Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Contract Act, 1872

266 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–266.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusN MURUGESAN ETC.

2021 INSC 6287 October 2021Disposed off

The respondent, N. Murugesan, was appointed Director‑General of the Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) on a five‑year tenure through direct recruitment, with a clause that re‑appointment would depend on suitability. As his tenure ended, he sought extension, claiming that his appointment was a regular post and that

STATE BANK OF PATIALAversusPRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS.

2014 INSC 4727 July 2014Dismissed

A group of State Bank of Patiala employees who retired under the Bank's Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 2000 had completed more than 19 years and six months of service but less than 20 years. The Bank refused to grant them pension under the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, prompting the emplo

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

2025 INSC 6407 May 2025Disposed off

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

INCABLE NET (ANDHRA) LIMITED & ORS.versusAP AKSH BROADBAND LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 2927 May 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, minority shareholders of a joint venture company (APAKSH Broadband Ltd.), alleged that the majority shareholder, which was also the EPC contractor, mismanaged funds and oppressed them, seeking winding up under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company Law Board and the High

RAKESH KUMAR VERMAversusHDFC BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 4737 April 2025Disposed off

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

PADMAKUMARI & ORS.versusDASAYYAN &ORS.

2015 INSC 2887 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2023 INSC 10516 December 2023

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

K. HYMAVATHIversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2023 INSC 8116 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant K. Hymavathi loaned Rs 20 lakh to respondent No.2, who executed a promissory note on 25 July 2012 promising repayment by December 2016. The respondent later issued a cheque for Rs 10 lakh on 28 April 2017, which was dishonoured, leading the appellant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

K. PARAMASIVAMversusTHE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD. & ANR.

2022 INSC 9266 September 2022Dismissed

The financial creditor, Karur Vysya Bank, advanced loans to three non‑corporate borrowers who defaulted. Maharaja Theme Parks and Resorts Private Limited (MTPR) had given corporate guarantees for those loans. The bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate a Corpora

SIDDHI SANDEEP LADDAversusCONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 7146 May 2025

The Supreme Court examined appeals challenging the High Court's order on six disputed Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) questions. It evaluated the correctness of answer keys for Questions 56 and 77, upheld the High Court's answer for Question 78, and found that Questions 88, 115 and 116 were either improperly framed or

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

2020 INSC 3856 May 2020Dismissed

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

HARYANA POWER PURCHASE CENTREversusSASAN POWER LTD. & ORS

2023 INSC 3266 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an Ultra Mega Power Project where the seller (Sasan Power Ltd.) claimed compensation for increased costs of a water‑intake system and customs duty on mining equipment, alleging these were "change in law" events under Article 13 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The seller argued that the Appella

SANJIV PRAKASHversusSEEMA KUKREJA AND ORS.

2021 INSC 2296 April 2021Disposed off

The appellant, Sanjiv Prakash, invoked an arbitration clause in a 1996 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) among family members after a dispute over share transfers with his sister and mother. The respondents argued that the MoU was superseded and novated by a later Shareholders' Agreement (SHA) dated 12‑04‑1996, which t

UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED

2026 INSC 146 January 2026Dismissed

The appellant UV Asset Reconstruction Company claimed that Electrosteel Castings Ltd (ECL), as promoter of borrower Electrosteel Steels Ltd (ESL), had provided a guarantee for a Rs 500 crore loan from SREI, based on Clause 2.2 of a Deed of Undertaking which required ECL to arrange infusion of funds to help ESL meet fin

B. SUNITHAversusTHE STATE OF TELENGANA & ANR.

2017 INSC 11755 December 2017Disposed off

The appellant, B. Sunitha, issued a cheque to the respondent advocate for legal fees, which the advocate later claimed were 16% of the compensation awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The cheque was dishonoured and the advocate filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellan

M/S IVECO MAGIRUS BRANDSCHUTZTECHNIK GMBHversusNIRMAL KISHORE BHARTIYA & ANR

2023 INSC 8805 October 2023Dismissed

The German company Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GmbH (appellant) challenged a summons issued by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi after a private complaint of defamation was filed by Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya (respondent). The complaint alleged that letters written by the appellant’s authorised age

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

2011 INSC 6515 September 2011Dismissed

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

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusKEW PRECISION PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 8005 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a financial creditor, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd. after the debtor defaulted on loans. The debtor had offered a one‑time settlement on 20 December

ITC LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2011 INSC 4585 July 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the cancellation of leases and allotments of commercial plots in Noida granted to hotel developers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. It held that a lease governed by a statute can be cancelled only if

MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusSANTOSH CORDEIRO AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 55 January 2026Dismissed

The dispute arose from a Leave and License Agreement between Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. and Santosh Cordeiro, which contained an arbitration clause in Clause 33. The respondent filed a Section 11 application under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, which the Hi

M/S BHAGHEERATHA ENGINEERING LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA

2026 INSC 45 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd., was awarded four road‑maintenance contracts under the Kerala State Transport Project and, after disputes over payments, referred the matters to an adjudicator under the contract’s General Conditions. The adjudicator decided in favour of the appellant on two disputes and aga

NIRBHAY SINGH SULIYAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2026 INSC 75 January 2026Case Allowed

The appellant, an Additional District Judge with 27 years of unblemished service, was removed from service after a departmental inquiry relied solely on four bail orders in which he allegedly failed to refer to Section 59‑A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. A complaint alleged that the judge took bribes through his ste

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusARVINDRA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

2022 INSC 11684 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

State Bank of India (SBI) had sanctioned a cash credit facility to Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., which later became an NPA. SBI offered a One‑Time Settlement (OTS) scheme requiring the borrower to pay the settled amount by 21 May 2018, but the borrower failed to do so and sought a nine‑month extension. The Punjab and

GARG BUILDERSversusBHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

2021 INSC 6064 October 2021Dismissed

Garg Builders entered into a construction contract with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) that contained Clause 17 expressly barring any interest on monies due to the contractor. A dispute was referred to arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded pendente lite and future interest despite the clause. BHEL challenged the

BAKSHI DEV RAJ & ANR.versusSUDHIR KUMAR

2011 INSC 5454 August 2011Dismissed

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

INDIRA DEVIversusVEENA GUPTA & ORS.

2023 INSC 5934 July 2023Dismissed

The case concerned a conditional sale deed executed in 1977 by Kishori Lal Sahu and his son in favour of Indira Devi, which contained a right of repurchase if the vendors returned the consideration by July 1984. Kishori Lal later executed a gift deed in 1983 transferring his property to his daughter‑in‑law Veena Gupta

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

2017 INSC 5874 July 2017Disposed off

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

MRS. SARADAMANI KANDAPPANversusMRS. S. RAJALAKSHMI & ORS.

2011 INSC 4464 July 2011Disposed off

The appellant entered into an agreement of sale for immovable property, paying an advance and agreeing to pay the balance in three instalments, with clause 6 expressly making timely payment the essence of the contract. The respondents cancelled the agreement when the appellant failed to pay the second and third instalm

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

2014 INSC 2484 April 2014Dismissed

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

M/S. CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN SERVICESversusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2015 INSC 924 February 2015Disposed off

The Delhi Development Authority (DOA) awarded a construction contract to M/s Construction & Design Services for a sewerage pumping station, with Clause 2 stipulating liquidated damages of up to 10% of the estimated cost for delay. The contractor failed to complete the work, the contract was terminated, and the Superint

ELLORA PAPER MILLS LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 114 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Ellora Paper Mills Ltd entered into a supply contract with the State of Madhya Pradesh and, after a dispute, the parties were referred to an arbitral tribunal called the Stationery Purchase Committee, which was composed entirely of state officers. The appellant sought termination of that tribunal under Section 14 of th

POOJA CERATECH PRIVATE LIMITEDversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 9253 December 2021Dismissed

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) issued a tender for the sale of gas. Pooja Ceratech Private Limited submitted a price bid but later claimed a mistake and sought to modify the bid. ONGC opened the price bids without the petitioner, disqualified it and invoked the bank guarantees furnished as security deposit, inv

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusCALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED

2019 INSC 11113 October 2019Disposed off

The Calcutta Club, a Section 25 company operating as a members' club, was served with a notice for non‑payment of sales tax on food and drinks supplied to its permanent members. The Club argued that, under the doctrine of mutuality, no sale occurred because the supplier and the buyer were the same persons, a view uphel

SOMESH THAPLIYAL & ANR. ETC.versusVICE CHANCELLOR, H.N.B. GARHWAL UNIVERSITY & ANR.

2021 INSC 4443 September 2021Disposed off

The appellants were appointed as teachers in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences of H.N.B. Garhwal University between 2004 and 2007 under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. Their appointment letters imposed a three‑year contractual term, which they protested but continued to serve. After the universi

M/S GEO MILLER & CO. PVT. LTD.versusCHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD.

2019 INSC 9893 September 2019Dismissed

The appellant, M/s Geo Miller & Co., sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for three water‑treatment contracts dated 1979‑1985, alleging non‑payment by the respondent. The respondent contended that the cause of action arose when the final bills were presen

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

LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 2553 March 2022Dismissed

Loop Telecom applied for Unified Access Service Licences (UASL) for 2G spectrum and paid a non‑refundable entry fee of Rs 1454.94 crore. The Supreme Court, in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (CPIL), quashed the 2G licences on the ground that the First‑Come‑First‑Serve policy was arbitrary and un

PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD.versusKETULBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL

2021 INSC 593 February 2021Dismissed

L&T Infrastructure Finance advanced a Rs 40 crore loan to Doshion Ltd., with Doshion Veolia Water Solutions Pvt Ltd (the corporate debtor) providing a non‑disposal undertaking and pledging 40,160 shares of Gondwana Engineers Ltd as security. L&T assigned its rights to Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd, which claimed to be a financia

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

VENNANGOT ANURADHA SAMIRversusVENNANGOT MOHANDAS SAMIR

2015 INSC 8842 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and sought transfer of the case from Bombay to Hyderabad. The parties entered into a settlement agreement where the husband promised to pay Rs.12.5 lakh as full and final alimony at the time of a mutual consent divorce decree. The wife later disclosed th

SURESH DHANUKAversusSUNLTA MOHAPATRA

2011 INSC 8312 December 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Suresh Dhanuka, and respondent, Sunita Mahapatra, entered into a joint‑venture and a deed of assignment whereby the respondent assigned 50% of her rights in the trademark "Naturoma Herbal" to the appellant, with a covenant that the mark be marketed solely by the appellant and that neither party could use

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.versusM/S G & T BECKFIELD DRILLING SERVICES PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 10662 September 2025Dismissed

The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated 21 November 2004 in favour of G & T Beckfield Drilling Services, directing ONGC (the respondent) to pay a sum of US$6,56,272.34 together with interest at 12% per annum from 12 December 1998, the date the claim was affirmed. ONGC challenged the award under Section 34 of the

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLIversusM/S. DALMIA CEMENT(BHARAT) LTD.

2015 INSC 6272 September 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, sought to enforce a refund order dated 06‑06‑1989 in favour of M/s Dalmiacement (Bharat) Ltd. The refund had not been paid, leading to contempt proceedings and a High Court order directing the Assistant Commissioner to examine the claim under the amended Section 11B, which

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

SHEHAMMALversusHASAN KHANI RAWTHER AND ORS.

2011 INSC 5332 August 2011Dismissed

The case concerned the intestate estate of Meeralava Rawther, a Muslim who had executed deeds of relinquishment with five of his children (excluding his youngest son, Hassan) in exchange for consideration. After his death, Hassan claimed an oral gift of the entire property, while the other children and the petitioners

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

M/S. CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC.versusHINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.

2020 INSC 4112 June 2020Disposed off

Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc., a US corporation, contracted with Hindustan Copper Ltd. (HCL) for the sale of copper concentrate and included a two‑tier arbitration clause: first arbitration in India, with a right to appeal to an ICC arbitration in London. After an Indian arbitrator gave a nil award, the parties pr

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusRADHEY SHYAM PANDEY

2020 INSC 2382 March 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether employees who retired under the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) of 2000 and had completed fifteen years of service were entitled to a proportionate pension under the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules. The Court held that the Central Board of Directors' approval o

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusCHEMBUR SERVICE STATION

2011 INSC 1742 March 2011Matter referred to larger bench

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) entered into a Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence (DPSL) agreement with Chembur Service Station, appointing it as a dealer to sell BPCL's petroleum products. After a surprise inspection revealed alleged manipulation of a dispensing unit, BPCL issued a show‑cause notice and subse

GODREJ PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT LIMITEDversusANIL KARLEKAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 1432 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The respondents booked an apartment with Godrej Projects and paid a 20% earnest money deposit as per the Apartment Buyer Agreement. After the developer offered possession in June 2017, the respondents cancelled the purchase citing a market recession and demanded a full refund of Rs.51,12,310 with interest. The NCDRC or

AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusSHANMUGAVELU

2024 INSC 802 February 2024Disposed off

The Central Bank of India conducted an e‑auction of a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act and the successful bidder, Shanmugavelu, deposited 25% earnest‑money. After being granted a 90‑day extension, he failed to pay the balance and the bank forfeited the entire deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules. Shanmugav

BANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 692 February 2012Dismissed

The Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society sought acquisition of 207 acres of land for a housing scheme, entering into an agreement with the State Government and an estate agent who was paid over Rs 5 crores to secure the acquisition. The High Court quashed the acquisition, holding that no housing scheme had been f

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusNILOFER SIDDIQUI & ORS.

2015 INSC 8751 December 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute where Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) terminated the LPG distributorship granted to ex‑servicemen respondents under a letter of allotment that referred to a "standard agreement" which was never supplied or executed. The Court held that, because the standard agreement was not concl

VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING LLCversusTECH MAHINDRA LTD. & ANOTHER ETC.

2017 INSC 10691 November 2017Matter referred to larger bench

Venture Global Engineering (Venture) and Tech Mahindra (formerly Satyam) entered into a joint‑venture agreement under which each held 50% of a JV company. An arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration awarded the shares of Venture to Satyam, finding Venture in default. After the award, the former S

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

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

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

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusMAHENDRA CONSTRUCTION

2019 INSC 4441 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Mahendra Construction purchased a hydraulic excavator that was previously insured with New India Assurance (NIA) from November 2004 to November 2005, during which a claim of Rs 36.66 lakhs was settled. The excavator was later insured with Oriental Insurance for the period October 2006‑October 2007, and a fire incident

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

WG CDR. ASHWINI KUMAR HANDA (RETD.)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 881 February 2018Dismissed

Wing Commander Ashwini Kumar Handa, after being granted a two‑year study leave under Army Instructions 13/78, gave a Service Guarantee Certificate to serve nine years from his return. He served only 6 years 8 months before taking premature retirement on health grounds, and the government deducted the full pay and allow

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