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
Specific relief act, 1963

HABBAN SHAH versus SHERUDDIN

The decree of specific performance dated 31.10.2012, which conditioned execution of the sale deed on deposit of the balance sale consideration within three months, became inexecutable because the plaintiff-respondent failed to deposit the balance within the stipulated period and did not seek extension in time; consequently the contract stood rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and the execution objections were upheld, with directions for refund of earnest money with interest.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Executability of decree
  • Conditional decree
  • Balance sale consideration
  • Readiness and willingness
  • Equitable relief
Read case analysis
Code of civil procedure, 1908

S. VALLIAMMAI & OTHERS versus S. RAMANATHAN & ANOTHER

Order II Rule 2 (which curtails the right to sue for claims omitted or relinquished) does not operate as a standalone ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d); whether Order II Rule 2 bars a subsequent suit must be established by the defendant by producing evidence and comparing the plaints to determine identity of cause of action, whereas Order VII Rule 11(d) permits rejection only when the plaint on its face and annexed documents show the suit is barred by law.

Source excerpt

  • Order vii rule 11(d)
  • Order ii rule 2
  • Rejection of plaint
  • Cause of action
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
Code of civil procedure, 1908

R. SAVITHRI NAIDU versus M/S THE COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER

The Appellant purchased the EP Schedule Property after the arbitral proceedings had been instituted (1999) and after the arbitral award (11.06.2001); therefore she is a transferee pendente lite/post-arbitral award purchaser and is barred by Order XXI Rule 102, CPC from resisting execution. The sale could not be shown to be without notice (tripartite agreement not produced), and thus the executing courts were correct to dismiss the Appellant's claim and to allow attachment for realization of the arbitral award.

Source excerpt

  • Order xxi rule 102, cpc
  • Transferee pendente lite
  • Execution of arbitral award
  • Lis pendens (section 52, transfer of property act)
  • Sale pendente lite
  • Third-party claim under order xxi
Read case analysis
Negotiable instruments act, 1881

S. NAGESH versus SHOBHA S. ARADHYA

The learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the respondent's complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the two-day delay in presentation was condoned; under the clear language of the proviso to Section 142(1)(b), the Court's satisfaction as to sufficient cause (and consequent condonation of delay) must precede taking cognizance, and therefore the complaint was quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Section 138 ni act
  • Section 142 ni act
  • Cognizance
  • Limitation
  • Condonation of delay
  • Magistrate jurisdiction
Read case analysis
Code of civil procedure, 1908

KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS versus KAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS

The appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof required in an execution petition to show that the respondents had violated the terms of the 1933 compromise decree; the Executing Court erred in allowing execution based on presumption without cogent evidence, and therefore the High Court rightly set aside the Executing Court's order; the appeals are dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Execution of the compromise decree
  • Performance of religious rituals
  • Custody of idols and paraphernalia
  • Burden of proof
  • Presumption
  • Locus standi
Read case analysis
Code of criminal procedure, 1973

SADIQ B. HANCHINMANI versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. R1: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R2: CHNDRUMAL R3: SANJAY R4: NANDKUMAR R5: VIJAY

On the materials before the JMFC (including prima facie evidence that the E-Stamp Paper used for the Rent Agreement was fake and discrepancies revealed by departmental verification), the JMFC properly applied its mind and was justified in referring the matter to police under Section 156(3) CrPC for investigation; the High Court erred in quashing the JMFC order and the impugned High Court orders were set aside and the FIR restored, with directions for expeditious investigation.

Source excerpt

  • Police investigation
  • Judicial magistrate first class
  • Power under section 156(3) crpc
  • Rent agreement
  • E-stamp paper
  • Usage of the term 'further'
Read case analysis
Recovery of debts (1993 act)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus CORPORATION BANK & ORS.

The e-auction and related proceedings were vitiated because the Recovery Officer and Bank failed to disclose and ascertain DDA's encumbrance and claim for unearned increase and thus proceeded in breach of Rule 53 Second Schedule Income Tax Act and Rule 16 Rules, 1962 and in violation of lease terms; the earlier writ withdrawal did not finally decide the issues on merits so res judicata did not bar DDA's challenge; accordingly the High Court order, the e-auction, confirmation of sale and sale certificate were quashed and the Bank ordered to refund the amount deposited by the Auction Purchaser…

Source excerpt

  • E-auction
  • Illegal mortgage
  • Pre-emptive right to purchase
  • Unearned increase
  • Res judicata
  • Rule 53 second schedule income tax act
Read case analysis
State financial corporation act, 1951

SRI R RAGHU versus SRI G M KRISHNA & ANR.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's confirmation of the auction sale and sale certificate in favour of the appellant, upheld the direction that the appellant is to pay an additional Rs.25,00,000 per acre to the respondent (having regard to the appellant's conduct and dual role), and endorsed the direction for the District Court to conduct a survey and fix boundaries for the auctioned property (the purchaser is only entitled to the area specifically purchased).

Source excerpt

  • Borrowed money
  • Defaults in payments
  • Recovery proceedings
  • Execution petition
  • Auction sale
  • Sale certificate
Read case analysis
Evidence act, 1872

NILIMA DAS GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS. versus ON THE DEATH OF ABDUR ROUF HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.

Section 120 alone does not render the son (D.W.5) incompetent to testify; while D.W.5 cannot give evidence as to matters within his mother's exclusive personal knowledge, his evidence cannot be discarded entirely on the basis of Section 120. The High Court's exclusion of his evidence in toto was incorrect; the High Court's impugned judgment is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration including formulation and decision on the substantial question of law.

Source excerpt

  • Competence of witnesses
  • Section 120 indian evidence act
  • Nemo in propria causa
  • Witness testifying on behalf of another
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.