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

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil procedure

SANJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS. versus SARDAR INDERJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.

Because the respondents had affirmatively pleaded that their suit was not barred by Section 92 CPC, agreed to have disputes resolved by arbitration, accepted the arbitral award and sought disposal of their appeal in terms of that award resulting in a consent/compromise decree, they are estopped by their conduct and election from subsequently challenging the validity of the award or the decree on the ground of non-arbitrability; accordingly the orders holding the award to be a nullity were set aside and the appellants were permitted to revive execution proceedings.

Source excerpt

  • Estoppel by conduct
  • Doctrine of election
  • Approbation and reprobation
  • Arbitrability
  • Consent/compromise decree
  • Execution of decree
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

M/S CHITHRA WOODS MANORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus SHAJI AUGUSTINE

The Respondent was in possession of the property, ran the resort and derived income, sought account details after the 07.11.2022 order but made no payments, and his conduct demonstrated deliberate, mala fide non-compliance and misuse of judicial process; therefore he was found guilty of civil contempt and punished (3 months simple imprisonment and INR 20,000 fine) with 30 days allowed to purge contempt by complying with the 07.11.2022 order.

Source excerpt

  • Civil contempt
  • Wilful disobedience
  • Use and occupation charges
  • Settlement agreement
  • Misuse of court process
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

M/S TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LIMITED versus MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

There is a direct conflict in precedents on whether writ petitions under Article 226 are barred against MSEFC orders under Section 18 MSMED Act; the Supreme Court found reservations about the three-Judge dictum in M/s India Glycols and, recognizing that Article 226 is part of the basic structure and that writ jurisdiction is not automatically ousted by statutory remedy, referred specific questions of law to a Five-Judge Bench for authoritative decision on the maintainability of writs against MSEFC orders and related issues.

Source excerpt

  • Article 226 of the constitution
  • Section 18 of the micro, small and medium enterprises development act, 2006
  • Section 19 of the msmed act
  • Section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Writ jurisdiction of the high court
  • Availability of alternative remedy
Read case analysis
Criminal law

PRAKASH AGGARWAL versus GANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED AND ANOTHER

The complaint was dismissed because the ICDA and Letter of Pledge expressly authorised the pledgee to invoke the pledge and sell the pledged shares (including to itself or group companies), the dispute was the subject of arbitration with an award rendered and challenged under Section 34, and there was inordinate delay in lodging the criminal complaint; taken at its face value the complaint did not disclose ingredients of the offences alleged and amounted to an abuse of process of law.

Source excerpt

  • Abuse of process
  • Quashing of criminal complaint
  • Inter-corporate deposit and pledge
  • Delay and laches
  • Jurisdiction where arbitration exists
  • Sections 403, 406, 420, 120b ipc
Read case analysis
Arbitration and conciliation

CHINTELS INDIA LTD. versus BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

The Supreme Court held that an appeal under section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under section 34 to set aside an arbitral award; the reasoning in Essar Constructions and the pari materia relationship between section 39(1)(vi) of the 1940 Act and section 37(1)(c) of the 1996 Act support this conclusion.

Source excerpt

  • Appealability under section 37(1)(c)
  • Condonation of delay under section 34(3)
  • Pari materia comparison with arbitration act, 1940
Read case analysis
Arbitration and conciliation

HARESH DAYARAM THAKUR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Conciliation proceedings under Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are only successful and binding if a settlement agreement is signed by the parties; a settlement prepared by the conciliator in secrecy and not signed by the parties does not satisfy the statutory requirements and cannot be treated as final or binding.

Source excerpt

  • Conciliation proceedings
  • Procedure under arbitration and conciliation act
  • Settlement agreement validity
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.