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
Consumer protection

SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. versus VIJAYA BANK

Because the Bank asserted that the FDR had been pledged to avail an overdraft and the appellant alleged that such pledge/loan was fraudulent (with a criminal complaint pending), there was a serious unresolved factual dispute going to whether the deposit was made for a commercial purpose; that dispute and allegations of fraud could not be resolved in summary consumer proceedings and therefore the complaint was not maintainable and dismissal by the NCDRC was justified.

Source excerpt

  • Definition of consumer
  • Commercial purpose
  • Fixed deposit receipt (fdr)
  • Deficiency in service
  • Maintainability of consumer complaint
  • Pledge/hypothecation
Read case analysis
Arbitration

JAN DE NUL DREDGING INDIA PVT. LTD. versus TUTICORIN PORT TRUST

The Division Bench erred in law by reinterpreting and disturbing the Arbitral Tribunal's award in respect of Claim No.7 under Section 37, because the Tribunal's interpretation of the License Agreement (that Clause 51.1 permitted idling compensation for equipment including the Backhoe Dredger) was a plausible and reasoned view which had been upheld by the Single Judge under Section 34; appellate interference under Section 37 is limited to the scope of Section 34 and cannot reappraise merits or adopt an alternative view absent patent illegality or conflict with public policy.

Source excerpt

  • Section 34 of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Section 37 of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Minimum intervention of court
  • Interpretation of contract
  • Idling charges
  • Public policy of india
Read case analysis
Electricity

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED versus ESSAR POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court held that GUVNL is entitled to reimbursement of proportionate fixed charges for electricity diverted from its allocated share in addition to compensation for wrongful diversion (the compensation to be computed on the basis of HTP-1 Tariff Energy Charge as per para 9.13). The Court further held that diversion computation should follow the half-hourly metering methodology adopted by the parties pursuant to the CEA recommendation where applicable, and that the earlier decision restoring GERC's order precludes reopening the settled methodology for the period April 1998 to Septem…

Source excerpt

  • Reimbursement of fixed charges
  • Compensation for diversion of electricity
  • Power purchase agreement interpretation
  • Proportionate allocation of generation
  • Computation methodology (hourly v. half-hourly)
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

RAJUL MANOJ SHAH ALIAS RAJESHWARI RASIKLAL SHETH versus KIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ANR.

The High Court erred in permitting defendant no.2 to file a counter-claim seeking specific performance and partition because the primary relief of specific performance was directed solely against a co-defendant (the deceased original vendor as represented by the Nazir) and not against the plaintiff; a counter-claim must be directed against the plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC. Further, the application for counter-claim was filed after issues had been framed and after inaction for many years, raising concerns of delay and limitation, making the counter-claim impermissible in the circumst…

Source excerpt

  • Counter-claim
  • Order viii rule 6a cpc
  • Counter-claim against co-defendant
  • Amendment of written statement
  • Specific performance
  • Partition
Read case analysis
Specific relief

SYED BASHEER AHMED versus M/S TINNI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

The High Court correctly found that the sale agreement was materially altered (inconsistent recitals and schedule and use of different inks), rendering the agreement tainted; the plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness to pay the full balance consideration required for specific performance (accounting and plaintiff's own concessions undermined the claim); Section 73 Evidence Act did not mandate expert examination in the circumstances; therefore the decree for specific performance could not be sustained and the appeal was rejected.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration
  • Material alteration in agreement
  • Tainted agreement
  • Section 73 indian evidence act, 1872
Read case analysis
Arbitration

BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) versus EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

Clause 13 is an enabling provision using permissive language ("may be sought") and does not record a subsisting, binding consensus ad idem to submit present or future disputes to arbitration as required by Section 7; accordingly the High Court was justified in dismissing the Section 11 application and the appeal is dismissed. Additionally, the Referral Court must prima facie examine existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6-A) but need not conduct a full trial.

Source excerpt

  • Existence of an arbitration agreement
  • Section 11(6-a) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Section 7 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Consensus (ad idem)
  • Enabling clause
  • Juridical seat
Read case analysis
Specific relief

K.R. SURESH versus R. POORNIMA & ORS.

The advance amount paid under the ATS was, in substance, earnest money — a guarantee for due performance — and given the explicit forfeiture clause, the four-month time stipulation and the surrounding urgency known to the purchaser, forfeiture by the vendors for the purchaser's breach was lawful; further, refund under Section 22(1)(b) must be specifically claimed (or sought by amendment under the proviso), which the appellant did not do, therefore no refund was warranted and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Forfeiture of earnest money
  • Refund of earnest money under section 22
  • Time is of the essence
  • Amendment of plaint
Read case analysis
Property

ANNAYA KOCHA SHETTY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS versus LAXMIBAI NARAYAN SATOSE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS & OTHERS

The 1967 agreement, read in its terms and in light of ss.91 and 92 Evidence Act, is an agreement for conducting the hotel business (owner/conductor relationship) and not a leave and licence creating deemed tenancy under s.15A of the Bombay Rents Act; oral evidence was excluded as none of the exceptions to ss.91-92 applied; therefore the appellate court and High Court rightly reversed the trial court and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Agreement for conducting hotel business
  • Deemed tenancy
  • Leave and license
  • Bar on adducing oral evidence (ss.91-92 evidence act)
  • Construction of contract/deed
  • Rules of construction (literal, golden, purposive)
Read case analysis
Specific relief

SANGITA SINHA versus BHAWANA BHARDWAJ AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the buyer's encashment of the demand drafts enclosed with the seller's cancellation letter constituted acceptance of repudiation and demonstrated lack of willingness to perform the agreement; because the seller had cancelled the agreement prior to institution of the suit and the plaintiff did not seek declaratory relief nor disclosed receipt and encashment of the refunds in the plaint, the agreement stood cancelled and the suit for specific performance was not maintainable; accordingly the decrees and sale deed were set aside and the buyer must be refunded the depo…

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Agreement to sell
  • Readiness and willingness to perform
  • Cancellation/repudiation of contract
  • Suppression of material facts
  • Locus standi
Read case analysis
Contract

M/S TOMORROWLAND LIMITED versus HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

HUDCO breached its contractual obligations under the Allotment Letter (including Clause 5(vi) to obtain statutory approvals and clauses requiring execution of sub-lease and handing over possession); accordingly HUDCO was not entitled to forfeit the amounts paid and must refund Rs. 28,11,31,939 to the appellant. However, the appellant is not entitled to discretionary interest under Section 34 CPC because its conduct involved forum shopping, abuse of process and failure to come with clean hands; therefore refund is ordered without interest, with a direction that if HUDCO fails to pay within thr…

Source excerpt

  • Breach of contract
  • Refund of forfeited amount
  • Interest pendente lite/post-decree
  • Clean hands doctrine
  • Forum shopping
  • Interpretation of commercial documents
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.