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
Code of civil procedure, 1908

PAPPAMMAL (DIED) THROUGH LR R. KRSNA MURTII versus JOTHI & ANR.

The substitution of the Appellant as plaintiff did not bar another legal heir from being impleaded; because the dispute affected title to the suit property and the genuineness of the will was contested, the Trial Court and High Court rightly allowed impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC so that all necessary parties could be heard to ascertain the truth.

Source excerpt

  • Impleadment of parties
  • Substitution as legal representative
  • Will dispute
  • Recovery of possession
Read case analysis
Transfer of property

CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH versus MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.

Because the appellant filed the suit and obtained a temporary injunction before the release deed (28.07.2003) and the subsequent sale (16.06.2004), those alienations were effected during the pendency of the suit and while the injunction was operative and are therefore covered by the doctrine of lis pendens; consequently subsequent purchasers cannot claim protection as bona fide purchasers and the release and sale deeds are without legal sanctity as against the appellant, who is entitled to specific performance (subject to payment of balance consideration).

Source excerpt

  • Lis pendens
  • Bona fide purchaser
  • Temporary injunction
  • Specific performance
  • Release deed
  • Sale deed
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARI versus HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR (DECEASED) REP. BY LRS. & ORS.

The recorded assurance in the High Court order dated 14.10.2015 amounted to an undertaking given to the court; the deliberate and wilful sale of the suit property by the contemnors in breach of that undertaking constituted civil contempt under s.2(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; the contempt finding and consequential orders of the High Court including declaring the sale deeds non est and setting them aside were lawful; apologies tendered by the contemnors were not bona fide and properly rejected.

Source excerpt

  • Undertaking to court
  • Wilful disobedience
  • Apology in contempt proceedings
  • Sale pendente lite
  • Declaration of transactions non est
  • Impleadment of purchasers
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

SRI GULAM MUSTAFA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Given the unexplained delay of over 60 years, the sequence showing repeated unsuccessful civil remedies followed by filing of criminal complaint, and the absence of a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act against the appellant, the FIR is an abuse of process; the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC and therefore the FIR and proceedings insofar as they relate to the appellant are quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of fir
  • Abuse of process
  • Sc/st act
  • Section 482 crpc
  • Article 142 of the constitution
Read case analysis
Arbitration

NTPC LTD. versus M/S SPML INFRA LTD

The High Court erred in granting reference under Section 11(6) because a prima facie review of the facts showed SPML’s allegations of coercion and economic duress were afterthoughts and not bona fide, there were no subsisting arbitrable claims between the parties after the comprehensive Settlement Agreement which recorded no subsisting issues, and therefore the Arbitration Petition was ex facie meritless; accordingly the High Court order appointing arbitrators was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Source excerpt

  • Section 11(6) pre-referral jurisdiction
  • Arbitrability
  • Settlement agreement
  • Economic duress
  • Accord and satisfaction
  • Bank guarantees
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

S. RAMACHANDRA RAO versus S. NAGABHUSHANA RAO & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court orders dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018, which had inter partes and unambiguously permitted the appellant's wife to appear only as his General Power of Attorney holder (and not in her professional capacity as an advocate), operate as res judicata and bar re-agitation of that issue at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings; Section 32 of the Advocates Act does not create a statutory prohibition preventing an existing GPA holder who later becomes enrolled as an advocate from being permitted to appear as GPA holder, and the impugned common order date…

Source excerpt

  • Res judicata (section 11 cpc)
  • Section 32 advocates act, 1961
  • Order iii rule 2 cpc
  • Representation by general power of attorney holder
  • Vakalatnama
  • Per incuriam and precedents
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

M/S. SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS versus N. SAILESH PRASAD AND ORS.

Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC bars an independent suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which it was based was not lawful; a party must approach the same court which recorded the compromise by making the appropriate application, and a plaint attempting to circumvent this bar by clever drafting is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court erred in entering into merits of the compromise decree at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

Source excerpt

  • Order xxiii rule 3a cpc
  • Order xxiii rule 3 cpc
  • Order vii rule 11 cpc
  • Order xxxii rule 7 cpc
  • Compromise decree
  • Maintainability of suit
Read case analysis
Land revenue

PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari being statutory record-of-rights carry a presumption of truth under the Himachal Land Revenue Act and the Evidence Act; the defendant who asserts a landlord-tenant relationship bore the burden under Section 109 Evidence Act to prove tenancy and failed to rebut the statutory presumption by reliable documentary evidence, and oral testimony alone was insufficient to displace the revenue record; accordingly the High Court's allowance of defendant's appeal based on oral evidence was erroneous and is set aside, affirming the First Appellate Court's judgment.

Source excerpt

  • Presumption of truth of revenue records
  • Record-of-rights (jamabandi) and periodical record (khasra girdawari)
  • Tenancy vs possession
  • Burden of proof
  • Rebuttal of statutory presumption
  • Admissibility of revenue correction proceedings
Read case analysis
Constitution of india

VIRUDHUNAGAR HINDU NADARGAL DHARMA PARIBALANA SABAI & ORS. versus TUTICORIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.

The High Court erred in entertaining a civil revision under Article 227 against an interlocutory injunction order where a specific statutory appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure was available; the trial court's injunction was passed after hearing the parties and on merits and thus the High Court's order setting it aside was liable to be set aside; accordingly the High Court order and elections held pursuant thereto were set aside and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to convene the General Body and Executive Committee and conduct fresh elections.

Source excerpt

  • Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction
  • Interim injunction
  • Order xxxix rule 3a
  • Appeal vs revision under cpc
  • Appointment of advocate commissioner
  • Elections of society office-bearers
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.