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
Civil procedure

PREM AGGARWAL versus MOHAN SINGH & ORS.

The respondents complied with this Court's direction by tendering and depositing the award of Rs.2,00,00,000 within the stipulated period; the appellant unjustifiably obstructed execution and cannot retain possession after the suit for specific performance was dismissed and compensation awarded; therefore warrants of possession with police assistance were properly directed and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Execution of decree
  • Obstruction in execution of decree
  • Specific performance
  • Permanent injunction
  • Actus curiae neminem gravabit
  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
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
Civil procedure

SANJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS. versus SARDAR INDERJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.

Because the respondents had affirmatively pleaded that their suit was not barred by Section 92 CPC, agreed to have disputes resolved by arbitration, accepted the arbitral award and sought disposal of their appeal in terms of that award resulting in a consent/compromise decree, they are estopped by their conduct and election from subsequently challenging the validity of the award or the decree on the ground of non-arbitrability; accordingly the orders holding the award to be a nullity were set aside and the appellants were permitted to revive execution proceedings.

Source excerpt

  • Estoppel by conduct
  • Doctrine of election
  • Approbation and reprobation
  • Arbitrability
  • Consent/compromise decree
  • Execution of decree
Read case analysis
Code of civil procedure

BINOD PATHAK & ORS. versus SHANKAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

Where advocates appearing for parties knew of deaths of certain defendants during pendency of the first appeal and failed to inform the court and other parties as required by Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, equity precludes those parties from taking the benefit of abatement under Order XXII Rule 4; the High Court erred in treating Rule 10A as effectively otiose and in allowing abatement to be invoked in such circumstances—impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration consistent with Rule 10A and Rule 4.

Source excerpt

  • Abatement
  • Order xxii rule 10a cpc
  • Duty of pleader to inform court of death
  • Non-substitution of legal heirs
  • Doctrine of clean hands
  • Latin maxims on rights and advantage
Read case analysis
Contract law

M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Although the appellant made a clear, patent mistake in the financial bid (quoting Rs.1,569/- instead of Rs.1,569 crores) and the plea of system glitch was rejected, BRO acted unreasonably and rigidly by insisting on acceptance, declaring the appellant a defaulter and encashing the bank guarantee; applying equitable principles and proportionality the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court decision and directed a modest, proportionate remedy (appellant to pay Rs.1 crore and BRO to return the bank guarantee/demand draft of Rs.15.04 crores on receipt).

Source excerpt

  • Mistake of fact
  • Forfeiture of bid security
  • Bank guarantee
  • Relief in equity
  • Proportionality
  • Typographical/system error in online bids
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
Property law

THE COSMOS CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that equitable mortgages are recognised in India as a 'charge' under Section 100 TPA but remain rights in personam and are enforceable only subject to statutory limits (including notice and priority rules); where the appellant bank possessed the actual title document (share certificate) at the time of its advance, it created a legal mortgage under Section 58 and thereby held the first valid charge in priority to respondent No.1's prior equitable mortgage which had not been brought to the appellant's notice; accordingly the High Court order was set aside and the appeal a…

Source excerpt

  • Equitable mortgage
  • Charge under section 100, transfer of property act, 1882
  • Mortgage by deposit of title deeds (section 58(f))
  • Priority of charges
  • Registration and notice
Read case analysis
Specific relief act

PARSWANATH SAHA versus BANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR.

The High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court decree because the defendants failed to establish by cogent evidence that the predecessor-seller could not have foreseen the hardship at the time he executed the agreement; hardship under Section 20(2)(b) must be determined with reference to circumstances existing at the time of the contract (except where hardship results from an act of the plaintiff), and accordingly the Trial Court decree for specific performance was restored with modification that the plaintiff pay Rs.20,00,000 as balance consideration and, upon receipt, the defendants shal…

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Hardship under section 20
  • Discretion to decree specific performance
  • Readiness and willingness to perform
  • Section 20(2)(b) explanation 2
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

CELIR LLP versus MR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.

This Court held that (a) the 9th auction and the sale confirmed in favour of the petitioner were lawful and the sale certificate dated 27.09.2023 conferred absolute title; (b) the Assignment Agreement dated 28.08.2023 executed during pendency of petitioner’s Special Leave Petition/Civil Appeal was hit by lis pendens and is void; (c) respondents’ acts in attempting to frustrate implementation amounted to contumacious conduct though, in view of subsequent withdrawals/undertakings, the Court declined to convict them of contempt at this stage and instead issued restitutive and compulsory directio…

Source excerpt

  • Wilful disobedience
  • Lis pendens
  • Constructive res judicata (henderson principle)
  • Sale by auction under sarfaesi
  • Sale certificate
  • Doctrine of election
Read case analysis
Contract law

R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS. versus T.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.

Although the agreement contained a clause making time of the essence, the clauses must be read together and time was not the essence because obligation to obtain sale deed depended on vacation of tenants; however the buyer failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration (including lack of funds and delay/objections), and therefore was not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance. Further, omission by the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability does not by itself prevent an appellate court from examining existence of a jurisdiction…

Source excerpt

  • Suit for specific performance
  • Time not the essence of the contract
  • Readiness and willingness
  • Maintainability of suit
  • Jurisdictional fact
  • Interpretation of inconsistent clauses
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.