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
Commercial law

MITC ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. versus M/S RENUKA REALTORS AND ORS.

An order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a decree within Section 2(2) CPC and therefore appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; the proviso to Section 13(1A) restricts appeals only in respect of interlocutory orders expressly listed in Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act and does not exclude final decrees such as rejection of a plaint, hence the High Court's dismissal of the appeal as non-maintainable was erroneous and the appeal was restored to the High Court for decision on merits.

Source excerpt

  • Section 13(1a) commercial courts act, 2015
  • Order vii rule 11 cpc
  • Appealability of order rejecting plaint
  • Pre-institution mediation and settlement (pims)
Read case analysis
Arbitration

M/S SONALI POWER EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. versus CHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI & ORS.

The Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act and time-barred claims may be referred to and settled by conciliation (a settlement being enforceable as an award); however, the Limitation Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) because Section 18(3) and the overriding provisions of the MSMED Act render the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (including Section 43) applicable to such arbitrations, and any extension of limitation by disclosure under Section 22 must be determined case-by-case.

Source excerpt

  • Application of limitation act to conciliation under s.18 msmed act
  • Application of limitation act to arbitration under s.18 msmed act
  • Time-barred claims
  • Effect of disclosure in financial statements under s.22 msmed act
  • Conflict between s.18(3) msmed act and s.2(4) aca
Read case analysis
Partnership law

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus M/S SHREE NIWAS RAMGOPAL & ORS.

The partnership between three partners did not stand dissolved on the death of one partner because the partnership deed expressly provided for continuance; IOCL had not terminated the dealership and therefore could not discontinue supply; IOCL misapplied its guidelines by insisting that all legal heirs join, and the High Court correctly issued mandamus directing IOCL to continue kerosene supply to the partnership firm until proper reconstitution or termination of the dealership, subject to any order of a probate or competent civil court and periodic review.

Source excerpt

  • Death of a partner
  • Reconstitution of partnership
  • Dealership agreement
  • Mandamus under article 226
  • Administrative guidelines interpretation
  • Continuance of supply of kerosene
Read case analysis
Taxation

C.T. KOCHOUSEPH versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC.

Sections 5A of the Kerala Act and 7A of the Tamil Nadu Act are constitutionally valid charging provisions: they lawfully impose purchase tax on purchasers where no sales tax was payable on the sale (for example due to exemption notifications), subject to the statutory conditions (use in manufacture, disposal otherwise than by sale in the State, or dispatch outside the State except as a direct result of inter-State trade). The levy is on the purchaser in specified circumstances, does not amount to an impermissible inter-State/consignment tax beyond state legislative power, and exemption of pay…

Source excerpt

  • Purchase tax
  • Sales tax
  • Exemption from payment of tax
  • Inter-state trade and commerce
  • Legislative competence
  • Charging provisions
Read case analysis
Commercial law

JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. versus M/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

Order XX Rule 1 CPC as amended for Commercial Courts is directory and does not postpone the commencement of limitation until the registry supplies a copy of the judgment; parties must exercise diligence to procure certified copies, and in the circumstances of this case a 301-day delay caused by inaction/ negligence could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act given the object of speedy disposal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Source excerpt

  • Condonation of delay
  • Period of limitation
  • Order xx rule 1 cpc
  • Free copy of judgment
  • Commercial courts act, 2015
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

I.K. MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the transfer of shares constituted a commercial transaction and, in view of the prolonged delay in payment (five decades) and equitable considerations, the appellants were entitled to interest on the enhanced valuation. The Court awarded simple interest at 6% per annum from 8 July 1975 on the enhanced valuation of shares until the date of the decree, and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the decree until realisation; affirmed the enhanced valuation at Rs.640 per share and modified the High Court orders accordingly, directing payment within two months after…

Source excerpt

  • Interest
  • Commercial transaction
  • Valuation of shares
  • Enhanced valuation of shares
  • Section 34 cpc
  • Public interest
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD. versus TATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

The Division Bench correctly held that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi (supply order placed in Delhi and payment to be released in Delhi) and that the sale and shipment transactions were interconnected; accordingly Section 20(c) CPC confers territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court and joinder of defendants was permissible under Order I Rules 3 and 7 CPC; the Single Judge erred in returning the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction; Arcadia's appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Territorial jurisdiction
  • Section 20(c) cpc
  • Order i rule 3 cpc
  • Order i rule 7 cpc
  • Bill of lading
  • Letter of credit
Read case analysis
Arbitration

M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. versus M/S APTECH LTD.

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies residually to petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the limitation period of three years for a s.11(6) application begins only after a valid notice invoking arbitration has been received and there is a failure or refusal to appoint an arbitrator as per the agreed procedure; courts must employ a two-pronged test at the referral stage (whether the s.11(6) petition itself is time-barred and whether the claims are ex-facie time-barred/dead) and reject only manifestly dead claims on prima facie review — applying…

Source excerpt

  • Section 11(6)
  • Article 137
  • Accrual of right to apply
  • Commencement of arbitral proceedings (s.21)
  • Jurisdiction versus admissibility
  • Time-barred/ex-facie dead claims
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

SACHIN GARG versus STATE OF U.P & ANR.

The dispute was commercial concerning variation of contractual rates and neither the complaint nor the supporting initial depositions disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 405/406 IPC or particulars of criminal intimidation under Sections 504/506 IPC; the Magistrate failed to apply his mind in issuing summons and the High Court erred in not exercising its Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the criminal process; accordingly the summons dated 18.08.2021 and Criminal Complaint Case No.7990 of 2020 were quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of summons
  • Section 482 crpc
  • Summons issuance by magistrate
  • Commercial dispute given criminal colour
  • Sections 405/406/504/506 ipc
  • Duty of magistrate
Read case analysis
Arbitration

RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. versus STATE OF GOA

The High Court exceeded its limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 by reappreciating evidence and substituting its view for the arbitrator's on core factual and contractual issues; nothing of patent illegality on the face of the award was shown; the arbitral tribunal's conclusions on variable charges, downrating, 4 MW billing, netting-out and pre-reference interest were plausible and within its jurisdiction, and the reduction of post-award interest from 15% to 10% by the High Court was unjustified; accordingly the High Court's order insofar as it modified the award was set aside and…

Source excerpt

  • Scope of judicial review of arbitral awards
  • Patent illegality
  • Interest on awards
  • Procedure under sections 34 and 37
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.