Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Limitation Act, 1963

392 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–392.

SRI BISWANATH BANIK & ANR.versusSMT. SULANGA BOSE & ORS.

2022 INSC 30014 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a title suit seeking a declaration under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, a permanent injunction and related reliefs, alleging continuous possession of the property for over twelve years. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to have the plaint rejected

PRAKASH CORPORATESversusDEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED

2022 INSC 18014 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Prakash Corporates filed a money suit against Dee Vee Projects Limited on 21‑12‑2020. The defendant failed to file a written statement within the 30‑day period and sought extensions, which were granted up to 15‑04‑2021, but the 120‑day deadline fell on 06‑05‑2021. The trial court and the High Court refused further exte

VOLTAS LTD.versusROLTA INDIA LTD.

2014 INSC 10214 February 2014Case Partly allowed

Voltas Ltd. and Rolta India Ltd. entered into civil construction contracts which later gave rise to disputes and termination. The appellant invoked the arbitration clause in 2006, after which the respondent filed a counter claim of Rs.333.73 crores in 2011. The key issue was whether the counter claim was barred by limi

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

M.R. VINODAversusM.S. SUSHEELAMMA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 87813 December 2021Dismissed

The case involved three branches of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family that executed a partition deed in 1961. In 1969 the eldest brother of one branch, acting as Karta, and a cousin executed a relinquishment deed surrendering their branch's share in favour of the eldest uncle who had repaid a family mortgage. Four younge

RAJRATAN BABULAL AGARWALversusSOLARTEX INDIA PVT. LTD.& ORS.

2022 INSC 108113 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an ex‑director of the corporate debtor, contested the admission of an application filed by the operational creditor under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) alleging a debt for coal supplied under a purchase order. The creditor claimed the coal was of inferior quality, leading to email

RAGHUNATH (D) BY LRS.versusRADHA MOHAN (D) THR. LRS & ORS.

2020 INSC 59013 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered a suit filed in 1974 by a co‑sharer seeking to enforce his pre‑emptive right over a sale of a property in Ajmer. The property had previously been transferred in 1945, 1946 and on 5 Nov 1966, the latter after the Rajasthan Pre‑Emption Act, 1966 came into force. The issue was whether the one‑

RAMAN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusR. NATARAJAN

2022 INSC 95413 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a 1993 agreement of sale of land, which was conditioned on the defendant first entering into an agreement with his brother's wife to purchase a parcel of her land for access. The trial court granted specific performance, the first appellate court reversed, and the

JOSE PAULO COUTINHOversusMARIA LUIZAVALENTINA PEREIRA & ANR.

2019 INSC 102913 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the succession of property belonging to a Goan domicile, Joaquim Mariano Pereira, who had bequeathed a Bombay immovable to one daughter while the other two daughters contested the applicability of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, to that property. The dispute centered on whether the Portuguese Civil

ESHA BHATTACHARJEEversusMANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 62013 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a writ petition filed by an assistant teacher seeking enforcement of an interim order that her services not be disturbed. The managing committee of the school failed to comply with the order, leading to multiple contempt petitions. The committee later appealed the interim order and sought condonatio

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

SABIR ALI KHANversusSYED MOHD. AHMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 36813 April 2023Dismissed

The case concerned a Shia waqf‑al‑aulad created in 1934, whose property was allegedly alienated by two void sales in 1960 and 1974 without the sanction of the Waqf Board. The respondents, who were beneficiaries of the waqf, claimed title by adverse possession, while the appellant argued that limitation provisions (Arti

SUCHA SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS.versusBALDEV RAJ WALIA & ANR.

2018 INSC 33813 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The original plaintiff, Sucha Singh, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant in 1996, which he later withdrew with the court's permission to pursue appropriate proceedings before a competent forum. He subsequently filed a fresh suit for specific performance of the same agreement, which the defendant

MIZO CHIEF COUNCIL MIZORAM, THR. PRESIDENT SHRI L. CHINZAHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2026 INSC 23613 March 2026Dismissed

The Mizo Chief Council filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of tribal chieftains alleging that the State had acquired their traditional lands without paying due compensation, violating their fundamental right to property. The petition was filed in 2014, more than six decades after the 1955 notification that

RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGHversusRAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS

2019 INSC 35713 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff and his brother executed a registered gift deed in 1981 transferring land to the appellant, the appellant's son. Neither the plaintiff nor his brother contested the deed for about 22 years; the appellant filed a partition suit in 2001, in which the plaintiff was a defendant. In 2003 the plaintiff filed a

VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR.versusRAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRS.

2024 INSC 10913 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

In 1947 a mother, Thayammal, executed a First Settlement Deed granting interests in her property to her two sons and her daughter. Subsequent deeds in 1952 and later altered those interests, ultimately leaving the daughter’s husband, Gopalakrishnan, claiming a vested right as heir of the daughter under the First Settle

SHYAM KUMAR INANIversusVINOD AGRAWAL & ORS.

2024 INSC 86512 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased 23.98 acres of agricultural land from Sushila Devi under an Agreement to Sell dated 30‑08‑1990, paid full consideration and took possession, but the legal heirs refused to execute a sale deed. The trial court decreed specific performance, but the High Court reversed, holding the agreement void

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.versusSUBRATA BORAH CHOWLEK, ETC.

2010 INSC 77612 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, employees of Indian Oil Corporation, obtained a writ order regularising their service. The corporation appealed the order, filing its appeal 59 days after the deadline and seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Gauhati High Court Division Bench rejected the condon

P. DAIVASIGAMANIversusS. SAMBANDAN

2022 INSC 107012 October 2022Dismissed

The appellant, who owned a one‑acre wetland, entered into a 1989 agreement to sell the land to the respondent for Rs 6,50,000, with a six‑month completion clause. The respondent repeatedly notified the appellant to perform, demonstrated his readiness and willingness, and filed a suit for specific performance in 1993. T

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

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

A. VALLIAMMAIversusK.P. MURALI AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 82312 September 2023Disposed off

A. Valliammai entered into an agreement to sell land to K. Sriram in 1988, with an advance paid and the balance due by May 1989, later extended to November 1989. After disputes and notices in 1991 indicating Valliammai's refusal to perform, Sriram filed an injunction suit, which was later dismissed, and assigned his ri

AXIS BANK LIMITEDversusNAREN SHETH & ANR.

2023 INSC 82012 September 2023Dismissed

Axis Bank Limited (appellant) appealed against the admission of a Section 7 petition filed by State Bank of India (respondent No.2) against Shreem Corporation Limited (the corporate debtor). The dispute centered on whether the petition was time‑barred under the three‑year limitation period, given that the debtor was de

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

NIDHI KAIMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ETC.

2017 INSC 13112 May 2016Directions issued

The appellants, who had secured admission to medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh through the Pre‑Medical Entrance Test (PMT), challenged the cancellation of their results and admissions on the grounds that the Vyapam Board was not validly constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007 and

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.versusSGT GIRISH KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.

2026 INSC 14912 February 2026

The case concerned ex‑servicemen who, after being granted disability pension, sought arrears of pension dating back to their discharge dates, invoking the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in Union of India v. Ram Avtar which recognized a broad‑banding right. The Union of India appealed, arguing that the Limitation Act, 19

RAVINDER NATH AGARWALversusYOGENDER NATH AGARWAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 8612 February 2021Disposed off

The petitioners, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal and his sister Lily Nath, sought transfer of a partition suit and a testamentary case involving a Will dated 06‑04‑2011 of their father. The first petition asked to move the partition suit from the Additional District Judge, Saket, Delhi to the District Court, Nainital, whil

MALLURU MALLAPPA (D) THR. LRS.versusKURUVATHAPPA & ORS.

2020 INSC 17312 February 2020Directions issued

Malluru Mallappa filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30 March 2000, alleging the defendants had breached the contract. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was not ready to perform his part. The trial court dismissed the suit on both grou

RASHTRIYA !SPAT NIGAM LTD.versusM/S. PRATHYUSHA RESOURCES & INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.

2016 INSC 15912 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, awarded a transport contract to Prathyusha Resources & Infra Pvt. Ltd. The contract was extended and a dispute arose over the base year for price escalation, leading to arbitration where the arbitrator ruled in favour of the respondent. The district court s

DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.

2024 INSC 104911 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit in 2017 seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 04‑12‑2004, alleging fraud and claiming they only became aware of the deed on 31‑03‑2017 when a revenue notice was issued. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the thre

MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRAversusROOP RANI MEHRA & ORS.

2017 INSC 121211 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a partition suit for a family property and later sought to amend the plaint to claim a share in the sale proceeds of another family property sold in 2000. The amendment application was filed on 17 January 2011, before any evidence had been led, although issues had been framed and a date for recordin

B.K. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPARAG GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES

2018 INSC 95611 October 2018

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. challenging the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to applications under Sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the retrospective effect of the newly inserted Section 238A. The Court examined the Insolvency La

R. M. SUNDARAM @ MEENAKSHISUNDARAMversusSRI KAYAROHANASAMY AND NEELAYADHAKSHI AMMAN TEMPLE (THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER) NAGAPATTINAM, TAMIL NADU

2022 INSC 66511 July 2022Dismissed

The appellant claimed that 26 pieces of suit jewellery kept in the temple's Kudavarai were his personal inheritance as the adopted son of Muthuthandapani Chettiar and sought exclusive possession. The respondent temple argued that the jewellery had been donated by the ancestors of Muthuthandapani as a specific endowment

ANNAPURNAversusMALLIKARJUN & ANR.

2014 INSC 26811 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The judgment debtor sought to set aside a court‑sale of his house under Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC but failed to make the mandatory deposit of the sale price. The executing court rejected his application and the appellate court dismissed his appeal. He then filed a writ petition, and the High Court, relying on a late

THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 29211 April 2011Disposed off

Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd imported goods in 1996 and, due to a bank error, the required exchange control documents were not forwarded to the RBI, leading to penalty orders under FERA. The company sought to appeal these orders after FEMA came into force, filing belated appeals in 2004 before the Appellate Tribunal under

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

CHINTELS INDIA LTD.versusBHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 7611 February 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Chintels India Ltd. filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award, but the single judge of the Delhi High Court refused to condone the delay in filing the application and dismissed it. The appellant challenged that order by invoking section 37(1)(c) o

SAMRUDDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusMUMBAI MAHALAXMI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

2022 INSC 3311 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑operative housing society, booked flats from the respondent builder in 1993 and took possession in 1997, but the builder never obtained the required occupancy certificate. Because of this omission, the flat owners had to pay substantially higher property tax and water charges and could not obtain re

RAMJI SINGH PATELversusGYAN CHANDRA JAISWAL

2018 INSC 2311 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent operated a flour mill and related businesses from his residential premises, initially using electricity but from 2003 switched to diesel engines that caused severe vibrations and air pollution affecting the adjoining house of the appellant. The appellant filed a suit in 2004 seeking a perpetual injunctio

UNITED FINANCE CORPORATIONversusM.S.M. HANEEFA

2017 INSC 4511 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

United Finance Corporation, the decree‑holder, purchased a property at a court auction and sought delivery of possession under Order XXI Rule 95 of the CPC. The judgment‑debtor filed applications to set aside the sale and obtained a stay of execution, which was later dismissed on 9 July 2003. The appellant filed the po

MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERSversusRAZIYA KHANAM (D) THR. LRS. AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 94910 October 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

The original civil suit filed in 1979 sought cancellation of alleged forged sale deeds and an injunction. After a series of proceedings, the suit was decreed ex parte on 10 May 2012. The appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 349‑day delay, claiming they only lear

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. ETC.versusM/S. SHIVAM COKE INDUSTRIES, DHANBAD, ETC.

2011 INSC 56910 August 2011Disposed off

The respondents, manufacturers of coke, were assessed for tax under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the Deputy Commissioner issued revised assessment orders. After a change in the Deputy Commissioner, the new officer highlighted irregularities and informed the Joint Commissioner, who then exercised suo motu revision po

M/S PURBANCHAL CABLES & CONDUCTORS PVT. LTDversusASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER

2012 INSC 28010 July 2012Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered two appeals by suppliers of aluminium conductors against the Assam State Electricity Board concerning claims for interest on delayed payments under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. The Court held that a suit seeking only intere

BHASKER & ANR.versusAYODHYA JEWELLERS

2023 INSC 73010 May 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The appeal concerned the appropriate starting point of limitation for filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after a property was sold in execution. The sale was confirmed on 16 July 2009, a sale certificate was issued on 5 February 2010, and the purchaser filed a Rule‑95

PRAMOD KUMAR & ANR.versusZALAK SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 66610 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Pramod Kumar and another, challenged two separate alienations of ancestral land by their father Tikaram. They filed a suit in 1963 to set aside the first sale deed (21‑01‑1959) and later, in 1971, a second suit to set aside the second sale deed (11‑02‑1959). Both suits were dismissed by the trial court

BHIMASHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITAversusWALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. (WIL)

2023 INSC 33510 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant, a cooperative society, sought to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but filed the application after the 90‑day statutory period and the additional 30‑day discretionary period had expired because the court was on winter vacation. The appellant argue

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR.versusM/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 17510 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose when BSNL (appellant) withheld Rs.99.70 crore from Nortel (respondent) after completing a telecom tender. Nortel claimed the amount in May 2014, which BSNL rejected on 4 August 2014. After more than five years, Nortel invoked the arbitration clause on 29 April 2020 and sought appointment of an arbitra

KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI & ANR.versusKOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 17310 March 2021Disposed off

The corporate debtor Ricoh India Ltd. initiated a corporate insolvency resolution process under the IBC, inviting resolution plans. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. (KIAL) submitted its plan on time, while Kalpraj submitted a belated plan which was later accepted by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and approved by the NC

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. JAYAMMA

2016 INSC 25610 March 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the original owner retained actual possession and later sold the parcel to N. Jayamma in 1994. Jayamma built a house and, after more than twelve years, sued for a declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. Th

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S. NEELAM ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

2010 INSC 14210 March 2010Dismissed

The Union of India and others entered into a contract with M/s Neelam Engineering for security lighting, which later gave rise to disputes resolved by an arbitrator who awarded Rs.1,70,020 in favour of the respondent. The respondent filed a petition under Sections 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to have t

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

MIS. DISHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GOA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 8419 December 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Disha Constructions and others, entered into a contract to construct a school auditorium and were partially paid, leaving a balance due from September 2006. They served a notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the first defendant on 19 February 2009, which was received on 27 February 2009, and filed a su

M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRSversusV. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS

2019 INSC 12319 November 2019Disposed off

The instant appeals arose from five suits between 1950 and 1989 over a 1500 sq yard land in Ayodhya, claimed by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram (Ram Janmabhumi) and by Muslims as the site of the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court had directed a three-way partition of the disputed site, which the Supreme Court

SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2023 INSC 8859 October 2023Dismissed

The case arose from a land acquisition dispute where the Reference Court enhanced compensation for landowners, prompting the Union of India to file an appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal was filed 479 days after the order, exceeding the limitation period, leading the Union to seek condonation of delay under

VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS.versusMOHAN HIRACHAND SHAH & ORS.

2015 INSC 7579 October 2015Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed suits for injunction against construction companies and later amended them to seek a declaration of title over 14.5 acres of land, claiming inheritance from their grandfather Amarsi Gujjar. The defendants, impleaded later, denied the plaintiffs' title, asserting that the land was held on behalf of

SUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 10189 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation was wound up in 1999, leaving a group of employees retrenched under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees Rules, 1991. Earlier Supreme Court judgments had affirmed that such employees were entitled to be absorbed in government service despite the later rescissio

KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2011 INSC 6679 September 2011Dismissed

The appellants, Khatri Hotels Private Ltd. and another, claimed title and sought an injunction over land they alleged to have purchased. The land had been urbanised under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and transferred to the Delhi Development Authority (DOA) by notification under the Delhi Development Act, 1

ELFIT ARABIA & ANR.versusCONCEPT HOTEL BARONS LIMITED & ORS.

2024 INSC 5369 July 2024Dismissed

The petitioners, a UAE entity, claimed that the respondents defaulted on payments under a 2004 MoU and invoked arbitration in 2022, eleven years after the alleged breach in 2011. The petition sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while criminal proceeding

DAHIBENversusARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS & ORS.

2020 INSC 4509 July 2020Dismissed

The plaintiffs sold agricultural land to respondent No.1 in 2009 and alleged that only a small part of the sale consideration was paid, seeking cancellation of the sale deed. They filed the suit in December 2014, more than five years after the deed, claiming the cause of action arose only when they discovered alleged f

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusLAFARGE DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 7349 July 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether sales‑tax exemption/deferment granted to cement manufacturers under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, would continue to apply after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh into the reorganised State of Madhya Pradesh and the new State of Chhattisgarh. The C

IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA ETC.versusUJAGAR SINGH & ORS. ETC.

2010 INSC 3429 June 2010Disposed off

The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, acquired land and was awarded compensation which it failed to pay, leading to the attachment and auction of the property in 1992. The auction purchaser, Jagan Singh & Co., paid Rs.22.65 lakh, but the Trust later filed objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, which were dismissed in defaul

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.versusOIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.

2013 INSC 3359 May 2013Case Allowed

Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. entered into a contract with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) for oilfield equipment and services. After alleged non‑payment of invoices, Schlumberger sent several notices to ONGC from 2008 onward, invoking arbitration under Clause 27 of the contract. ONGC failed to respond, and

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusM/S B.B.M. ENTERPRISES

2026 INSC 3589 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The work under a contract was completed on 30 July 2000, but no final bill or measurement certificate was issued by the Engineer-in-Charge. The State of West Bengal filed a notice seeking arbitration on 2 June 2022, more than 21 years after completion, and the High Court ordered arbitration, holding that the limitation

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

STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.versusMANAGING COMMITTEE OF NAMATARA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

2026 INSC 1489 February 2026Dismissed

The Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School obtained a grant‑in‑aid order from the State Education Tribunal, which the State of Odisha appealed to the High Court in 2015 without a certified copy of the tribunal order, rendering the appeal time‑barred. After an eight‑year delay, the State secured the certified

M/S. PUROHIT AND COMPANYversusKHATOONBEE AND ANR.

2017 INSC 1229 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents' daughter died in a motor accident on 02‑02‑1977. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 23‑02‑2005, more than 28 years after the accident. The Tribunal entertained the claim, and the High Court upheld it, holding that th

STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.versusMAMATA MOHANTY

2011 INSC 1139 February 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a group of appeals challenging High Court orders that granted UGC pay‑scale benefits to lecturers appointed in aided colleges without meeting the statutory eligibility of 54% marks in their Master's degree and without following the prescribed advertisement procedure. The Court held that appoi

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

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KANDLAversusHARGOVIND JASRAJ & ANR.

2013 INSC 259 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Board of Trustees of Kandla Port terminated a lease of a 1891.64‑sq‑m parcel to Smt. Pushpa Shah after she defaulted on rent, issuing a termination order on 8‑Aug‑1977 effective 13‑Dec‑1978 and taking possession via a panchnama on 14‑Dec‑1978. The lessee’s own letter of 22‑Feb‑1979 admitted that possession had been

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

MAHAVIR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 8778 September 2017Dismissed

Petitioners Mahavir and others claimed that compensation for 100 acres of land acquired in the Raisina‑Lutyens zone in 1911‑12 had never been paid and sought relief under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013, which deems acquisition p

VIJAY SINGHversusSHANTI DEVI AND ANR.

2017 INSC 8748 September 2017Dismissed

Vijay Singh, a co‑sharer, filed a pre‑emption suit against Shanti Devi after a sale of jointly owned land. An ex‑parte decree was passed in his favour in 1990, but the decree was later set aside on the ground that the defendant had not been properly served. The amendment to Section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 191

J. THANSIAMAversusSTATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.

2015 INSC 6518 September 2015Dismissed

J. Thansiama filed a suit for declaration of title against the State of Mizoram. The trial court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to Mizoram and allowed the suit. The Gauhati High Court reversed this, holding that the Limitation Act was applicable and dismissed the suit as time‑barred. On appeal, the Su

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

BALWANT SINGH (DEAD)versusJAGDISH SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 3888 July 2010Dismissed

The landlord Balwant Singh filed an eviction suit which was appealed up to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the sole appellant died on 28 November 2007. The legal representatives filed applications on 15 April 2010, 778 days after the death, seeking to be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSHRI HANUMAN INDUSTRIES & ANR.

2015 INSC 3948 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and the North Eastern Council (NEC) implemented the Scheme of Promotion of Industries in North East (SPINE) to provide financial assistance to new industries. Several applicants obtained a court order in 2007 directing the authorities to process their applications, a decision later affirmed by the Su

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

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

IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATIONversus.

2021 INSC 1688 March 2021Disposed off

In a suo motu writ petition, the Supreme Court examined the extension of limitation periods granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier orders had excluded the period from 15 March 2020 to a date to be fixed, allowing litigants extra time to file suits, appeals and other proceedings. Observing that the pandemic situa

UMMERversusPOTTENGAL SUBIDA & ORS.

2018 INSC 2198 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an elderly man, was served with an ex parte decree by a family court for alleged non‑payment of gold ornaments and maintenance. He applied under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree and sought condonation of delay, but both applications were dismissed. He then filed a miscellaneous appeal

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

ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKHversusASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2024 INSC 8497 November 2024

The petitioner, a non‑resident Indian, claimed entitlement to 400,000 and 200,010 equity shares under a 2011 Shareholders Agreement and sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 after the respondents failed to issue share certificates. The respondents argued tha

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

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

2013 INSC 6837 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

PRABHAKARversusJOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT &ANR.

2015 INSC 10147 September 2015Dismissed

The petitioner, a former clerk of the Karnataka Sericulture Department, was terminated in 1985 but only raised an industrial dispute in 1999, fourteen years later, alleging illegal termination under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement without back wages, which the management challenged;

SHYAM BABUversusSTATE OF U.P.

2012 INSC 3827 September 2012Dismissed

The case concerns a 1978 incident in which seven accused, including Shyam Babu, were alleged to have fired on a group of villagers, resulting in five deaths and one injury. The trial court acquitted all seven, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted three of the accused; four had died during the penden

BRAHAMPAL @ SAMMAY AND ANR.versusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

2020 INSC 4837 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased died in a road accident and his parents claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, which awarded Rs.2.24 lakh. They filed an appeal to the High Court for enhancement 45 days after the 90‑day limit, citing the illness of the appellant's wife as the reason for delay. The High Court dismis

RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORSversusMANJIT KAUR & ORS.

2019 INSC 9307 August 2019Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined whether a plaintiff who has acquired title by adverse possession can file a suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a declaration of title and injunction, i.e., use adverse possession as a "sword" rather than merely a defence. The Court overruled its earlier decisions in Gurudwa

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

BHIVCHANDRA SHANKAR MOREversusBALU GANGARAM MORE & ORS.

2019 INSC 6437 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

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,

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

M/S WIZAMAN IMPEX PVT. LTD.versusKEDRION BIOPHARMA INC.

2022 INSC 1597 February 2022Case Partly allowed

M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt Ltd, the corporate debtor, challenged a Section 9 application filed by Kedrion Biopharma Inc., an operational creditor, which sought to initiate corporate insolvency proceedings. The NCLT rejected the application, holding it was time‑barred under the three‑year limitation period. On appeal, the NC

THE PROPERTY COMPANY (P) LTD.versusROHINTEN DADDY MAZDA

2026 INSC 337 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJIversusSAKEENA BEEVI

2026 INSC 357 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff‑appellant, Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji, sought specific performance of a 2007 agreement to purchase a 1/11th share of a three‑acre school property from the defendant‑respondent, Sakeena Beevi, who was one of nine heirs. After the death of the father, the heirs executed an unregistered power of att

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

DAYA SINGH & ANR.versusGURDEV SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 187 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents entered into a written compromise on 26 October 1972 concerning the division of land shares. On 21 August 1990 the appellants filed a suit for declaration of ownership and correction of revenue records, alleging that the respondents refused to acknowledge their claim and that a wrong entr

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

VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 6396 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a licensed drug manufacturer, challenged an order of blacklisting issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 8 September 2009, alleging that it had never supplied the disputed veterinary injection under the tender and that the show‑cause notice did not specifically propose blacklisting. The

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

2023 INSC 8776 October 2023Case Partly allowed

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

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

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

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusSUDERA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 9286 September 2022Dismissed

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

STATE OF M.P. & ANR.versusANSHUMAN SHUKLA

2014 INSC 5256 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

HABBAN SHAHversusSHERUDDIN

2026 INSC 4516 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

CLP INDIA PVT. LTD.versusGUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR.

2020 INSC 3836 May 2020Dismissed

The Gujarat Electricity Board (Gujarat Urja) and CLP India entered into a 1994 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for 635 MW of electricity. A 1995 Central Government notification amended the 1992 tariff notification, removing the deemed generation incentive for naphtha‑based plants. Gujarat Urja sought recovery of incenti

MRS. A. KANTHAMANIversusMRS. NASREEN AHMED

2017 INSC 2026 March 2017Dismissed

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

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

2026 INSC 1326 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

VUNDAVALLI RATNA MANIKYAM &versusV.P.P.R.N. PRASADA RAO

2020 INSC 1416 February 2020Dismissed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell land with the original vendor in 1981, paid earnest money and was given possession, but the sale deed was not executed before the time limit expired and the land was subjected to a government acquisition. The acquisition was later set aside after the plaintiff’s writ peti

M/S SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTDversusUNION OF INDIA

2018 INSC 11585 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Simplex Infrastructure Ltd entered into a contract with the Union of India for construction of shelters, which led to arbitration and an award dated 27 October 2014 in favour of Simplex. The Union of India filed a Section 34 application before the District Judge on 30 January 2015, which was dismissed for lack of juris

BALWANT VITHAL KADAMversusSUNIL BABURAOI KADAM

2017 INSC 11705 December 2017Dismissed

The respondent sued the appellants for specific performance of two agreements to sell a share of land, having paid earnest money but no deed was executed. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside that decree and ordered specific performance. The appellants appealed, arguing that the a

M/S PREM COTTEXversusUTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.

2021 INSC 6175 October 2021Dismissed

M/S Prem Cottex, a cotton yarn manufacturer, was issued a short assessment notice by Uttarakhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. alleging that the multiply factor (MF) used in its electricity bills was incorrectly applied, resulting in short billing of about Rs.1.35 crore. The appellant filed a consumer complaint under the Con

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

2017 INSC 8605 September 2017Disposed off

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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAversusMADAN MOHAN PRASAD & ORS.

2011 INSC 6525 September 2011Disposed off

The respondent, a former Munsif in the Bihar State Judicial Service, was dismissed, reinstated, and later suspended, after which he was posted as an Additional Munsif. He repeatedly sought promotion to higher judicial posts on the basis that his juniors had been promoted between 1971 and 1978, filing numerous writ peti

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

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

BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWALversusBANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 5455 August 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act could condone a delay in filing an appeal under Section 18(1). It held that Section 18(2) incorporates the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, including the proviso to Section 20(3) which

AJAY GUPTAversusRAJU @ RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV

2016 INSC 4995 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2020 INSC 4135 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

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

SAROJ SALKANversusHUMA SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 6325 May 2025Dismissed

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

STATE OF ORISSAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2010 INSC 2705 May 2010Dismissed

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

NARAYANversusBABASAHEB & ORS.

2016 INSC 2965 April 2016Dismissed

The plaintiffs, children of a deceased father, filed a partition suit in 1989 seeking to set aside two sale deeds executed by their mother, the natural guardian, in 1982 and 1988. The mother had sold the ancestral property without court permission, allegedly in contravention of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,

SANJAY PANDURANG KALATEversusVISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 10634 December 2023Disposed off

The appellant, a former director of Evirant Developers Private Ltd, challenged an interlocutory order of the NCLT dismissing his application alleging unauthorized filing of a reply in a Section 7 proceeding. The NCLT heard the matter on 17 May 2023 but did not pronounce a substantive order until it was uploaded on 30 M

JAYESH DHANESH GORAGANDHIversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

2012 INSC 5664 December 2012Dismissed

The appellants, heirs of a plot of land in Borivali, challenged the reservation of their land for a municipal office under a Town Planning Scheme prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). After the scheme was finalized, an arbitrator determined compensation, which was paid, and the

RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWATversusDR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE

2019 INSC 11224 October 2019Dismissed

Antoinette Bhagwat's will was probated in California and, in ancillary proceedings, letters of administration were granted by the Bombay High Court in 1994 to Dr. Surendra Parakhe. Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat, a relative of the deceased's husband, claimed he had no notice of this grant and filed a petition in 1999 seeking

FULMATI DHRAMDEV YADAV & ANR.versusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2023 INSC 7904 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Ramakant Yadav, a driver, died while tying logs on a trailer, and his mother and wife claimed compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner awarded a lump‑sum compensation of ₹3,94,120 and a penalty of ₹1,97,060 against the insurer, but the High Court set aside this order, holdi

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

2015 INSC 6394 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

MANJIT SINGH SODHIversusTHE CUSTODIAN & ORS.

2022 INSC 7924 August 2022Disposed off

The appellant, Manjit Singh Sodhi, as trustee of Raviraj Housing Corporation, was sued for repayment of a short‑term loan of Rs 25 lakhs taken from Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd (FFSL) which resulted in a decree of Rs 63.86 lakhs in 2003. The custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating t

DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA)versusC. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR.

2021 INSC 3804 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Bank (Dena Bank, now Bank of Baroda) filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in 2018 to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor, C. Shivakumar Reddy, after the debtor defaulted in 2013. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ad

STATE OF GOAversusPRAVEEN ENTERPRISES

2011 INSC 4234 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa contracted Praveen Enterprises for construction work and included an arbitration clause that referred all disputes to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, CPWD. After terminating the contract, the contractor filed claims and the State filed counter‑claims; the State failed to appoint an a

MANGLURAM DEWANGANversusSURENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 4284 July 2011Case Partly allowed

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

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

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

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERSversusSADHU SINGH

2022 INSC 1494 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Sadhu Singh, a former conductor who was compulsorily retired in 2003, filed a suit in 2010 seeking the benefit of first, second and third Selection Grades as per a 1992 office order that granted such grades after 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The trial court partially decreed in his favour and the lowe

SABARMATI GAS LIMITEDversusSHAH ALLOYS LIMITED

2023 INSC 104 January 2023Dismissed

Sabarmati Gas Ltd. entered into a gas‑sale agreement with Shah Alloys Ltd., which later defaulted on payments. The respondent was declared a 'sick company' by the BIFR, invoking a moratorium under SICA that barred legal recovery until the Code came into force on 1‑Dec‑2016. After issuing a demand notice under Section 8

M/S. PATEL BROTHERSversusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

2017 INSC 244 January 2017Dismissed

Patel Brothers, a registered dealer, faced reassessment orders after providing false exemption claims and subsequently filed revision petitions under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, more than 335 days after the prescribed 60‑day limit. The petitions sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the

SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TR.LRS. & ORS.

2012 INSC 5553 December 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a suit for specific performance of a 1970 agreement to sell a Delhi bungalow. The plaintiffs argued they were ready to fulfil their obligations, while the defendant claimed the suit was time‑barred and that the plaintiffs breached clause 7 by not paying an additional Rs 1 lakh. The Court held

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S TEJPARAS ASSOCIATES EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 11123 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Oriental Insurance filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Jaipur District Court to set aside an arbitral award, but the court returned the petition for presentation before the Jodhpur court, fixing 2 April 2008 as the date of re‑presentation. The appellant r

PANKAJBHAI RAMESHBHAI ZALAVADIYAversusJETHABHAI KALABHAI ZALAVADIYA (DECEASED)

2017 INSC 9893 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit in 2008 to cancel a 1995 sale deed of land that had been purchased by defendant No. 7, who had died before the suit was instituted. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s application to bring the deceased defendant’s legal representatives on record under Order 22 Rule 4, deeming it non‑mai

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

RAGHUBIR SINGHversusGENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, HISSAR

2014 INSC 5923 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Raghuvir Singh, a conductor with Haryana Roadways, was arrested in 1994 on a criminal charge of ticket‑money misappropriation and was terminated from service without a proper enquiry or show‑cause notice. After being acquitted in 2002, he sought reinstatement; the dispute was referred by the State Government to the Lab

SOPANRAO & ANR.versusSYED MEHMOOD & ORS.

2019 INSC 7193 July 2019Dismissed

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit in 1987 seeking declaration that certain lands were Inam lands of Niyamatullah Shah Dargah and also seeking possession of those lands from the defendants (appellants). The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and non‑joinder of parties. The District Judge

SATTI PARADESI SAMADHI & PHILLIAR TEMPLEversusM. SANKUNTALA (D) TR. LRS. & ORS.

2014 INSC 4673 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Pillayar Temple, filed a suit in 1997 seeking a declaration that three settlement deeds dated 27 March 1978, executed by a former trustee in favour of his daughters and granddaughter, were void, and also sought possession of the trust land. The defendant contended that the suit w

GANESAN REP BY ITS POWER AGENT G. RUKMANI GANESANversusTHE COMMISSIONER, THE TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BOARD & ORS.

2019 INSC 6233 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ganesan challenged the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board Commissioner's order condoning a 266‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 69 of the Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959. The central issue was whether the Commissioner, a statutory authority, is a "court" f

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

GOPALAKRISHNA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusNARAYANAGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 4593 April 2019Dismissed

The case concerned the ownership of property originally belonging to Ramanna, who died in 1907 leaving a widow Seethamma and a daughter Venkamma. The appellants claimed title based on a 1955 sale deed executed by Jankamma, the granddaughter of Ramanna, while the respondents asserted possession derived from an earlier 1

N. SUBRAMANIANversusM/S ARUNA HOTELS LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 1443 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former employee of Aruna Hotels Ltd., claimed arrears of salary of Rs 1.87 crore for the period 1998‑2013 and filed a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on 21 July 2017. The company contended that the claim was time‑barred. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admi

K. VIRUPAKSHA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2020 INSC 2613 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, two senior bank officials, challenged a criminal complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC alleging that they colluded with an auction purchaser to cause wrongful loss to the borrower, K. Virupaksha, after the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act to enforce a secured loan of Rs.2.68 crore. The borrower’s

T.V. VENUGOPALversusUSHODAYA ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANR.

2011 INSC 1763 March 2011Disposed off

The appellant, a Karnataka‑based incense‑stick manufacturer, adopted the mark "Eenadu" for its products and sold them in Andhra Pradesh. The respondent, a prominent Telugu newspaper and media group, claimed that the mark had acquired extraordinary reputation and goodwill in the state and that the appellant’s use amount

N. RAJENDRANversusS. VALLI

2022 INSC 1403 February 2022Disposed off

The husband (appellant) filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty after his wife (respondent) left him and returned to her parental home. The Family Court granted the decree of dissolution, but the wife appealed to the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act; the appeal was filed on 09‑09‑2004. The appell

VASHDEO R BHOJWANIversusABHYUDAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ANR.

2019 INSC 9842 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant claimed a default of Rs 6.7 crore against the respondent, which was declared a non‑performing asset in 1999 and a recovery certificate was issued in 2001. A petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was filed in 2017, and the NCLT admitted it on the ground that the default was continu

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

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusM/S. NARBHERAM POWER AND STEEL PVT. LTD.

2018 INSC 4382 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd issued a fire industrial all‑risk policy to the respondent M/s Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt. Ltd. After a cyclone caused alleged losses, the insurer repudiated the claim, refusing to accept liability and declined to refer the dispute to arbitration. The insured invoked Clau

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

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

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

SUPER DIAMOND TOOLS & ORS.versusK. MOHAN RAO

2023 INSC 1922 March 2023Dismissed

The dispute concerned partnership accounts where the surviving partner of Super Diamond Tools alleged that K. Mohan Rao falsified accounts and siphoned funds. An arbitrator, appointed after a court reference, found Rao guilty of fraud and awarded a sum with interest. Rao sought to set aside the award under Section 34 o

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD.versusM/S NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 1402 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., terminated a service level agreement with the respondent, Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., leading to arbitration. The three‑member tribunal orally pronounced a majority award on 27‑04‑2018, but the dissenting arbitrator issued a separate opinion and the signed co

SRIDEVI DATLAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2021 INSC 1412 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, Sridevi Datla, challenged the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) dismissal of her appeal against the environmental clearance for the Bhogapuram Greenfield Airport, arguing that the appeal was filed within the extended 60‑day period because the last day fell on a Sunday and that the NGT erred in refusing to

D.B. BASNETT (D) THR. LRS.versusTHE COLLECTOR & ANR. EAST DISTRICT, GANGTOK, SIKKIM & ANR.

2020 INSC 2392 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, D.B. Basnett, claimed that the State of Sikkim had illegally occupied his 7.07‑acre land without complying with the procedural requirements of the Sikkim Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1977. The State contended that it had paid compensation of Rs.62,645 in 1980 and therefore possessed the land l

BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusDURGA DEVI

2023 INSC 952 February 2023Dismissed

The respondent, Durga Devi, owned an 11‑biswas land parcel in Kullu and sued the appellant, Baini Prasad, for possession and demolition of a verandah he had constructed on that land in 1986, claiming he believed it to be his own. The trial court ordered demolition and restoration of possession to the respondent; the Fi

SHYAM KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.versusSHUBHAM JAIN

2023 INSC 982 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, claiming ownership of a shop, sued the predecessor of the appellants for arrears of rent and eviction. The trial court passed an ex‑parte decree for Rs 8,000 arrears, Rs 3,212 costs and ordered mesne profits of Rs 2,000 per month until possession. The defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 1

BENGAL CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSN.versusKALYAN CHOWDHURY

2018 INSC 912 February 2018Dismissed

Bengal Chemists & Druggists Assn. appealed against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that dismissed its appeal as not maintainable because it was filed nine days after the initial 45‑day limitation period and after the additional 45‑day grace period had also expired. The appellant argued t

THE KOUSHIK MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETYversusAMEENA BEGUM & ANOTHER

2023 INSC 10651 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society sued for specific performance of a sale agreement, and the respondents were set ex‑parte, resulting in an ex‑parte decree on 15‑02‑1999. The respondents later filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree and sought condonation of a

ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITEDversusTULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 7771 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., a financial creditor, against a NCLAT order that held a Section 7(2) IBC application against V. Hotels Ltd. was time‑barred. The Court clarified that the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to IBC applications and that the three‑year limitation

MADINA BEGUM & ANR.versusSHIV MURTI PRASAD PANDEY & ORS.

2016 INSC 5671 August 2016Transferred to High Court

Madina Begum filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement that lacked a fixed calendar date for completion. The respondents contended the suit was barred by the three‑year limitation under Article 54 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held that where no specific date is fixed, the

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

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

SANKET KUMAR AGARWAL & ANRversusAPG LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED

2023 INSC 7271 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in June 2021, which the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed on 26 August 2022. They applied for a certified copy of the order, received it on 15 September 2022, and e‑filed an appeal before the National Company Law Ap

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusM/S. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.

2010 INSC 1911 April 2010Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra entered into a construction contract with Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., and after the arbitral tribunal awarded Rs. 17.81 crore to the company, the State filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award on five grounds. The applic

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

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD.versusGUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2017 INSC 12691 March 2017Dismissed

Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. (ONGC) appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity which denied its claim for a refund. The appeal was filed more than 71 days after the 60‑day period prescribed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and beyond the additional 60‑day co

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