Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Specific Relief Act, 1963

218 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–218.

THE COSMOS CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 2434 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. (appellant) challenged a High Court order that held Central Bank of India (respondent No.1) had the first charge over a flat mortgaged by the original borrowers. Both banks had received security documents: the appellant bank held the share certificate of ownership, while the responden

TEK SINGHversusSHASHI VERMA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 1314 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a revision petition challenging the lower courts' refusal to grant an interim mandatory injunction in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act concerning possession of a shop. The High Court set aside the appellate court's findings of fact and entertained the revision, despite the order bei

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

ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS.versusBHIM SINGH & ANR.

2024 INSC 6513 September 2024Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a 2005 sale agreement, which was eventually decreed by the appellate court directing the appellants to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration. While the execution application was pending, the appellants sought rescission of the contract u

K. S. VARGHESE & ORS.versusST. PETERS & PAULS SYRIAN ORTH. & ORS.

2017 INSC 5803 July 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals concerning the administration of Parish Churches within the Malankara Church, which has been divided between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction. The core dispute was whether the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church or individual Udampady agreements (such as those f

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CHARITABLE TRUST & EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANversusM/S PONNIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON/ MANAGING TRUSTEE

2012 INSC 2643 July 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society (appellant) challenged the Madras High Court Division Bench’s reversal of a single judge’s order rejecting the plaint against it in a suit for specific performance filed by M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust (respondent). The Supreme Court examined wh

GIAN KAURversusRAGHUBIR SINGH

2011 INSC 973 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Gian Kaur, filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of 16 kanals of land, along with a consequential permanent injunction and an alternative prayer for possession. The trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed, holding that a suit solely

SURESH DHANUKAversusSUNLTA MOHAPATRA

2011 INSC 8312 December 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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

MRS. SHAILJA KRISHNAversusSATORI GLOBAL LIMITED & ORS.

2025 INSC 10652 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Mrs. Shailja Krishna, a majority shareholder and former executive director of Satori Global Limited, alleged that the company’s board had fraudulently obtained her signature on a gift deed and share transfer forms, thereby oppressing her and mismanaging the company. The NCLT had earlier granted her relief under Section

K. NANJAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS.versusR.A. HAMEED ALIAS AMEERSAB (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 6252 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 2 September 1967 concerning immovable property. The agreement was written on a quarter‑sheet of paper and was produced in a criminal proceeding, leading the High Court to decree specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs. The Supreme

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusNILOFER SIDDIQUI & ORS.

2015 INSC 8751 December 2015Dismissed

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

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2022 INSC 8961 September 2022Dismissed

The appellant (LIC) challenged the High Court’s order allowing the respondents (Sanjeev Builders and another) to amend their plaint in a suit for specific performance, seeking a higher quantum of damages. The appellant argued that the amendment was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC and the doctrine of constructive r

RAM DAAN (D) THROUGH LRS.versusURBAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST

2014 INSC 9891 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Daan filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Urban Development Trust from dispossessing him of a 4,914‑sq‑yard plot, claiming uninterrupted possession since 1942. The respondent asserted that the land belonged to the State of Rajasthan and that the appellant had been evicted in 1965 under Section 91

K.R. SURESHversusR. POORNIMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 6171 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, K.R. Suresh, paid Rs.20,00,000 as advance under an agreement of sale that required the balance to be paid within four months, failing which the advance would be forfeited. He did not pay the balance on time, and the respondents forfeited the advance and later sold the property to third parties. The appel

M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDversusM/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED & ANR.

2022 INSC 3801 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a mining company, sued the defendant for a declaration that a Rs 56‑lakh cheque, given as security under a memorandum of understanding, was not payable because the defendant failed to protect the plaintiff’s port licence. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of

EXCEL DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITEDversusASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.

2015 INSC 2811 April 2015Dismissed

Excel Dealcomm Pvt Ltd entered a private treaty agreement with Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd (ARCIL) for the sale of immovable and movable assets under the SARFAESI Act. Excel filed a suit for specific performance in the Calcutta High Court, seeking issuance of a sale certificate that would effect transfer o

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