlord filed a suit for possession, rent and mesne profits against the tenant, who failed to file a written statement, leading to an ex‑parte decree in 1998. The tenant later filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC (and Section 5 of the Limitation Act) on 25 August 1998 to set aside the decr…
MANGAYARKARASIversusM. YUVARAJ
2020 INSC 2593 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of his marriage on the ground of the wife's intemperate behaviour, while the wife filed a petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court dismissed the husband's petition for lack of evidence, a deci…
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.versusM/S SITALAXMI SAHUWALA MEDICAL TRUST AND OTHERS
2020 INSC 2553 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed
Ashok Kumar Gupta and his wife, trustees of a public charitable medical trust, filed a suit under Section 92 of the CPC seeking a scheme for the trust’s administration, removal of certain trustees and appointment of qualified medical trustees, alleging that the trust had been turned into a private family trust and its …
SASI (D) THROUGH LRS. ·versusARAVINDAKSHAN NARI AND OTHERS
2017 INSC 2013 March 2017Dismissed
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by SASI (D) through LRS against orders of the Kerala High Court that dismissed a second appeal (9 March 2012) and a review petition (26 October 2016). The review petition, filed on 20 September 2012, was barred by limitation and remained pending for nearly four…
P. SURESHversusD.KALAIVANI & ORS
2026 INSC 1213 February 2026Case Allowed
The appellant, P. Suresh, filed a suit for permanent injunction over disputed land before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. The defendants contested the title and alleged the plaintiff's documents were forged, seeking to have the plaint struck off. The High Court of Madras, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction unde…
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA)versusYUNUS & ORS.
2022 INSC 1423 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute arose from a land acquisition notification where the original compensation award was Rs.24,033 per bigha. The respondents did not file an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but later a reference was made and a Lok Adalat, under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, p…
N. RAJENDRANversusS. VALLI
2022 INSC 1403 February 2022Disposed off
The husband (appellant) filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty after his wife (respondent) left him and returned to her parental home. The Family Court granted the decree of dissolution, but the wife appealed to the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act; the appeal was filed on 09‑09‑2004. The appell…
M/S. ROHINI TRADERSversusM/S. J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD.
2015 INSC 9593 February 2015Dismissed
M/s Rohini Traders sued J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. for unpaid dues and served a notice under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC seeking production of specific documents. The defendant produced some of the documents in court and its representative was cross‑examined, but the plaintiff failed to have those documents marked and en…
BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusVIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS
2024 INSC 153 January 2024Dismissed
Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Bharti Hexacom Ltd. entered into spectrum trading agreements with Aircel Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd., which later led to disputes over bank guarantees and payments. When Aircel entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Airtel claimed a right to set‑off Rs. 112.87 crore agains…
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORSversusASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
2024 INSC 43 January 2024
The Allahabad High Court, hearing a writ petition filed by the Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges, directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to notify rules framed by the Chief Justice concerning domestic help and other post‑retirement benefits for former judges, and later held a recall application …
BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS.versusSUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
2024 INSC 93 January 2024
The appellant, Brij Narayan Shukla, purchased a 3500 sq. ft. plot by a registered sale deed dated 21 January 1966 and sought an injunction with alternative relief for possession after the respondents obstructed construction in 1975. The respondents claimed title by adverse possession, alleging continuous possession sin…
RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.
2024 INSC 123 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that a 2011 sale deed was void, claiming ownership of a parcel of land based on an alleged oral partition among four brothers and a will executed by one brother. The trial court and the subordinate appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the oral partition was …
SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIAversusM/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.
2022 INSC 33 January 2022Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) communication dated 9 June 1997 to SIDBI was a binding directive under the RBI Act, 1934 and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and whether SIDBI was justified in withholding interest on bonds issued by CRB Capital. The Court held that RBI’s directions…
THE STATE OF JHARKHANDversusSURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
2019 INSC 53 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand State Electricity Board sought to energise a fully constructed electricity sub‑station on land claimed by three respondents who alleged possession of the suit property. The respondents had earlier failed to establish a title to the land in a title suit and could not specify the …
SHIVSHANKAR GURGARversusDILIP
2014 INSC 43 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed
Shivshankar Gurgar, a landlord, filed a suit under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of his tenant Dilip for arrears of rent. The parties entered into a compromise decree whereby the tenant would pay the arrears within six months, failing which the landlord could take p…
PRAFUL MANOHAR RELEversusSMT. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN GHOSALKAR & ORS.
2014 INSC 33 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Praful Manohar Rele, sued the heirs of Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar for possession of a house, alleging that they occupied it as gratuitous licensees whose licence had been validly terminated. The defendants counter‑claimed that they were tenants and sought eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court…
KANPUR JAL SANSTHAN & ANOTHERversusM/S. BAPU CONSTRUCTION
2014 INSC 9003 January 2014Disposed off
Kanpur Jal Sansthan appealed against a High Court order that, after rejecting its Section 34 objection to an arbitral award, directed it to deposit the entire award amount while allowing the claimant to withdraw half without security. The Supreme Court held that once a Section 34 objection is rejected, the award become…
GHULAM NABI DAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF J&K & ORS.
2013 INSC 23 January 2013Disposed off
The appellants, long-time occupants of certain lands, challenged a 1980 notification under Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 that declared the lands evacuee property vested in the Custodian. They claimed to be protected tenants‑at‑will existing before the Act and …
SOLOMON SELVARAJ & ORS.versusINDIRANI BHAGAWAN SINGH & ORS.
2022 INSC 12422 December 2022Disposed off
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and applied under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC to sue as indigent persons. The trial court rejected the application, and the High Court affirmed, holding that the suit was barred by res judicata and was an abuse of process. On appeal, the Sup…
M/S. ADANI AGRI FRESH LTD.versusMAHABOOB SHARIF & ORS.
2015 INSC 8832 December 2015Disposed off
M/s Adani Agri Fresh Ltd. (appellant) supplied fruit to M/s RMS Fruits & Co. (respondent) and obtained three unconditional bank guarantees from State Bank of Mysore to secure payment. When the respondent failed to pay, the appellant invoked the guarantees, prompting the respondent to obtain a permanent injunction restr…
NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusSMT. SUJATHA
2018 INSC 10362 November 2018Disposed off
Mallikarjuna, a driver employed by the North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, died of a heart attack while on duty on 6 April 1999. His widow filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the Commissioner awarded Rs 3,79,120 with a direction that interest at 12% per annum would accrue only if t…
GURCHARAN SINGHversusSURJIT SINGH AND ANR.
2012 INSC 5072 November 2012Disposed off
The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.7735 of 2010 against respondent Surjit Singh, who had actually died on 09‑06‑2009, a fact discovered only later. The petitioner then moved Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No.2 seeking substitution of the deceased respondent’s legal representatives and I.A. No.3 seek…
M/S. JAGAN SINGH & CO.versusLUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS.
2022 INSC 8992 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The Ludhiana Improvement Trust acquired land from several owners but failed to pay the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The owners filed execution proceedings, leading to the attachment and auction of the property to M/s. Jagan Singh & Co. for Rs. 22.65 lakhs in 1992. The Trust later sought to set…
GOVT. OF KERALA & ORS.versusSUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
2013 INSC 5832 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit against the State of Kerala without serving the statutory notice required under Section 80(1) of the CPC and sought leave to proceed under Section 80(2). The State filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint, while the plaintiff’s Section 80(2) application remai…
PIRTHIversusMOHAN SINGH & ORS.
2011 INSC 6382 September 2011Dismissed
The appellant, Pirthi, filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption as a co‑sharer of agricultural land, before the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 was amended. While the suit was pending, the Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995 substituted Section 15, restricting the right of pre‑emption to tenants and removing it from…
SHABBIR MOHAMMAD SAYEDversusMRS. NOOR JEHAN MUSHTER SHAIKH & ORS.
2022 INSC 7842 August 2022Dismissed
The plaintiff obtained a decree declaring her as tenant of a premises in Mumbai and ordered the landlord to hand over possession. The appellant, Shabbir Mohammad Sayed, claimed he had acquired leasehold rights from the alleged lawful tenant and also from the landlord on 24 January 2014, and sought execution of the decr…
SUCHETAN EXPORTS P. LTD.versusGUPTA COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.
2011 INSC 5322 August 2011Disposed off
The parties entered into a high‑seas sale agreement for 16,943 metric tonnes of South African coal. The seller delivered the whole consignment to a stevedore, who released 9,542.92 tonnes to the buyer, leaving 7,400.082 tonnes in its custody. The buyer failed to pay the balance price, prompting the seller to sue for br…
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusS.S. AGGARWAL & ORS.
2011 INSC 5402 August 2011Disposed off
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sought compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the original landowners had filed claims for Rs.4,000 per square yard. During the proceedings the landowners executed assignment deeds transferring their compensation rights to assignees (S.S. Aggarwa…
SUNIL VASUDEVA & ORS.versusSUNDAR GUPTA & ORS.
2019 INSC 7162 July 2019Dismissed
The dispute concerned a Delhi property that had been sold at a public auction by the Income Tax Department in 1964 to V.N. Vasudeva. The respondents, grandchildren of the original owner, challenged the sale through a civil suit and a writ petition, while the appellants, heirs of the lawyer who bought the property, defe…
PHAREZ JOHN ABRAHAM (DEAD) BY LRS.versusARUL JOTHI SIVASUBRAMANIAM K. & OTHERS
2019 INSC 7132 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned the partition of the estate of John D. Abraham, who died intestate in 1964 leaving a wife, two sons and two daughters, one of whom (Triza Kalyani John, later A.S. Meenakshi) converted to Hinduism, married the plaintiff and was paid Rs 50,000 and gold ornaments allegedly to relinquish any claim to the…
MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITEDversusREG. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, JALPAIGURI
2014 INSC 4572 July 2014Dismissed
The case concerned a tea estate (Mathura Tea Estate) that defaulted on EPF contributions. After the estate was taken over by Eveready Industries (later McLeod Russel India Ltd.), the new management argued it was not the "employer" liable for damages under Section 148 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous …
VATHSALA MANICKAVASAGAM & ORS.versusN. GANESAN & ANR.
2013 INSC 4112 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed
A family of five members disputed the ownership of three houses. The mother, two sons and a daughter filed a partition suit against the eldest son, claiming a 4/5 share in the properties. The trial court, relying on the mother’s testimony and a letter (Ex.A‑17) written by the eldest son, held that all three houses were…
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.versusMAWASI & ORS. ETC.ETC.
2012 INSC 2572 July 2012Dismissed
The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) sought review of a Supreme Court judgment that fixed compensation for land acquired for an industrial township, alleging that the market value was based on a fraudulent sale deed (Exhibit P1) between two companies allegedly under common management and that th…
DR. ALOYS WOBBEN & ANR.versusYOGESH MEHRA & ORS.
2014 INSC 4162 June 2014Disposed off
Dr. Aloys Wobben, holder of several wind‑turbine patents, sued Yogesh Mehra and others for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court. The respondents filed revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board under s.64(1) of the Patents Act and also raised counter‑claims in the infringement suits se…
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM & ORS.versusBAGATHI KRISHNA RAO & ANR.
2010 INSC 3352 June 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents filed a suit seeking declaration of title and possession of land, which the appellants contended was forest land vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State was a party in the trial court and the first appellate court but was not impleaded in the second appeal before the High Court. The High Court …
DR. VIMAL SUKUMARversusD. LAWRENCE & ORS.
2025 INSC 6222 May 2025Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined appeals challenging two Madras High Court orders that declared the 7‑3‑2022 Special Synod meeting of the Church of South India (CSI) invalid, set aside the amendments to the CSI Constitution, and ordered re‑election of all office bearers. The Court held that the Special Synod meeting was duly…
CHILAMKURTI BALA SUBRAHMANYAMversusSAMANTHAPUDI VIJAYA LAKSHMI & ANR.
2017 INSC 4272 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, an auction purchaser, bought a schedule property attached in execution of a decree for a loan granted by State Bank of India to the judgment debtor, Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi. The property was proclaimed for sale on 5 October 1999, a 15‑day notice was issued, and the auction was held on 17 November 199…
PURNI DEVI & ANR.versusBABU RAM & ANR.
2024 INSC 2592 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant obtained a decree for possession in 1986, which became final on 9 November 2000. Seeking to enforce the decree, the appellant filed an execution application before the Tehsildar on 18 December 2000, which was rejected on 29 January 2005 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then filed a fre…
PAWAN KUMARversusBABULAL SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
2019 INSC 4542 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed
Pawan Kumar filed a suit seeking declaration of title over a shop, alleging he paid the purchase price while the deed was placed in his father's name. The second defendant moved an Order VII Rule 11 application to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act…
JEGANNATHANversusRAJU SIGAMANI & ANR.
2012 INSC 1572 April 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs obtained a decree for permanent injunction, which was set aside by a first appellate court that remanded the suit for fresh trial under Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs filed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) challenging the remand order, but the Madras…
JOSEversusJOHNSON
2020 INSC 2422 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction claiming ownership and possession of a partitioned property, and the trial court decreed in his favour after answering issues of identity, ownership and possession. The defendant appealed, and the First Appellate Court set aside the decree, remanding the…
D.B. BASNETT (D) THR. LRS.versusTHE COLLECTOR & ANR. EAST DISTRICT, GANGTOK, SIKKIM & ANR.
2020 INSC 2392 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, D.B. Basnett, claimed that the State of Sikkim had illegally occupied his 7.07‑acre land without complying with the procedural requirements of the Sikkim Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1977. The State contended that it had paid compensation of Rs.62,645 in 1980 and therefore possessed the land l…
PAWAN KUMAR ARYA AND OTHERSversusRAVI KUMAR ARYA AND OTHERS
2020 INSC 2522 March 2020Disposed off
The dispute arose from a family settlement (consent decree) concerning the allocation of 15 flats in a Worli development, where eight flats were to be allotted to the PA Group and seven to the RA Group. The RA Group refused to counter‑sign the developer's letter (Annexure E) for the eight flats, arguing that the supple…
JITU PATNAIKversusSANATAN MOHAKUD & ORS.
2012 INSC 1232 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed
In the 25‑Champua Assembly constituency, an independent candidate died after the withdrawal deadline but before polling, yet his name remained on the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) and he received 550 votes. The election petitioner alleged that, had the deceased candidate’s name been masked, those votes would have gon…
SHYAM KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.versusSHUBHAM JAIN
2023 INSC 982 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent, claiming ownership of a shop, sued the predecessor of the appellants for arrears of rent and eviction. The trial court passed an ex‑parte decree for Rs 8,000 arrears, Rs 3,212 costs and ordered mesne profits of Rs 2,000 per month until possession. The defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 1…
BENGAL CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSN.versusKALYAN CHOWDHURY
2018 INSC 912 February 2018Dismissed
Bengal Chemists & Druggists Assn. appealed against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that dismissed its appeal as not maintainable because it was filed nine days after the initial 45‑day limitation period and after the additional 45‑day grace period had also expired. The appellant argued t…
RICHARD LEEversusGIRISH SONI AND ANR.
2017 INSC 1002 February 2017Disposed off
The respondents filed an eviction petition before the Delhi Rent Controller seeking to evict the occupants of a shop. The appellant, Richard Lee, claimed to be a partner in the firm K.K. Lee, which he alleged was the actual tenant, and moved an application for impleadment as a necessary party under Order I Rule 10 of t…
M. NAGABHUSHANAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
2011 INSC 922 February 2011Dismissed
The appellant, owner of two plots of land, challenged the acquisition of his land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, alleging that the land lay outside the Framework Agreement and that the acquisition was invalid because no award was made within two years as required by Section 11A of the Land …
KRISHNA DEVI @ SABITRI DEVI (RANI) M/S S.R. ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2025 INSC 242 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, representing the estate of her deceased husband, obtained an arbitral award on 31 May 2022 directing the respondents to pay a sum with interest. The award could not be released because the respondents had not paid the arbitrator's fees, leading the District Judge to order payment of the balance fees on 2…
HARJAS RAL MAKHIJA (D) THR. LRS.versusPUSHPARANI JAIN & ANR.
2017 INSC 72 January 2017Dismissed
Harjas Rai Makhija appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the decree of 4 October 1999, which granted possession of a Bhopal plot to Pushparani Jain, was obtained by fraud because she allegedly concealed a Power of Attorney dated 30 April 1983. The Court held that fraud must be proved with evidence of intent to de…
THE KOUSHIK MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETYversusAMEENA BEGUM & ANOTHER
2023 INSC 10651 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society sued for specific performance of a sale agreement, and the respondents were set ex‑parte, resulting in an ex‑parte decree on 15‑02‑1999. The respondents later filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree and sought condonation of a…
HIGH COURT OF A.P.versusN. SANYASI RAO
2011 INSC 8281 December 2011Disposed off
The respondent, a Judicial Officer, applied for recruitment to the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service stating his date of birth as 1 July 1949 based on his school certificate, but later obtained a civil decree declaring his birth as 29 March 1953 and used that date at the time of joining service in 1985. He later sought c…
MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS.versusRAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND ORS.
2023 INSC 9691 November 2023Dismissed
The petitioners, legatees of the deceased Mohideen Abdul Khadar, challenged a Madras High Court judgment that upheld the title and possession of Rahmath Beevi over a second scheduled property measuring 15 × 18 feet. The dispute arose from earlier suits where Mohideen claimed title to a first scheduled property and soug…
KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO & ANR.versusKORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR
2021 INSC 5861 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute arose from a partition of family property where the respondent sought a declaration of title and eviction of the appellants. The appellants relied on a family settlement document (Khararunama) dated 15‑04‑1986 and a receipt of Rs.2,00,000 as evidence of the parties' past arrangements. The trial court admitt…
M/S. MAGMA FINCORP LTD.versusRAJESH KUMAR TIWARI
2020 INSC 5741 October 2020Case Allowed
M/S. Magma FinCorp Ltd., the financier, entered into a hire‑purchase agreement with Rajesh Kumar Tiwari for a vehicle. Tiwari paid seven instalments before the financier repossessed the vehicle without a notice addressed to his correct address and later sold it. Tiwari filed a consumer complaint alleging unfair trade p…
STATE BANK OF HYDERABADversusRABO BANK
2015 INSC 7241 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, RABO Bank, sued State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH) in a summary suit under Order 37 of the CPC, claiming payment on several Bills of Exchange that SBH had allegedly accepted via telex/fax messages. SBH denied liability, asserting that the co‑acceptances were unauthorized, that the Bills lacked proper signatur…
PUNJAB AND SIND BANKversusM/S. ALLIED BEVERAGE COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
2010 INSC 6651 October 2010Dismissed
Punjab and Sino Bank had granted cash credit facilities to Allied Beverage Company, which later became a non‑performing asset. The bank recovered the dues through the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which awarded interest at 18% per annum with monthly rests. The High Court modified this order, reducing the pendente lite and f…
M/S TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
2025 INSC 10601 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, was ordered by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to pay Rs.18 crore as environmental compensation for alleged illegal discharge of untreated effluents and related violations. The appellant challenged the orders on the ground that it was n…
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
2022 INSC 8961 September 2022Dismissed
The appellant (LIC) challenged the High Court’s order allowing the respondents (Sanjeev Builders and another) to amend their plaint in a suit for specific performance, seeking a higher quantum of damages. The appellant argued that the amendment was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC and the doctrine of constructive r…
APPARAJU MALHAR RAOversusTULA VENKATAIAH@ VENKAT RAO (DEAD) & ORS.
2017 INSC 8421 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction over a parcel of land, which the trial court decreed in his favour. The defendants successfully appealed, and the first appellate court set aside the trial court decree. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal before the High Court, which restored the trial court dec…
RAMESH GOBINDRAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSUGRA HUMAYUN MIRZA WAKF
2010 INSC 5691 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The Wakf Board filed eviction suits against tenants occupying property identified as wakf, and the Wakf Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to decide the matters, ordering eviction. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirmed the Tribunal's orders. The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal under Secti…
EIH LIMITEDversusNADIAVIRJI
2022 INSC 7741 August 2022Dismissed
The landlord (EIH Ltd.) and tenant (Nadia A. Virji) entered into a tenancy agreement for a commercial showroom with a fixed rent of Rs 10,000 per month, while the tenant also agreed to pay municipal taxes separately. The landlord terminated the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed an evic…
AJAY KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
2022 INSC 7761 August 2022Disposed off
The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order (G.O.) on 7 May 1999 identifying certain posts for reservation for persons with disabilities, reserving some posts for hearing‑impaired candidates but not for those with locomotor disability. In a recruitment for 1,651 Safai‑Karmis posts, three percent of vacancies w…
ALIYATHAMMUDA BEETHATHEBIYYAPPURA POOKOYA & ANR.versusPATTAKAL CHERIYAKOYA & ORS.
2019 INSC 8491 August 2019Dismissed
The dispute concerned the office of mutawalli of the historic Andrott Jumah mosque in Lakshadweep. The senior members of the Pattakal family claimed a hereditary customary right to the office, tracing it to Saint Ubaidulla, the mosque’s founder, while the appellants, representing island residents, argued that the right…
MADINA BEGUM & ANR.versusSHIV MURTI PRASAD PANDEY & ORS.
2016 INSC 5671 August 2016Transferred to High Court
Madina Begum filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement that lacked a fixed calendar date for completion. The respondents contended the suit was barred by the three‑year limitation under Article 54 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held that where no specific date is fixed, the…
DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHODversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
2014 INSC 5141 August 2014Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the proper territorial jurisdiction for criminal complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the offence is completed when a cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank, and therefore the court having jurisdiction over the place where the cheque is dishonou…
RAM DAAN (D) THROUGH LRS.versusURBAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST
2014 INSC 9891 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed
Ram Daan filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Urban Development Trust from dispossessing him of a 4,914‑sq‑yard plot, claiming uninterrupted possession since 1942. The respondent asserted that the land belonged to the State of Rajasthan and that the appellant had been evicted in 1965 under Section 91 …
KRISHNA KUMAR OJHA & ORS.versusJITENDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS.
2026 INSC 6621 July 2026Dismissed
The appellants, heirs of the original plaintiffs in a partition suit, challenged a compromise decree entered on 22 February 1994 that purportedly settled the suit but was signed without the consent of Defendant No.5, Chaturbhuj Chaudhary. The lower courts had set aside the decree on grounds of fraud and lack of signatu…
MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR.versusAXIS BANK LTD. & ANR.
2019 INSC 7071 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, home buyers, filed suits against the builder and Axis Bank seeking specific performance, possession and other reliefs concerning flats in the Orbit Heaven project. Axis Bank moved a notice of motion under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC to have the plaint rejected only against it, invoking the bar under S…
R. S. ANJAYYA GUPTAversusTHIPPAIAH SETTY & ORS.
2019 INSC 6991 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant challenged a partition suit filed by his brother, claiming the properties were self‑acquired, while the plaintiff alleged they were bought with joint family funds and thus belonged to the Hindu joint family. The trial court held the properties were joint family assets and ordered partition; the High Court…
QUANTUM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. & OTHERSversusNEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.
2015 INSC 4641 July 2015Disposed off
The plaintiff, New Delhi Television Ltd, filed a civil suit against Quantum Securities Pvt Ltd and others seeking a permanent injunction restraining defamatory communications and damages. During the suit, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion under Order XXXIX of the CPC and obtained an ex‑parte interim injunction on …
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD.versusSANJAY DALIA&ANR.
2015 INSC 4521 July 2015Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined whether sections 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 allow a plaintiff to sue in a district court where it resides or carries on business even when the cause of action has also arisen at its principal place of business. The Court held that these provisions creat…
VANCHALABAI RAGHUNATH ITHAPE (D) BY LRversusSHANKARRAO BABURAO BHILARE (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS
2013 INSC 3771 July 2013Dismissed
The appellant, Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape (by legal representatives), executed a deed in 1967 transferring land to Shankarrao Baburao Bhilare for Rs.3,000 with a clause that the land would be returned if the amount was paid within five years. The appellant later claimed the deed was a mortgage by conditional sale and…
SANTOSH DEVIversusSUNDER
2025 INSC 6271 May 2025Dismissed
The petitioner, Santosh Devi, filed a suit in 2012 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and related mutation, alleging that the deed was obtained through fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The petitioner contended th…
K.R. SURESHversusR. POORNIMA & ORS.
2025 INSC 6171 May 2025Dismissed
The appellant, K.R. Suresh, paid Rs.20,00,000 as advance under an agreement of sale that required the balance to be paid within four months, failing which the advance would be forfeited. He did not pay the balance on time, and the respondents forfeited the advance and later sold the property to third parties. The appel…
SHILPA SAILESHversusVARUN SREENIVASAN
2023 INSC 4681 May 2023Reference answered
The Constitution Bench examined the scope of Article 142(1) of the Constitution, holding that the Supreme Court may depart from statutory procedure and even substantive law to achieve "complete justice" provided the exercise is guided by fundamental public policy. It ruled that, in cases of settlement between parties, …
THULASIDHARA & ANOTHERversusNARAYANAPPA & OTHERS
2019 INSC 6031 May 2019Disposed off
The original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of a property based on a registered sale deed. The defendants contended that the property had become part of a joint family and that the sale deed was merely a security instrument, not an operative transfer, and th…
S. SUBRAMANIANversusS. RAMASAMY ETC. ETC.
2019 INSC 6061 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned two suits filed by S. Ramasamy for injunction and partition of certain immovable properties, which the trial court dismissed on the ground that the properties were self‑acquired by the father and not part of a joint Hindu family. The first appellate court affirmed this view. The High Court, exercisin…
M/S. DSR STEEL (P) LTD.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
2012 INSC 1951 May 2012Dismissed
The appellants, including DSR Steel (P) Ltd., challenged the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission’s tariff order and the withdrawal of an incentive scheme, alleging promissory estoppel. Their review petitions were dismissed by the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal, and they filed appeals under Section 125 of…
I.K. MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
2025 INSC 4181 April 2025Disposed off
The appellants, I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and others, sold their shares in a state-owned company in 1973 for Rs.11.50 per share and later sought a higher valuation, which was finally fixed at Rs.640 per share by a court-appointed valuer. The State of Rajasthan, as respondent, delayed payment for over five decades, leadi…
SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS.versusSRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS.
2025 INSC 4341 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiffs, grandchildren of Shivanna, filed a suit for partition of ancestral immovable property in 2023, alleging denial of their share. The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the property had been orally partitioned in 1968 and that registered sale deeds executed in…
M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDversusM/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED & ANR.
2022 INSC 3801 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, a mining company, sued the defendant for a declaration that a Rs 56‑lakh cheque, given as security under a memorandum of understanding, was not payable because the defendant failed to protect the plaintiff’s port licence. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of…
V. KALA BHARATHI & ORS.versusTHE ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD., BR. CHITOOR
2014 INSC 2361 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, legal heirs of a deceased road‑accident victim, were awarded Rs.98.40 million with 12% interest by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The insurer appealed, reduced the principal to Rs.56.40 million but retained the interest rate, and made several partial payments. The Executing Court adjusted those pay…
STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusM/S. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.
2010 INSC 1911 April 2010Dismissed
The State of Maharashtra entered into a construction contract with Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., and after the arbitral tribunal awarded Rs. 17.81 crore to the company, the State filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award on five grounds. The applic…
VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS.versusJAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS
2024 INSC 1591 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents filed a consumer complaint alleging that the sole proprietor developer failed to complete construction and pay dues under a 1996 Development Agreement. The developer died during the pendency of the case, and the legal representatives were directed by the NCDRC to both pay monetary amounts and to perform…
M/S. CHITRALEKHA BUILDERS & ANR. THROUGH ANIL G. SHAH POWER OF ATTORNEY & HUSBAND OF THE PARTNERversusEMPLOYEES SONAL VIHAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ANR.
2021 INSC 1301 March 2021Disposed off
The dispute concerned a 5,082‑square‑yard land in Mulund, where the original suit (No. 1335/1988) was settled by two consent decrees dated 16‑Feb‑2005 and 03‑Oct‑2005 between the Vaity family, the housing society and other parties. M/S Chitralekha Builders and its partners were impleaded only later and were not signato…
KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS KHODAY INDIA LIMITED) AND OTHERSversusSRI MAHADESHWARA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD., KOLLEGAL (UNDER LIQUIDATION) REPRESENTED BY THE LIQUIDATOR
2019 INSC 2981 March 2019Disposed off
The case involved two civil appeals (Nos. 2432 and 2433) arising from special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by Khoday Distilleries Ltd. after a High Court decree in a money suit. Both SLPs were dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine without reasons. The appellants then sought review of the High Court's judgment, raisi…
VARUN PAHWAversusMRS. RENU CHAUDHARY
2019 INSC 3041 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,00,000 as an individual, although the loan was advanced by the company. The plaint mistakenly named the plaintiff as "Varun Pahwa through Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd." instead of "Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. thro…
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD.versusGUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
2017 INSC 12691 March 2017Dismissed
Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. (ONGC) appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity which denied its claim for a refund. The appeal was filed more than 71 days after the 60‑day period prescribed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and beyond the additional 60‑day co…
VIJAY PRAKASH JARATHversusTEJ PRAKASHJARATH
2016 INSC 2281 March 2016Appeal(s) allowed
Tej Prakash Jarath filed a suit in 1992 against his relatives. The defendants filed written statements on 11 November 1992 and, after issues were framed in October 1993, filed a counter‑claim on 17 June 1996. The trial court allowed the counter‑claim, but the Uttarakhand High Court set it aside, relying on Rohit Singh …
MAHALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ETC.versusASHABHAI ATMARAM PATEL(D) TH. LRS. AND ORS.
2013 INSC 1301 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined appeals by Mahalaxmi Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd. against a High Court order that set aside trial‑court orders allowing the society to record a pursis (settlement) under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC in two civil suits concerning land ownership. The Court held that the pursis was valid b…
FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.versusAMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS.
2022 INSC 1291 February 2022
Future Coupons Private Ltd (FCPL) and Future Retail Ltd (FRL) challenged orders of the Delhi High Court Single Judge that enforced an emergency arbitrator’s interim award in a dispute over FRL’s sale of retail assets to Reliance. The appellants alleged that the judge denied them a fair opportunity to present their defe…
JOGI RAMversusSURESH KUMAR & ORS
2022 INSC 1311 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned a Will dated 15 April 1968 in which Tulsi Ram bequeathed half of his self‑acquired property to his second wife, Ram Devi, as a limited life interest, with the remainder to pass to his son, Jogi Ram, after her death. The question was whether Ram Devi’s interest became an absolute ownership under Secti…
G. RATNA RAJ (D) BY LRS.versusSRI MUTHUKUMARASAMY PERMANENT FUND LTD. & ANR.
2019 INSC 1231 February 2019Dismissed
G. Ratna Raj filed a civil suit for redemption of mortgage and injunction against Sri Muthukumarasamy Fund Ltd. The plaintiff presented his evidence and closed his case, after which the suit was called for recording the defendants' evidence. The defendants failed to appear and had not led any evidence, prompting the tr…
ASHARFI DEVI (D) THR. LRS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
2019 INSC 1241 February 2019Dismissed
The original appellant, owner of land subject to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, claimed that ceiling proceedings became void after the Act was repealed in 1999 and filed a writ petition in 2002. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ on 14 March 2008, finding the appellant could not prove posse…
BITHIKA MAZUMDAR AND ANR.versusSAGAR PAL AND ORS.
2017 INSC 951 February 2017Disposed off
Gautam Mazumdar died in a road accident in 2007, and his widow and minor daughter filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). MACT dismissed the claim for lack of territorial jurisdiction and the review petition was also dismissed. The appellants then filed a petition under Article 227 …