Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Limitation Act, 1963

66 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 91130 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., entered into a term loan agreement with the respondent, Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., in 2015, which became a non‑performing asset on 1 March 2018. The appellant filed a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on 15 January 2024, relying on th

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY

2024 INSC 93229 November 2024Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a second appeal before the High Court challenging a judgment that dismissed a suit concerning 1,300 hectares of government land. The appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 5 years, 10 months, and 16 days, which the High Court refused to condone, citing lack of sufficient cause.

FILOMENA SALDANHA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. FRAZIER SALDANHAversusSUNIL KOHLI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. NAVAL BOWRY, & ORS.

2022 INSC 59529 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a construction licence granted to the respondent, which the appellant claimed would obstruct a pathway adjoining his land. After a series of appeals under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, the parties reached a settlement wherein the respondent agreed to provide a 3‑metre access path, and the High Court

P. KUMARAKURUBARANversusP. NARAYANAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 59829 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, P. Kumarakurubaran, was assigned a vacant site in 1974 and executed a power of attorney in 1978 for construction. His father later sold the property in 1988 to the defendant without authority, which the appellant discovered in 2011 and filed a land‑grabbing complaint. In 2014 he instituted a suit seeking

RAM LALversusJARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.

2025 INSC 30125 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which was decreed in his favour on 20‑01‑2012 directing him to deposit the balance consideration within two months. The decree was affirmed by the first appellate court on 21‑04‑2015, but no time‑limit for payment was stipulated. After a two‑year

N. THAJUDEENversusTAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD

2024 INSC 81724 October 2024Dismissed

The Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (respondent) sued to confirm its title and recover possession of a property it claimed to have received by a registered gift deed dated 5 March 1983 from the appellant. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the gift deed was never accepted or acted upon,

YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS.

2025 INSC 38324 March 2025Disposed off

The appellants claimed ownership of a 3.34‑acre parcel of land in Kurnool district, asserting that it was a patta land acquired by a registered sale deed in 1970 and that they had been in uninterrupted possession for over twenty years. The State argued that the land was an assigned government land, subject to a non‑ali

HARSHIT HARISH JAIN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 10424 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased a flat and paid stamp duty, but later cancelled the booking due to the developer's delay and executed a cancellation deed on 17 March 2015, which was registered on 28 April 2015 after an amendment to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act reduced the refund limitation period from two years

RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS.versusPRASHANT GARG & ORS.

2025 INSC 55223 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Dr. Karam Chand, sued the appellants for cancellation of two 1992 sale deeds and recovery of possession of a family house, alleging that the deeds were void because the vendor, Ramesh Chand, had no title and that a will favouring the plaintiffs had been admitted in earlier suits. The trial cour

NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS.versusBHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE

2024 INSC 90222 November 2024Dismissed

The trial court had condoned a delay of four and a half years for the defendants to file their written statement. The plaintiff challenged this condonation, and the High Court set aside the trial court's order. The defendants filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the High Court's decision. The S

VIDYASAGAR PRASADversusUCO BANK & ANR.

2024 INSC 81022 October 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a suspended director of the corporate debtor, challenged the admission of a Section 7 application initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by UCO Bank, arguing that the debtor's balance‑sheet entries did not constitute a clear, specific acknowledgment of debt required under Section 18

KANCHHUversusPRAKASH CHAND & ORS.

2025 INSC 54222 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a civil suit in 1987 seeking cancellation of a sale deed, but the respondents repeatedly obtained adjournments and were eventually set ex parte, leading to a decree in 1991. The respondents later filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 and the Limitation Act, which were dismissed, and their subseq

INDER SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 38221 March 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Inder Singh, filed a suit seeking title and possession of a parcel of land, which the State later claimed as government land. After the trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court reversed that decision in favour of the appellant. The State filed a review petition, which was dismissed for d

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.

2024 INSC 24321 March 2024Dismissed

The Union of India (railways) charged Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) freight on the Baad‑Hisar route based on a chargeable distance of 444 km as per the old local distance table. In 2005 the railways revised the distance to 334 km, claiming the earlier figure was erroneous, and IOC sought a refund of the 110 km differenc

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusAMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.

2024 INSC 87519 November 2024Dismissed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Amin Lal, sued the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department for possession of land on the basis of revenue records, sale deeds and mutation entries. The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the State had not proved adverse possession. The State appealed and the fi

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusSANDEEP GURAV

2025 INSC 102119 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Geojit Financial Services Ltd. filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the three‑month limitation period began on the date the award was received because the appellant's earlier applicati

AXIS BANK LIMITEDversusNAREN SETH & ANR.

2024 INSC 10519 January 2024

The applicant‑appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking clarification of a Supreme Court judgment dated 12 September 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2022, specifically the use of the term “unsecured creditor” in paragraph 20. The Court, after hearing counsel, held that the term should be read as “secured cre

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusTEJPAL & ORS.

2024 INSC 45617 May 2024Disposed off

The Delhi Development Authority and other government bodies filed a batch of appeals and petitions seeking condonation of delay for challenging High Court orders that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appellants argued that subsequent judici

BHUDEV MALLICK ALIAS BHUDEB MALLICK & ANR.versusRANAJIT GHOSHAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 17517 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of the original defendants in a 1965 title suit, were restrained by a permanent injunction that barred them from disturbing the respondents' possession of the suit property. After four decades, the respondents filed an execution application in 2017 alleging breach of the injunction, leading the tr

BALBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC.versusBALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. ETC.

2025 INSC 8117 January 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs obtained decrees for specific performance of a sale agreement, directing them to deposit the balance consideration within 20 days and the defendants to execute sale deeds. The trial court decrees were set aside by a first appellate court, but the High Court later restored them in regular second appeals,

MR. R.S. MADIREDDY AND ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

2024 INSC 42516 May 2024Dismissed

The appellants, former cabin crew of Air India Limited (AIL), filed writ petitions between 2011 and 2013 alleging stagnation in pay, non‑promotion and denial of allowances, invoking Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. While the petitions were pending, the Government of India disinvested its 100 % share in AIL,

ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusM/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS

2025 INSC 50716 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondent No.1 formed an LLP governed by an agreement containing an arbitration clause (Clause 40). Disputes arose over the ITF project, and the appellant issued a Section 21 notice of arbitration only to respondent No.1 and filed a Section 11 application appointing an arbitrator, also only naming re

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

NEELAM GUPTA & ORS.versusRAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

2024 INSC 76914 October 2024

The plaintiff, Rajendra Kumar Gupta, claimed ownership of a 7.60‑acre parcel of land in Mowa village, asserting that he purchased it by a registered sale deed in 1968 and had peacefully possessed it until dispossessed in 1983. The defendants, his cousins, contended that the land was joint Hindu family property, that th

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

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

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

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

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERSversusVIVEK V. GAWDE ETC. ETC.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 84313 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned eviction proceedings initiated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against occupants who held premises on a licence basis. The respondents challenged the Inquiry Officer's authority and the High Court's order that framed nine specific points for the Officer to determine, alleging violation

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLversusISMAT AHMED AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 98413 August 2025Dismissed

The tenant (appellant) occupied a flat in Kolkata and was served a summons for eviction on 29 September 2022. He filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, together with a Section 5 Limitation Act application, 17 days after the statutory 30‑day period for depositing r

SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORANversusJAGAN DEVI & ORS.

2025 INSC 110512 September 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs claimed a one‑third share in agricultural land and sought a permanent injunction and joint possession, alleging that a sale deed dated 14‑06‑1973 was fraudulent and void because they never executed it and received no consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit as time‑barred; the First Appellate Co

RAJUL MANOJ SHAH ALIAS RAJESHWARI RASIKLAL SHETHversusKIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ANR.

2025 INSC 110912 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that her sister‑in‑law could not sell a jointly owned bungalow and that an agreement to sell dated 21‑10‑2011 was void. After the sister‑in‑law died, the court substituted a Nazir as defendant No.1. In 2021 the respondent (defendant No.2) applied to amend his wri

THIRUNAGALINGAMversusLINGESWARAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 67212 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, but the trial court passed an ex‑parte decree after the defendants stopped appearing. The defendants later obtained condonation of delay for earlier applications under Order IX Rule 13, but the Supreme Court dismissed those condonation petitions i

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

2025 INSC 18311 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

ALAGAMMAL AND ORS.versusGANESAN AND ANR.

2024 INSC 2810 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The sellers (Alagammal and others) entered into a registered agreement of sale on 22‑Nov‑1990 with the buyers (Ganesan and others) for Rs.21,000, stipulating that the balance be paid within six months. The buyers paid only a fraction of the amount and failed to complete the purchase before the deadline, while the selle

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

2025 INSC 4789 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

NBCC (INDIA) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

2025 INSC 549 January 2025Matter referred to larger bench

NBCC (India) Ltd., a micro‑small enterprise, entered into several construction contracts with the State of West Bengal and later filed a memorandum under Section 8 of the MSMED Act, 2006 after the contracts were executed. The enterprise then referred a payment dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Cou

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

2025 INSC 699 January 2025Dismissed

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

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

2024 INSC 8618 November 2024

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

KISHUNDEO ROUT & ORS.versusGOVIND RAO & ORS.

2025 INSC 9568 August 2025Dismissed

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

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

2024 INSC 2818 April 2024Dismissed

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

PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. & ORS.versusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)

2024 INSC 2868 April 2024Dismissed

Sixteen claimants filed a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for compensation on land acquired in 1989. Three claimants, including Pathapati Subba Reddy, died during the pendency of the reference and their heirs were not impleaded. After the reference was dismissed in 1999, the heirs of the deceased claiman

VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2024 INSC 2848 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who founded a society that obtained AICTE approvals for several business schools, were charged under Sections 420 and 120B IPC for allegedly cheating the AICTE by concealing that the leased land was mortgaged. After a Special Judicial Magistrate discharged them, the CBI approached the Allahabad High Cou

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

2025 INSC 488 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2024 INSC 8517 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERSversusSYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

2025 INSC 11877 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, claimed ownership of 24 acres of agricultural land on the basis of being the sole daughter of Khadijabee and of an oral gift (hiba) of 10 acres made by her mother. The trial court rejected the oral gift but granted her a 3/4 share of the remaining land, while the Karnataka High Court

TATA STEEL LTD.versusRAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS.

2025 INSC 6397 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tata Steel Ltd., had its resolution plan for Rohit Ferro‑Tech Ltd. approved by the NCLT on 7 April 2022. A minority shareholder, Respondent No. 1, filed an appeal to the NCLAT on 23‑24 May 2022, seeking condonation of delay beyond the 30‑day statutory period. The dispute centered on when the limitation p

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusGOPU & ANR.

2025 INSC 5117 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, a junior public health nurse, died in a 2000 motorbike accident. Her husband and two minor children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,53,000. After ten years, the children alone appealed to the Kerala High Court,

INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusSRI BALA & CO.

2025 INSC 427 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12836 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S ALCHEMIST HOSPITALS LTD.versusM/S ICT HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 12896 November 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a private hospital, entered into a software implementation agreement with the respondent, a digital health‑technology firm, which contained Clause 8.28 purportedly providing for arbitration. After repeated technical failures, the appellant invoked the clause and sought appointment of a sole arbitrator un

DHARMENDRA SHARMAversusAGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2024 INSC 6676 September 2024Disposed off

The appellant, Dharmendra Sharma, purchased an apartment from the Agra Development Authority (ADA) and sought possession after paying the agreed price, but ADA's offer of possession on 4 December 2014 was made without a completion certificate or firefighting clearance certificate. The appellant filed a consumer complai

JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHERversusBADRI NATH AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 866 February 2024Dismissed

The respondents, who had been tenants of an urban immovable property (a rolling mill) since 1949, filed a suit for pre-emption after the owners sold the property to the appellants in 1983, invoking the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The appellants contended that a State Government notification dated 08‑10‑1985, issued u

ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusVIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 9285 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

USHA DEVI & ORS.versusRAM KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 5995 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed in September 1993, based on an agreement dated 17 December 1989 that required execution of the deed within one month (by 16 January 1990). The trial court dismissed the suit as time‑barred, but the first appellate court set aside that order and decree

SAROJ SALKANversusHUMA SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 6325 May 2025Dismissed

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

A. RAJENDRAversusGONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO & ORS.

2025 INSC 4474 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a shareholder and suspended managing director of a corporate debtor, filed two appeals under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) without first applying for condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the limitation perio

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusJAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR

2024 INSC 2623 April 2024Dismissed

The Union of India filed a civil appeal seeking restoration of a writ petition that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution in 2006, but the application for restoration was filed after a delay of 12 years and 158 days. The High Court declined to condone this delay, prompting the Union to challenge the order before the S

M/S R. K. TRANSPORT COMPANYversusM/S BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. (BALCO)

2025 INSC 4382 April 2025Dismissed

The parties entered into a contract for bauxite mining, and an arbitral award dated 9 April 2022 was issued in favour of the appellant. The respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 11 July 2022 to set aside the award. The issue before the Supreme Court was whethe

NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST & ANR.versusCLIFFORD D SOUZA ETC. ETC.

2025 INSC 4402 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) had revised licence fees for land allotted to several licensees and issued demand notices for arrears. The licensees challenged the retrospective application of the revised tariff before the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed their writ petitions, leading NMPT to file writ petitio

PURNI DEVI & ANR.versusBABU RAM & ANR.

2024 INSC 2592 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant obtained a decree for possession in 1986, which became final on 9 November 2000. Seeking to enforce the decree, the appellant filed an execution application before the Tehsildar on 18 December 2000, which was rejected on 29 January 2005 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then filed a fre

SANTOSH DEVIversusSUNDER

2025 INSC 6271 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioner, Santosh Devi, filed a suit in 2012 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and related mutation, alleging that the deed was obtained through fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The petitioner contended th

SHANMUGAM @ LAKSHMINARAYANANversusHIGH COURT OF MADRAS

2025 INSC 6191 May 2025Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a criminal contempt case where three appellants were accused of forging and using bogus interim orders of the Madras High Court to obstruct the execution of a decree. The High Court had convicted them of contempt and sentenced each to six months’ imprisonment, based on investigations by the C

M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S APTECH LTD.

2024 INSC 1551 March 2024Case Allowed

The petitioners, an Afghan franchisee, sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes over royalty payments and renewal of franchise agreements with the respondent. The key issues were whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to a Section 11

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