Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Source-linked decisions currently available to browse

Criminal law

ANOSH EKKA versus STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Because many allegations in the present and earlier split prosecutions overlap, the appellant had already undergone substantial custodial incarceration (more than ten months in the present case and over four years in the earlier case whose sentence was suspended by this Court), and substantial assets have been attached/confiscated, this Court suspended the substantive sentence and granted bail in the present appeal subject to conditions (including an undertaking to assist restoration of tribal land), while directing that the High Court should examine the issue of overlapping prosecutions in t…

Source excerpt

  • Suspension of sentence pending appeal
  • Grant of bail during pendency of appeal
  • Overlapping prosecutions and split chargesheets
  • Double jeopardy (article 20(3))
  • Disproportionate assets
  • Attachment and confiscation of assets
Read case analysis
Family law

MAMTA DEVI versus SANJAY KUMAR

The appellate courts correctly upheld the Family Court's findings that the appellant's conduct amounted to cruelty and that the respondent had established desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act; the prolonged separation since 2018 showed the matrimonial bond had broken down beyond repair, and there was no perversity in the findings of fact, therefore the decree of divorce was affirmed, with maintenance modified to Rs.10,000 per month payable by the respondent to the appellant from the date of the Supreme Court order.

Source excerpt

  • Divorce
  • Cruelty
  • Desertion
  • Maintenance
  • Custody
  • Restitution of conjugal rights
Read case analysis
Karnataka rent act, 1999

SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS versus M/S MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.

The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 by reappreciating evidence and substituting its findings; the landlord discharged the initial burden by proving exclusive possession of third parties and absence of the original tenant, giving rise to a presumption of unlawful sub-letting which the respondents failed to rebut; the alleged partnership reconstitution was a cloak to conceal unlawful transfer of possession and thus amounted to unlawful sub-letting/assignment under ss.27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, warranting eviction.

Source excerpt

  • Revisional jurisdiction under section 46
  • Unlawful sub-letting
  • Burden of proof in eviction proceedings
  • Partnership and sub-letting
  • Eviction under ss.27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p)
  • Lifting the veil of partnership
Read case analysis
Criminal law

MILIND S/O ASHRUBA DHANVE AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 applies to offenders sentenced only to payment of fine because 'punishment' in the Act must be read to include fine as enumerated in Section 53 IPC and Section 4 BNS; 'release' in Section 4 includes setting the offender at liberty from receiving sentence including fine; accordingly the Court granted Section 4 relief to Appellant Nos.1-3 (release on bond for one year with supervision) and Section 3 relief (release after admonition) to Appellant No.4, and directed fines be deposited as compensation and Section 12 consequences removed.

Source excerpt

  • Probation of offenders act, 1958
  • Section 3 probation of offenders act, 1958
  • Section 4 probation of offenders act, 1958
  • Section 12 probation of offenders act, 1958
  • Section 360 code of criminal procedure, 1973
  • Fine as punishment
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

MALKIT SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

The State may remove illegal encroachments lawfully, but when vending zones exist the authorities must actively facilitate and supervise relocation: provide clear, acceptable vending zone information, assist regularisation where appropriate, undertake awareness drives to divert customers, and take steps to minimise disproportionate hardship to vendors; courts will require affidavits and supervisory compliance rather than permit summary eviction without support.

Source excerpt

  • Street vendors
  • Encroachment
  • Vending zones
  • Article 19(1)(g)
  • Article 19(6)
  • Article 21
Read case analysis
Code of civil procedure, 1908

MAURICE W. INNIS versus LILY KAZROONI @ LILY ARIF SHAIKH

The executing court has no jurisdiction to vary the terms of a decree and must execute the decree in its terms and tenor; where the decree clearly describes the portions of land and there is no dispute as to identity, orders modifying the decree are unsustainable and set aside; execution must proceed as per the compromise decree.

Source excerpt

  • Execution of compromise decree
  • Executing court jurisdiction
  • Compromise decree
  • Specific performance
  • Section 47 cpc
  • Execution petition
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

ROMA AHUJA versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER

The period of limitation under Section 468, CrPC must be reckoned from the date of filing the complaint or the date of initiation of criminal proceedings (including the date of filing an FIR), and not from the date on which the Magistrate or Court takes cognizance; therefore the High Court erred in quashing the FIR on the ground that cognizance was taken after the limitation period.

Source excerpt

  • Limitation
  • Section 468, cr.pc
  • Cognizance
  • Fir
  • Precedent - sarah mathew
  • Legal maxims
Read case analysis
Specific performance

RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD. & ANR. versus BHAVNA SETH & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court's findings on extension of time, payment of cash consideration and plaintiff's readiness and willingness were findings of fact not shown to be perverse and thus not open to reappraisal in second appeal; the adverse presumption from plaintiff's non-appearance was rebutted by cogent evidence (notably PW-4 and documents including the Sub-Registrar application and receipts); transfers by defendants during pendency are subject to lis pendens (Section 52 TP Act) and are non est; there was no evidence of price escalation or other change making sp…

Source excerpt

  • Decree of the specific performance
  • Agreement to sell
  • Continuous readiness and willingness to perform
  • Refund of sale consideration
  • Execution of sale deed
  • Substantial question of law
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

M/S CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED versus HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.

Where an interim order in a parent writ petition has been shown to be relied upon by authorities and to have direct and immediate civil consequences for a non‑party, that non‑party is a proper party and must be given an opportunity to be heard in those proceedings; the High Court’s refusal to implead the Appellant and to consider its request for clarification/modification was unsustainable, and overlapping but distinct proceedings (LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026) need not be held in abeyance and can be heard independently while the Appellant is impleaded in the parent writ.

Source excerpt

  • Impleadment in writ petition
  • Writ proceedings
  • Interim order
  • Order i rule 10 cpc
  • Section 269 punjab municipal corporation act, 1976
  • Clarification/modification of interim order
Read case analysis
Pension

K.G. SESHADRI versus THE TRUSTEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

The appellant was not entitled to pension because he had not completed twenty years of pensionable service when reckoned from date of confirmation (being below twenty years) and had not attained fifty years of age, so he did not satisfy Rule 22(i)(a); nor was his cessation a voluntary retirement under an operative VRS but a declaration of voluntary abandonment of service, so Rule 22(i)(c) did not apply; accordingly entitlement failed and the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Rule 22(i)(c)
  • Rule 22(i)(a)
  • Rule 20
  • Rule 7
  • Voluntary retirement
  • Voluntary abandonment of service
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.