Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3,093 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1,401–1,600.

CHAMAN LALversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2014 INSC 39816 May 2014Dismissed

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

SUDARSHA AVASTHIversusSHIV PAL SINGH

2008 INSC 70116 May 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Sudarsha Avasthi, filed Election Petition No. 3 of 2002 challenging the election of Shiv Pal Singh to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council on alleged corrupt practices, including bribery to his brother and other candidates and undue influence on the Assistant Returning Officer. The petition alleged spec

RANGANAYAKAMMA AND ANOTHERversusK.S. PRAKASH (D) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS

2008 INSC 71116 May 2008Dismissed

The case involved two sisters who challenged a 1983 deed of partition and relinquishment of their rights in family properties in favour of their brothers, alleging fraud and lack of consideration. The lower courts had held that the properties were joint family assets, the partition was a family settlement, and the sist

BANK OF INDIAversusKETAN PAREKH & ORS.

2008 INSC 71216 May 2008Dismissed

Bank of India appealed against a decision that the Debts Recovery Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the property of Ketan Parekh, who had been declared a notified person under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. Parekh's movable and immovable assets were attached by

FAQRUDDIN (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.versusTAJUDDIN (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.

2008 INSC 71416 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a dispute over the succession to the offices of Sajjadanashin (spiritual head) and Mutawalli (manager of secular property) of a Dargah originally granted by the ruler of Jaipur. The plaintiff, Faqruddin (deceased), claimed that he became the rightful Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli after being declared a

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABADversusSUNDER SINGH

2008 INSC 72316 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent Sunder Singh filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad seeking a permanent injunction and an order to render accounts for a purported wrongful auction of his property. An interlocutory application to adduce secondary evidence was dismissed and the suit was subsequently dismissed; the ap

DABUR INDIA LTD.versusK.R. INDUSTRIES

2008 INSC 72516 May 2008Dismissed

Dabur India Ltd., the maker of "Dabur Red Tooth Powder", sued K.R. Industries for copyright infringement of its packaging and for passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the passing‑off claim, relying on the Dhodha House decision. Dabur appealed, a

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusM/S. SWADESHI POLYTEX LTD. & ORS.

2008 INSC 73216 May 2008Dismissed

Swadeshi Polytex Ltd., a sick company unable to pay employee wages, was subjected to attachment and auction of its property under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The company challenged the sale, arguing that the sale proclamation and auction notice were not served on the actual default

BINAPANI KAR CHOWDHURYversusSRI SATYABRATA BASU AND ANR.

2006 INSC 34516 May 2006Disposed off

Binapani Kar Chowdhury filed a title suit in 1995 challenging the validity of a sale deed executed by the deceased Avarani Bose in favour of S.S. Basu. The plaintiff died in 1997 and the first respondent, claiming to be the executor and legatee under a 1996 will, was substituted as the legal representative under Order

S. VALLIAMMAI & OTHERSversusS. RAMANATHAN & ANOTHER

2026 INSC 37216 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

NAFEES AHMAD & ANR.versusSOINUDDIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 52016 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD.versusTATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 33316 April 2024Dismissed

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

KAMLESH BABU AND ORS.versusLAJPAT RAI SHARMA AND ORS.

2008 INSC 49716 April 2008Case Allowed

The dispute arose from a registered Will dated 5 August 1972 that mutated property in favour of the appellants. Respondent No.1 filed a suit alleging the Will was procured by fraud; the trial court dismissed the suit and held it barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The first appellate cour

KANDAPAZHA NADAR AND ORS.versusCHITRAGANIAMMAL AND ORS.

2007 INSC 42616 April 2007Case Allowed

The appellants (defendants in the earlier suit) challenged a Madras High Court order that, after allowing them to withdraw their 1973 suit without liberty to file a fresh suit, barred them from raising the defence that the conveyance deed was invalid. The Supreme Court examined whether such a withdrawal order constitut

B.S. ADITYAN AND ORS.versusB. RAMACHANDRAN ADITYAN AND ORS.

2004 INSC 27416 April 2004Dismissed

The respondents sought leave under Section 92 of the CPC to file a suit for removal of trustees and framing of a scheme, which the High Court initially denied but later granted on appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether a court must give notice to the proposed defendants before granting such leave and held that noti

KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKFversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 27616 April 2004Dismissed

The Karnataka Board of Wakf claimed ownership of three properties in Bijapur, asserting that a 1976 notification and Gazette declared them Wakf under the Wakf Act, 1954, and that the Government of India’s claim of title by adverse possession was untenable. The Government countered that the properties had been acquired

PUKHRAJ D. JAIN AND ORS.versusG. GOPALAKRISHNA

2004 INSC 28116 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The original owners of a residential building executed an agreement to sell the property to Dr. Gopalakrishna in 1974 and received an advance, but Gopalakrishna later rescinded the contract and sued for recovery of the advance. He subsequently sought to amend his suit for specific performance, which the trial court rej

M/S HANIL ERA TEXTILES LTD.versusM/S. PUROMATIC FILTERS (P) LTD.

2004 INSC 28216 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Hanil Era Textiles Ltd placed a purchase order in Mumbai for filters, paying an advance there, and the order was accepted by the seller's Mumbai branch. The goods were later dispatched from the seller's Delhi factory to the buyer in Delhi, and the buyer filed a suit in the Delhi court for recovery of dues. The seller i

KONDIBA DAGADU KADAMversusSAVITRIBAL SOPAN GUJAR AND ORS.

1999 INSC 19216 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Kondiba Dagadu Kadam filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement which was dismissed by the trial court. The first appellate court reversed the dismissal, relying on two attesting witnesses who testified that the agreement was executed by thumb impression. The High Court, on a second appeal, re‑appraised

STATE OF ORISSA ETC.versusKLOCKNER AND COMPANY AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 53116 April 1996Dismissed

Klockner & Co., a German firm, had a marketing agreement with Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) for exclusive marketing of charge chrome, containing an arbitration clause referring disputes to the ICC in London under Swiss law. After OMC's charge‑chrome division was taken over by the State of Orissa under Ordinance 8 of 

SRI SAMIR SOBHAN SANYALversusTRACKS TRADE PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 53416 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. S. Sanyal, was occupying premises as a tenant of India Foils Ltd. when the landlady sold the property to Habitat Developers, who obtained a decree for specific performance and possession. Although the decree was against the landlady, the appellant was not impleaded nor was any eviction order passed ag

EAST INDIA CORPORATION LTDversusSHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD.

1991 INSC 10216 April 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent sued the appellant for possession of a building on the ground of wilful default in paying rent of Rs.900 per month. The appellant denied being a tenant, claiming to be a co‑sharer, but the lower courts held it was a tenant and decreed eviction. While the suit was pending, clause (ii) of section 30 of the

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

2025 INSC 35516 March 2025Disposed off

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

M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LTDversusKASHIRAM VERMA

2023 INSC 24316 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERSversusDEV BRAT SHARMA

2022 INSC 31616 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. AMBLCA CONSTRUCTION

2016 INSC 26516 March 2016Reference answered

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

HARDEEP KAURversusMALKIAT KAUR

2012 INSC 13616 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2010 INSC 15116 March 2010Dismissed

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

SANTOSHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2009 INSC 34716 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Santosh, challenged the Allahabad High Court's ex‑parte dismissal of his criminal revision petition (No. 1622 of 1989). The High Court had refused to recall the order, holding that it was decided on merits and therefore could not be recalled. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant’s counsel was ab

SAI ENTERPRISESversusBHIMREDDY LAXMAIAH AND ANR.

2007 INSC 30116 March 2007Disposed off

The appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4.49 lakh and the respondent No.1 filed a separate suit for foreclosure of a mortgage against the same judgment debtor, respondent No.2. Both suits were decreed against respondent No.2, and execution proceedings were instituted, leading to the sale of the mortgaged property

ALCHEMIST LIMITED AND ANR.versusSTATE BANK OF SIKKIM AND ORS.

2007 INSC 30216 March 2007Dismissed

Alchemist Ltd., a company with its registered office in Chandigarh, submitted a proposal for a strategic partnership with State Bank of Sikkim as part of Sikkim's disinvestment of 49% equity. After an acceptance in principle, Alchemist deposited Rs 4.5 crore in Chandigarh, but the Sikkim government later refused approv

RAMESH CHAND DAGAversusRAMESHWARI BAI

2005 INSC 14916 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The wife obtained a judicial separation decree directing the husband to return ornaments worth Rs. 3,25,655 within one month, with a conditional order that if he failed to do so he would pay the value plus 9% interest per annum. The husband returned the ornaments after a delay but within a reasonable time, yet the High

HARI SHANKAR RASTOGIversusSHRI SHAM MANOHAR AND ORS.

2005 INSC 15116 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a second appeal before the Delhi High Court, and the appellant raised cross‑objections in that appeal. The respondent later withdrew the appeal, and the High Court dismissed the cross‑objections, holding that they ceased to exist upon withdrawal of the appeal. The appellant appealed to the Supreme

HARDESH ORES PVT. LTD.versusTIMBLO MINERALS PVT. LTD.,AND ORS.

2004 INSC 17516 March 2004Case Partly allowed

The dispute concerned the exclusive right to operate an iron‑ore mine. Hardesh Ores (the old contractor) claimed that its contract with the mining‑lease owner had been renewed by the parties' conduct, while Timbolo Minerals (the new contractors) asserted that the owner had refused renewal and entered into a fresh, high

THIAGARAJAN AND ORS.versusSRI VENUGOPALASWAMY B. KOIL AND ORS.

2004 INSC 17616 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over ancestral A and B Schedule properties, claiming inheritance rights. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed it, finding the appellants entitled to the properties. The respondents appealed to the Madras H

NARAYANANversusKUMARAN AND ORS.

2004 INSC 17416 March 2004Dismissed

The appellant Narayanan (vendee) purchased a disputed parcel of land that the owner Kunjan had retained despite executing a settlement deed for his daughters. The first respondent Kumaran, a close relative, fraudulently altered the deed's schedule to claim title over the disputed parcel and sued for a permanent injunct

ISWAR BHAI C. PATEL@ BACHU BHAI PATELversusHARIHAR BEHARA AND ANR.

1999 INSC 10616 March 1999Dismissed

The plaintiff, a registered money lender, sued the appellant and his father (defendant 2) for recovery of a loan advanced through a cheque drawn on the plaintiff’s bank account. The trial court decreed only against the father, holding that the appellant had not approached the plaintiff and that the father was not his a

TILAK RAJversusBAIKUNTHI DEVI (D) BY LRS.

2009 INSC 19216 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tilak Raj, claimed a half‑share in land bequeathed to him by his grandmother's will and in land that had been acquired by the Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI) and later returned as surplus. The decree in the earlier suit mistakenly described the land as Khasra No. 25R/52 instead of the correct 26R/5

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusBALWINDER SINGH

2006 INSC 9016 February 2006Disposed off

Balwinder Singh, appointed Constable and later promoted to Head Constable by the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Punjab Police, was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police (SP) for unauthorized absence. He appealed the dismissal to the DIG, which was also dismissed, and then filed a suit seeking a declaration that

RESHMU AND ORS.versusRAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 7816 February 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The land was jointly owned by Nand Lal and Bassia; Bassia sold his undivided share to three persons. Suram Singh, son of the other joint owner, filed a pre-emption suit which was decreed in his favour and he deposited the required amount. He later sued the purchasers' successors for a declaration of ownership, and the

DR. GHANSHYAM JAISWALversusKAMAL SINGH

1996 INSC 27216 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

In a suit for ejectment filed on 5 April 1984, the respondent entered into a compromise and a decree for eviction was subsequently recorded. The respondent failed to deliver possession, prompting the appellant to file an execution petition. The respondent first challenged the validity of the compromise decree under Sec

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusRANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPN. RANCHI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 27316 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Ranchi Municipal Corporation demanded Rs 1,01,501 as service charges from the Railways for the years 1993‑94 and 1994‑95. The Union of India challenged the demand, and the Patna High Court upheld it. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the municipality could levy such charges under Section 135 of the Rail

BABULALversusRAJ KUMAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 27416 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Babulal obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, but the decree did not grant possession. When the decree‑holder sought to execute the decree, Raj Kumar (the appellant), who was not a party to the decree, claimed a right in the property and obtained an injunction. He obje

U. SUDHEERA & OTHERSversusC. YASHODA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 8016 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2020 INSC 4716 January 2020Dismissed

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

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

2014 INSC 3216 January 2014Disposed off

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

J. SAMUEL AND OTHERSversusGATTU MAHESH AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 3116 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2012 INSC 2816 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

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

BHAGWAN SARUP NAGAR (D) BY LRSversusRAM KISHAN

2009 INSC 3516 January 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Bhagwan Sarup Nagar, claimed ownership of a house and had licensed his cousin, Ram Kishan, to occupy two rooms. After revoking the licence on 27 September 1991, the defendant refused to vacate, prompting the plaintiff to sue for a mandatory injunction, possession, and mesne profits. The defendant asserte

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusROSHAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2008 INSC 5916 January 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent's land was declared surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1954, but he failed to file an appeal under Section 12 of that Act. After about two years he filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that consolidation proceedings had reduced hi

AJAY BANSALversusANUP MEHTA & ORS.

2007 INSC 4416 January 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ajay Bansal filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of Rs 2,93,987. The respondents applied for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5); the Civil Judge rejected the application, calling the defence sham, and immediately passed a final decree for Rs 2,83,987 with interest. The

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD.versusRADHIKA SYNTHETICS AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7316 January 1996Disposed off

Cholamandalam Investments & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit in the Madras High Court for recovery of money under a hire‑purchase agreement that contained a clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to Madras courts. Radhika Synthetics Ltd. later instituted a suit in the Bombay High Court claiming damages, relying on a

RAJ KUMAR BHATIAversusSUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA

2017 INSC 124015 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2016 INSC 114715 December 2016Remitted to Lower Court

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

LAL SHAH BABA DARGAH TRUSTversusMAGNUM DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 92515 December 2015Case Partly allowed

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

JASWANT KAUR & ANR.versusSUBHASH PALIWAL & ORS.

2009 INSC 130815 December 2009Dismissed

The petitioners, tenants of a shop room, challenged an eviction suit filed by Subhash and Gopal Paliwal, claiming that a will executed by the deceased owner bequeathed the premises to Gopal, rendering Subhash not a landlord. The tenants admitted in their written statement that the Paliwals were their landlords and paid

NARENDRA KANTEversusANURADHA KANTE & ORS.

2009 INSC 130915 December 2009Dismissed

Narendra Kante filed a suit seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions concerning a property he claimed as ancestral, alleging that no valid partition had been effected and that a deed of family settlement dated 8 February 1967, which was not signed by all co‑sharers, could not be relied upon. The trial c

KAMLA DEVIversusKHUSHAL KANWAR AND ANR.

2006 INSC 102315 December 2006Dismissed

The appeal concerned a special Letters Patent appeal filed before the CPC (Amendment) Act 2002 came into force. The appellant argued that Section 100‑A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars further appeals from a single‑judge decision, should apply retrospectively and thus invalidate the pending appeal. The Suprem

M.V. KARUNAKARANversusKRISHANAN (DEAD) BY LRS.

2006 INSC 102815 December 2006Dismissed

Two brothers, Madhavan and Bahuleyan, formed a partnership and were co‑owners of a property. Madhavan died, causing the partnership to dissolve. The legal heirs of Madhavan sold the property to Krishnan (predecessor in interest of the respondents). A third party later obtained a decree against the dissolved firm and th

M/S. DHODHA HOUSEversusS.K. MAINGI

2005 INSC 61715 December 2005

The Supreme Court considered two appeals arising from suits alleging infringement of copyright and trade‑mark rights – one by Dhodha House (sweet‑meats) filed in the Ghaziabad district court and another by Patel Field Marshal (diesel engines) filed in the Delhi High Court. Both lower courts had held they lacked territo

VISHNU DUTT AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 61815 December 2005Dismissed

The dispute concerned the validity of inter‑State stage‑carriage permits issued under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A 1968 reciprocal transport agreement between Rajasthan and Haryana fixed a ceiling of 13 permits, which had to be countersigned by the other State. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpor

TARA CHAND JAINversusSIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL AND ANR.

2005 INSC 62015 December 2005Dismissed

The appellant underwent a prostate operation at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and subsequently suffered continuous urinary leakage, pain and other ailments. He filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging medical negligence and seeking Rs. 40 lakh as compensation for deficiency

KRISHNA PILLAI RAJASEKHARAN NAIR (D) BY LRS.versusPADMANABHA PILLAI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 72015 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a non‑redeeming co‑mortgagor, claimed a 9/12 share in a jointly owned mortgaged property and sought declaration of title, possession, or partition after another co‑mortgagor fully redeemed the mortgage and took possession. The trial court and first appellate court decreed partition, ordering the appellan

SMT. THAKAMMA MATHEWversusM. AZAMATHULLA KHAN AND ORS.

[1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 54415 December 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Smt. Thakamma Mathew sold a property to M. Azmathulla Khan and later cancelled the agreement when the sale was not completed by the stipulated date. She sued for cancellation, possession and damages. The trial court cancelled the agreement and ordered restitution and damages. The Karnataka High Court, invoking Order 7

GURPREET SINGHversusCHATUR BHUJ GOEL

1987 INSC 37815 December 1987Dismissed

The respondent sued for specific performance of a contract for sale of a house. The trial court decreed in his favour and the High Court affirmed. During the hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal, the parties orally agreed that the appellant would pay Rs.2,25,000 as full and final settlement, but the agreement was not r

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

2022 INSC 120315 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD.versusHUBTOWN LTD.

2016 INSC 102715 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

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

BIBIJAN AND ORS.versusMURLIDHAR AND ORS.

1994 INSC 51915 November 1994Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage which the trial court dismissed as barred by limitation; the High Court reversed and granted a preliminary decree for redemption, holding that the mortgage was acknowledged and a fresh cause of action arose. The appellants filed an appeal, but durin

SATISH CHANDER AHUJAversusSNEHA AHUJA

2020 INSC 59915 October 2020Dismissed

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

SUMER BUILDERS PVT. LTD.versusNARENDRA GORAN!

2015 INSC 78315 October 2015Dismissed

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

MATHAKALA KRISHNAIAHversusV. RAJAGOPAL

2004 INSC 61115 October 2004Leave Granted & Disposed off

The appellant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the High Court's reversal of an appellate decree. The High Court disposed of the appeal without formulating any substantial question of law, as required by Section 100(3)-(5). The appellant argued that such a procedu

SVENSKA HANDELSBANKENversusMIS INDIAN CHARGE CHROME AND ORS.

1993 INSC 33615 October 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff (borrower) entered into contracts with suppliers for a 108 MW captive power plant and with a consortium of banks, including Svenska Handelsbanken, for financing. The plant was later found to have a capacity of only 60 MW, leading the plaintiff to allege fraud by the suppliers and the lender and to seek a

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.versusBADRINATH & ORS.

1987 INSC 28315 October 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a senior IAS officer, Badrinath, who delivered a speech criticizing the Red Fort time‑capsule and later sought to sue the Chief Secretary for defamation. He applied for permission under Rule 17 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, which bars civil servants from suing for vindication of an

GOLLALESHWAR DEV AND ORS.versusGANGAWWA KDM SHANTAYYA MATH & ORS.

1985 INSC 23115 October 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an ancient temple registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. After trustees terminated the services of two licensees who refused to vacate temple premises, the trustees filed suits for declaration of title and possession. Earlier suits were dismissed for lack of written con

SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYANversusVINAY KUMAR G.B.

2021 INSC 48415 September 2021Case Partly allowed

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

EDARA HARIBABUversusTULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM & ORS.

2015 INSC 66315 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

PRALHAD AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 61815 September 2010Case Partly allowed

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

FGP LTD.versusSALEH HOOSEINI DOCTOR AND ANR.

2009 INSC 113815 September 2009Dismissed

FGP Ltd., a public limited company, occupied a flat in Mumbai under a tenancy agreement dated 16‑07‑1981. The legal representatives of the original owner filed a suit for possession under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, claiming reasonable and bona‑fide requirement; the Small Causes Court, the appellate authority and the Hi

MANAGING DIRECTOR, ETC.versusK. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU AND ANR.

1994 INSC 39315 September 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The first respondent, a private transport operator, filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging the scheme of nationalisation under Section 68(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The High Court allowed the petition and the appellant, the Managing Director, filed a timely writ appeal, while the State of T

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

2024 INSC 52715 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

SUDIN DILIP TALAULIKARversusPOLYCAP WIRES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 75715 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2019 INSC 75615 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

BAL NIKETAN NURSERY SCHOOLversusKESARI PRASAD

1987 INSC 16915 July 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Bal Niketan Nursery School, a recognised institution under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and run by a registered society, purchased land and super‑structures in its own name and, through its manager (who was also the society's secretary), served notice to four tenants and filed suits for eviction and arrears in th

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

2023 INSC 58115 June 2023Disposed off

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

ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMAversusDEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 70015 May 2025Disposed off

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

ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATIONversusMAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.

2023 INSC 53615 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2018 INSC 51315 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2015 INSC 43015 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

BHARAT KARSONDAS THAKKARversusM/S. KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 82915 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a long‑standing dispute over leasehold lands originally granted to Sowar Ramji Vaity. After a series of agreements, the respondent Kiran Construction Co. (Respondent No.1) sought to enforce a 1982 injunction restraining the Vaity family and others from dealing with the properties, despite having no

HARDESH ORES PVT. LTD.versusM/S HEDE & CO.

2007 INSC 57615 May 2007Dismissed

Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. and Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. entered into extraction and purchase agreements with Hede & Co. containing a clause allowing the lessee to renew the lease every five years at its sole option. The lessees exercised the option in December 2001, but Hede & Co. denied renewal, leading t

R.V. DEV @ R. VASUDEVAN NAIRversusCHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 59215 May 2007Dismissed

The appellant, an indigent plaintiff, filed a suit for damages against the State of Kerala which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The High Court held that, despite his indigent status, the plaintiff must pay the court fee because he failed in the suit, and dismissed his application for clarification. On appeal, t

GANESH SHETversusDR. C.S.G.K. SETTY AND ORS.

1998 INSC 24415 May 1998Dismissed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement of a Shimoga property, claiming the contract was concluded on 25‑January‑1984 in Delhi. The defendants denied any concluded contract, stating that price and terms were never fixed and that no agreement was reached on the later meeting in B

PATEL NARANBHAI MARGHABHAI AND ORS.versusDECEASED DHULABHAI GALBABHAI AND ORS.

1992 INSC 17015 May 1992Dismissed

The mortgagor, an agriculturist, hypothecated two parcels of land to a mortgagee under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947. After default, the mortgagee obtained an execution and, although a compromise discharged the debt, it retained possession of the lands. The mortgagor’s representatives filed an execut

J&K ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCYversusRASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

2026 INSC 36815 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2025 INSC 53315 April 2025Dismissed

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

CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 48315 April 2025Dismissed

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

RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.**

2025 INSC 50815 April 2025

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

THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONversusB. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 49015 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2011 INSC 30015 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2011 INSC 30115 April 2011Dismissed

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

SUHELKHAN KHUDYARKHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2009 INSC 49515 April 2009Disposed off

The appellants, long‑time tenants of a plot, had erected a tin shed and operated a religious bookshop that was recognised by the municipal council. Following a complaint by a private individual, the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, invoking Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the removal of the shop as a p

SUMESH SINGHversusPHOOLAN DEVI & ORS.

2009 INSC 53315 April 2009Dismissed

The plaintiff, Babu, owned suit land and filed a suit to set aside a deed of sale executed under a purported Power of Attorney. The plaintiff died during the suit and his heirs were brought on record. An amendment to the plaint was allowed in 2004. Subsequently, the eighth respondent (an heir and legal representative)

MANDAL PANCHAYATH HUNSAGIversusNORTH EASTERN K.R.T.C.

2009 INSC 51915 April 2009Dismissed

The North Eastern K.R.T.C., a statutory road transport corporation, filed a suit for permanent injunction to stop the Mandal Panchayat from constructing shops on land that formed part of a public road maintained by the PWD, thereby obstructing a wicket gate used for passenger egress at a bus stand. The Panchayat argued

SHANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS.versusPRAKASH NARAIN MATHUR

2009 INSC 53015 April 2009Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit alleging non‑payment of rent and obtained an order from the Rent Controller directing the original tenant to pay rent at Rs 105 per month from 1985. After the tenant's death in 1997, his heirs (the appellants) failed to make timely payments, depositing the arrears in lump sums years

SETH RAMDAYAL JATversusLAXMI PRASAD

2009 INSC 51115 April 2009Dismissed

The borrower, Laxmi Prasad, had pledged jewellery to money‑lender Seth Ramdayal Jat in 1987 for a loan. After the lender was convicted in a criminal case for charging excess interest, the borrower served a notice on 12 May 1998 demanding the return of the jewellery, which was ignored. A suit for recovery of the pledged

T.M. JACOBversusC. POULOSE AND ORS.

1999 INSC 18615 April 1999Dismissed

The appellant, T.M. Jacob, was elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly and faced an election petition filed by C. Poulose alleging corrupt practices. The petition included an affidavit in Form 25, but the copy of the affidavit served on Jacob omitted the notary’s name, address, stamp and seal, though it bore the end

NABHIRAJ AND ORS.versusJAYAVATIBAI @SHANTHA BAI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 52815 April 1996Dismissed

The first respondent filed a suit on 30 October 1981 seeking a declaratory decree that she was the absolute owner of 6 acres 25 gunthas of land at Raichur. The appellants were later impleaded as respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC but, despite repeated adjournments, failed to file a written statement, leading

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

2019 INSC 37615 March 2019Dismissed

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

LAHARI SAKHAMURIversusSOBHAN KODALI

2019 INSC 38315 March 2019Disposed off

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

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

2018 INSC 23815 March 2018Dismissed

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

AJAY ARJUN SLNGHversusSHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS

2016 INSC 26415 March 2016Disposed off

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

NAGENDRAPPA NATIKARversusNEELAMMA

2013 INSC 16815 March 2013Dismissed

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

KHARAITI LALversusRAMINDER KAUR AND ORS.

2000 INSC 14415 March 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant mortgaged an industrial plot and failed to deposit the decree amount, leading to a foreclosure suit and auction of the property. The auction sale was confirmed by the trial court, but the appellant challenged it under Order 21 Rule 90 and later deposited amounts during the pendency of appeals, claiming pr

SEETHAMMALversusSENTHIL FINANCE AND ANR.

1996 INSC 39615 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

In execution of a money decree, a mortgaged property valued at Rs 75,000 (later reduced to Rs 50,000) was auctioned and sold for Rs 15,100, with the mortgagee himself submitting the winning bid. The appellant, the judgment debtor, challenged the validity of the sale under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, arguing that the s

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

2019 INSC 20415 February 2019Dismissed

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

PERRY KANSAGRAversusSMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

2019 INSC 21515 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITEDversusABDUL SAMAD & ANR.

2018 INSC 14615 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

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

AUTO CARSversusTRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2018 INSC 15015 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

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

G. SARASWATHI & ANR.versusRATHINAMMAL & ORS.

2018 INSC 14215 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

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

SINGHAI LAL CHAND JAIN (DEAD)versusRASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEWAK SANGH, PANNA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 26615 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought eviction of the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS Sangh) from premises it occupied. The Sangh was represented in the suit by its manager, president and a member, and the trial court dismissed the suit. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on appeal, decreed ejectment in favour of the appellant, but the r

SETHI ROOP LALversusMRS. MALTI THAPAR AND ORS.

1994 INSC 7215 February 1994

The appellant contested the 1992 Moga Assembly election, losing by seven votes, and filed an election petition alleging that 22 bogus votes were cast for the winning respondent by impersonating dead electors. The petition sought production of the ballot paper account and the marked copies of electoral rolls for five po

GAUDIYA MISSIONversusSHOBHA BOSE & ANR.

2008 INSC 5115 January 2008Case Allowed

The Gaudiya Mission claimed that a will and codicil executed by its disciple, Kum. Uma Bose, in 1994 and 1996 respectively, vested her property in the Mission. After Uma's death, her sister Kum. Shobha Bose obtained a Letter of Administration and later filed a testamentary suit, which a Single Judge of the Allahabad Hi

TULSA AND ORS.versusDURGHATIYA AND ORS.

2008 INSC 5515 January 2008Case Allowed

The dispute concerned a joint ancestral property sold to L, who claimed to be the widow of R, while the respondents alleged she was merely a mistress. The trial court held that a presumption of a valid marriage existed because L and R had cohabited for decades and their children were married off by R. The first appella

RAMESH SINGH (DIED) BY L.RS. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6815 January 1996Dismissed

The State acquired land in Etmadpur Village under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Collector awarded compensation under Section 11. Ramesh Singh and Hari Singh sought a reference under Section 18, which was dismissed, while Ruma Singh obtained a higher award after a reference and a decree under Section 26. The pe

MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHIDversusNILOFER & ANR

2023 INSC 107514 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2023 INSC 107414 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

DESH RAJ & ORS.versusROHTASH SINGH

2022 INSC 127914 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERSversusDURGA TRADING CORPORATION

2020 INSC 69714 December 2020Reference answered

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

URVASHIBEN & ANR.versusKRISHNAKANT MANUPRASAD TRIVEDI

2018 INSC 121214 December 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

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

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

2018 INSC 120614 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

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

MARUTHI JAIWANT NAKADIversusEKNATH G NAVAREKAR (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.

2009 INSC 130114 December 2009Dismissed

The tenant, Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi, filed a Form No. 7 application under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 seeking occupancy rights over 11 acres 17 guntas, claiming he had cultivated the land for years and paid rent in kind. The landlords, represented by the heirs of the deceased Eknath G. Navarekar, opposed the cl

SURESH KUMAR BANSALversusKRISHNA BANSAL AND ANR.

2009 INSC 130214 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Mohanlal Bansal, the plaintiff in an eviction suit, died during the pendency of the case. His widow applied for substitution as his legal representative, while his brother (the appellant) sought substitution on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by the deceased. The trial court allowed the widow but rejected the br

SONI DINESHBHAI MANILAL AND ORS.versusJAGJIVAN MULCHAND CHOKSHI

2007 INSC 131614 December 2007Dismissed

The dispute arose from the dissolution of a partnership firm where the parties' shares were determined by a decree. A Court Commissioner was appointed under Order XXVI Rule 11 of the CPC to examine the accounts, and his report was objected to by the appellants' father. The trial court rejected the objections and a requ

MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDIT PVT.LTDversusMODI RUBBER LTD.

2006 INSC 100614 December 2006Dismissed

Morgan Securities advanced an inter‑corporate deposit to Modi Rubber, which defaulted, leading to an arbitral award in favour of Morgan and a winding‑up petition. The High Court restrained Modi Rubber from dealing with its assets, but the company made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

SHANTI DEVIversusDAROPTI DEVI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 100714 December 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Shanti Devi, claimed a Will executed by her mother in her favour and sought mutation of the property. Her sister, Daropti Devi, challenged the Will's validity, filing suits for perpetual injunction and declaration, both dismissed by the trial court. The Delhi High Court remitted the entire case to the tr

HARSHAD CHIMAN LAL MODIversusD.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 61514 December 2005

Harshad Chimanlal Modi filed a suit in the Delhi High Court for specific performance and possession of immovable property situated in Gurgaon. The suit was later transferred to the Delhi District Court, where the defendants amended their written statement to raise a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of the CPC,

SARASWATI DEVI GUPTAversusSUDHA RANI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 61614 December 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The suit for specific performance of a house sale was decided in favour of the plaintiff, Raghu Nath Prasad, who later died. His legal representatives and an assignee, Saraswati Devi Gupta, claimed the decree. The Supreme Court earlier upheld the assignee’s right to enforce the decree and to prefer appeal, rejecting a

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusMARWANJEE F. DESAI AND ORS.

2001 INSC 60914 December 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra sought to evict occupants of several government‑owned plots under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. After issuing show‑cause notices, the competent authority terminated the eviction proceedings by an order dated 16 December 1980 stating that the "proceedings were dropped". Th

ASHOK NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR.versusR.K. SHARMA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 61014 December 2001Dismissed

The Ashok Nagar Welfare Association filed suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession of land allegedly occupied unlawfully by the respondents. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court passed ex‑parte decrees on the basis that summons were served, although the summons were later found not to have

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

2019 INSC 124814 November 2019Directions issued

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

KOMALAM AMMAversusKUMARA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI AND ORS.

2008 INSC 130514 November 2008Disposed off

The husband filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of a schedule property where his wife and children were residing. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed possession in favour of the husband. The wife appealed, asserting her right to reside in the matrimonial home and relying on a previous

MADAN LAL AND ANRversusBAL KRISHAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 56614 November 2005Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a civil appeal (No. 918 of 2000) wherein the Himachal Pradesh High Court had allowed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without formulating any substantial question of law. The appellant contended that the High Court erred by reversing the findings of fact

RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD.versusSUBHASH KAPOOR AND ORS.

2000 INSC 51914 November 2000Disposed off

Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd., a tenant, faced an eviction suit. On the scheduled trial date, the firm's advocates did not appear because of a lawyers' strike, leading the trial court to pass an ex‑parte decree against the appellant. The appellant's applications to set aside the decree and the subsequent appeal were dismiss

L. MOOLCHAND AND ORS.versusFATIMA SULTANA BEGUM AND ORS.

1995 INSC 73314 November 1995Dismissed

In an administrative suit concerning the sale of a property at Ootacamund, the Court appointed receivers who effected the sale. The purchasers of the property (appellants) challenged objections raised under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 151 of the CPC, arguing that such objections were not maintainable. The Trial

RENJITH K.G. & OTHERSversusSHEEBA

2024 INSC 77314 October 2024Dismissed

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

KAPIL KUMARversusRAJ KUMAR

2022 INSC 109414 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

GANESANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2020 INSC 59614 October 2020Dismissed

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

SAMEER SINGH AND ANOTHERversusABDUL RAB AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 72114 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAJNI RANI & ANR.versusKHAIRATI LAL & ORS.

2014 INSC 72214 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

VANIYANKANDY BHASKARANversusMOOLIYIL PADINHJAREKANDY SHEELA

2008 INSC 114614 October 2008Dismissed

The respondent obtained a decree for possession of a suit property in 1990, which was later enforced through execution proceedings in 2004. The appellant, after the execution commenced, filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement and sought an injunction to stay the eviction. The High Court set a

FAIRGROWTH INVESTMENTS LTD.versusTHE CUSTODIAN

2004 INSC 60814 October 2004Dismissed

Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. was notified under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 and filed a petition of objection under Section 4(2) more than 30 days after the notification. The Special Court rejected the petition on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court exa

PARSION DEVI AND ORS.versusSUMITRI DEVI AND ORS.

1997 INSC 69114 October 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a review order that had set aside a High Court revision upholding an execution application concerning an injunction decree. The review petition, filed by the judgment debtors, sought to overturn the revision on the ground of limitation but did not point out any error apparent on the face of t

MODI INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

1993 INSC 33514 October 1993Appeal(s) allowed

Modi Industries Ltd. (the appellant) operated a manufacturing unit where a dispute between management and trade unions led to a halt in production from 21 December 1990 to 3 March 1991. The company refused to pay wages for this period, prompting the Additional Labour Commissioner to issue a notice under Section 3 of th

SMT. KAMLABAI & ORS.versusMANGILAL DULICHAND MANTRI

1987 INSC 28114 October 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, landlords, sought to evict the respondent tenant under Clause 13 of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, but the tenant had surrendered the lease by mutual compromise and arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court held that Clause 13 restricts only the landlord’s right to term

ESSAR HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusARCELLOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED

2022 INSC 95714 September 2022Dismissed

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

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

2021 INSC 47414 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2021 INSC 47814 September 2021Case Partly allowed

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

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF THANEversusM/S VIDYUT METALLICS LTD. AND ANR.

2007 INSC 91614 September 2007Dismissed

The Municipal Corporation of Thane claimed that Vidyut Metallics Ltd. had underpaid octroi by paying 0.5% under Item 71 of the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1974, instead of 1% under Item 77, and demanded the difference. The company had paid 1% from 1968‑1974, later corrected its classification of stainles

SHRI MEHBOOB ALI AND ORS.versusSMT. HABIBAN

2006 INSC 61114 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The tenants sought relief under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, arguing that the landlord had not served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before filing an eviction suit. A single judge of the Rajasthan High Court allowed the plea, relying on Prakash Mal v. Jaswant Raj Soni, which held that a noti

SURESH CHANDRA NANHORYAversusRAJENDRA RAJAK AND ORS.

2006 INSC 61214 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a civil revision order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was decided after hearing only the applicant’s counsel and without issuing any notice to the appellant. A review petition highlighting the lack of notice was also dismi

SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

1999 INSC 39814 September 1999Dismissed

R.K. Sharma sued the State of Assam and two police officers for malicious prosecution, seeking pecuniary damages for rice and paddy seized and non‑pecuniary damages for pain and reputation. The trial court dismissed the suit; the Gauhati High Court allowed pecuniary damages but denied non‑pecuniary damages, finding no

TULSI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD ETC.versusSTATE OF A.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1999 INSC 39514 September 1999Disposed off

The Tulsi Co‑operative Housing Society had agreed to buy 24 acres of land but the State of Andhra Pradesh, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquired 18.03 acres for a HUDCO housing project, invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with a Section 5A enquiry. The Society and the landowner challenged the acquisitio

THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusJAINSONS CLOTHING CORPORATION AND ANR.

1994 INSC 38914 September 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The State Trading Corporation (STC) entered into a contract to supply basmati rice to Abu Dhabi Municipality and, concurrently, a back‑to‑back agreement with Jainsons Clothing Corporation requiring Jainsons to supply a portion of the rice and to furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee. After STC cancelled the export cont

AJMERA SHYAMversusSMT. KOVA LAXMI & ORS.

2025 INSC 99214 August 2025Dismissed

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

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

2025 INSC 98814 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR.versusC.K. RAJAN AND ORS.

2003 INSC 39414 August 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a petition that arose from a letter alleging mismanagement, corruption and maladministration in the Guruvayur Temple, which the Kerala High Court had treated as a public‑interest litigation (PIL) and responded by appointing a Commissioner to conduct a wide‑ranging enquiry. The Court held that

M.S. V. RAJA AND ANR.versusSEENI THEVAR AND ORS.

2001 INSC 36614 August 2001Directions issued

The Rajus, a religious denomination, had administered the Arulighu Mariamman temple for over a century and claimed it was a private, denominational temple. Pandarams, who performed poojas, earlier lost claims of hereditary trusteeship, and later the public (Seeni Thevar and others) sought a declaration that the temple

SMT. SATYA GUPTA@MADHU GUPTAversusBRIJESH KUMAR

1998 INSC 30914 August 1998Case Allowed

The plaintiff, Satya Gupta, sued for partition of a house that had been purchased by her late husband Battu Mal in the joint names of himself and the plaintiff, alleging that half of the property belonged to her. The trial court held that the plaintiff had not shown how the claim arose but nevertheless found that Battu

SATGURU SHARAN SHRIVASTAVAversusDWARKA PRASAD MATHUR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 88814 August 1996Dismissed

The petitioner had agreed to purchase a house from the first respondent, Dwarka Prasad Mathur, and paid the consideration. Before taking possession, the second respondent obtained a decree of specific performance in a separate suit, which the petitioner challenged in suit 121‑A of 1984 on the ground of fraud. Both resp

SHARADCHANDRA GANESH MULEYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 45814 August 1995Dismissed

Sharadchandra Ganesh Muley, a landowner, challenged a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After the Bombay High Court dismissed his first writ petition in 1992, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on March 30, 1994. Muley appealed, contending that the award was beyond the two‑year

JAYASHREEversusM. SRINIVASA MURTHY

1995 INSC 45914 August 1995Disposed off

In a transfer petition filed by the wife seeking to transfer her pending divorce petition, the court directed the parties to attempt reconciliation. The husband and wife settled their differences and the wife agreed to join her husband within two years after resolving her property issues in another city. The court cons

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

2025 INSC 87514 July 2025Dismissed

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

PANDURANGANversusT. JAYARAMA CHETTIAR & ANR.

2025 INSC 82514 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

DHANASINGH PRABHUversusCHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 83114 July 2025Case Allowed

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

BINOD PATHAK & ORS.versusSHANKAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

2025 INSC 84214 July 2025Case Partly allowed

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

ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKARversusKAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL AND ORS.

2020 INSC 45314 July 2020Dismissed

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

KIRPAL KAURversusJITENDER PAL SINGH & ORS.

2015 INSC 49414 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

DAMARA VENKATA MURALI KRISHNA RAOversusGURUJUPALLI SATVATHAMMA

2008 INSC 82314 July 2008Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The defendant contended that he had discharged the debt by making payments evidenced by receipts (Exhibits B‑1 to B‑12) issued to the plaintiff’s son, who was later examined as a witness and denied his signatures on those receipts. The defenda

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

2024 INSC 46014 June 2024Dismissed

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

M/S DHANBAD FUELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR

2025 INSC 69614 May 2025Dismissed

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

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

2015 INSC 41214 May 2015Case Partly allowed

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

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

2010 INSC 32614 May 2010Dismissed

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

TAHAZHATHE PURAYIL SARABI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2009 INSC 81514 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' husband was robbed and thrown from a moving train in 1998, resulting in his death. The appellants filed a claim for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs.4 lakh in 2007 but granted interest only in case of default. The appellants appealed, arguing that interest should accrue

K. RAGHUNANDAN AND ORS.versusALI HUSSAIN SABIR AND ORS.

2008 INSC 66614 May 2008Dismissed

The appellants and respondents, who were neighbours, disputed the status of an 80‑yard passage. The original suit for perpetual injunction ended in a compromise decree that allegedly granted the appellants exclusive rights over the passage, which was shown as a public road in municipal plans. The appellants later sued

ARJAN SINGHversusPUNIT AHLUWALIA & ORS.

2008 INSC 66814 May 2008Case Partly allowed

Arjan Singh filed a suit for specific performance of a contract concerning a Chandigarh property and obtained an interim injunction that was extended up to 16 October 1996. A second suit was filed by Sanjeev Sharma against the same owner, Dr. Bawa, and the parties entered into a compromise on 19 February 2003, resultin

RAJKUMAR GURAWARA (DEAD) THR. L.RS.versusM/S S.K. SARWAGI & CO. PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2008 INSC 66914 May 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Rajkumar Gurwara (deceased) thr. LRs, filed a suit seeking a declaration of his exclusive right to mine a parcel of land. After the evidence was closed, the second defendant, M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd., was impleaded, and the appellant then applied under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of

RABINDRA SINGHversusFINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, COOPERATION, PUNJAB AND OTHERS

2008 INSC 66114 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rabindra Singh, who had been residing in the United States for over 25 years, was decreed ex‑parte in a partition suit filed by his brother without ever being served notice, despite the plaintiff’s knowledge of his correct address. He filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC

LAL DEVI AND ANR.versusVANEETA JAIN AND ORS

2007 INSC 57214 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a Shimla property after the vendor failed to execute the sale deed. During the trial, the vendor's counsel was absent because they were engaged in a High Court matter, and no representation of their absence was made to the District Judge. After

BINA MURLIDHAR HEMDEV AND ORS.versusKANHAIYALAL LAKRAM HEMDEV AND ORS.

1999 INSC 25714 May 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The widowed wife and children of the deceased Murlidhar Hemdev claimed a right to specific plots in a Thane development, alleging that a registered rectification deed admitted their title and that a release deed dated 27‑03‑1979 was forged. The builder, having obtained sale agreements from various partners, argued he w

SUKANYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTDversusJAYESH H. PANDYA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 23014 April 2003Dismissed

Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and J.H. Pandya entered into a partnership agreement that contained an arbitration clause. After the partnership fell into dispute, the respondent filed a suit for dissolution, accounts and other reliefs, including claims against purchasers of flats who were not parties to the partnership. Th

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