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
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
Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996

BHADRA INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

The sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the respondent's Chairman who was ineligible under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule; such appointment rendered the arbitrator de jure ineligible and the appointment void ab initio; the proviso to Section 12(5) permits waiver only by an express agreement in writing entered into after disputes arose and no such written waiver existed here; accordingly the High Court's judgment was set aside and the arbitral awards dated 30.07.2018 were set aside, leaving the parties free to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law.

Source excerpt

  • Section 12(5) of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Seventh schedule of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Proviso to section 12(5) of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Section 14 of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Section 34 of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Unilateral appointment
Read case analysis
Motor vehicles act, 1988

SITHARA N.S. & ORS. ETC. versus SAI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Concurrent findings of the Tribunal and High Court that the appellants failed to prove involvement of the alleged offending vehicle were based on proper appreciation of evidence (material contradictions in witness testimony, improbability of alleged confessions, omission in complaint, spot mahazar prepared days later and MVI report showing no damage), and absent perversity or exceptional circumstances this Court will not interfere; consequently claims fail for want of cogent and reliable proof of the vehicle's involvement despite the occurrence being established.

Source excerpt

  • Involvement of the offending vehicle
  • Compensation
  • Rash and negligent driving
  • Standard of proof — preponderance of probabilities
  • Contradictions in witness testimony
  • Omission of vehicle registration number
Read case analysis
Code of civil procedure, 1908

U. SUDHEERA & OTHERS versus C. YASHODA & OTHERS

The High Court erred in granting an interim order directing status quo in a second appeal without first satisfying itself that a substantial question of law was involved and without framing such question as mandated by Section 100 CPC; accordingly the interim order was set aside and the appeal allowed. Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to override the express requirements of Section 100 CPC.

Source excerpt

  • Section 100 cpc
  • Substantial question of law
  • Interim order
  • Section 151 cpc
  • Order xli/order 41 rule 5
  • Status quo
Read case analysis
Stamp law

VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL (DEAD) THR. LR. versus NEENA RANI & ORS.

Because the agreements expressly recited that the plaintiff was already in possession prior to their execution and the plaintiff did not seek possession in the suit, the agreements were not 'agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession' within Entry No.5(cc) of Schedule 1-A; therefore the Trial Court's and High Court's direction to pay deficient stamp duty under Sub-column No.2 of Column No.2 of Entry No.23 was unsustainable and was set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Stamp duty on agreement to sell
  • Schedule 1-a entry no.5(cc)
  • Specific performance
  • Possession
Read case analysis
Arbitration

GR GREEN LIFE ENERGY PVT. LTD. versus LEITWIND SHRIRAM MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD.

The High Court was justified in treating the dispute as fit for appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because the MSMED Act and its Facilitation Council do not provide for adjudication of counter-claims; the parties subsequently agreed to a Court-appointed sole arbitrator and the Supreme Court appointed a former High Court judge as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all claims and counter-claims arising out of the Development Agreement.

Source excerpt

  • Appointment of arbitrator under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Court-appointed sole arbitrator
  • Reference of disputes to facilitation council under msmed act
  • Counter-claims under msmed act
Read case analysis
Motor vehicles act

ERUDHAYA PRIYA versus STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.

For a 23 year old victim the correct multiplier is 18 (per Sarla Verma/Pranay Sethi); the multiplier method must factor in future prospects and extent of permanent disability (31.1%), and in the present case future prospects are quantified at 50% of actual salary; applying these principles the appellant is entitled to Rs.41,69,831 as compensation with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of application until payment; appeals are allowed and the respondent directed to transmit the balance within six weeks.

Source excerpt

  • Loss of earning power
  • Multiplier method
  • Permanent disability
  • Future prospects
  • Interest on compensation
Read case analysis
Family law

MARABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus NINGAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly found that the disputed lands (except the tenanted portion) were self-acquired by Parwatevva from the income of the stridhana (A7) and related purchases, the High Court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the appellants and in treating those properties as joint family property; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the Trial Court decree restored.

Source excerpt

  • Stridhana
  • Self-acquired property
  • Joint hindu family property
  • Burden of proof
  • Partition
Read case analysis
Succession

H. VENKATACHALA IYENGAR versus B. N. THIMMAJAMMA & OTHERS

Where a will is executed amid suspicious circumstances (including prominent participation and substantial benefit to the propounder), the propounder must remove those suspicions by cogent and satisfactory evidence; mere proof of signature is not sufficient to prove the testator knew and approved the contents. On the evidence the propounder here failed to remove such suspicions, so the will was not proved.

Source excerpt

  • Proof of wills
  • Attestation under s.63 indian succession act
  • Suspicious circumstances and onus of proof
  • Testamentary capacity
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.