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

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
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

SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM versus PRAKASAN & ORS.

The appellant's application under Order I Rule 10 was rightly held to be barred by res judicata because he had notice of and participated in the impleadment proceedings under Order XXII Rule 4 and failed to object or seek revision at the appropriate stage; the appellant failed to establish tenancy or possession under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965; and the decree for specific performance implicitly included transfer of possession because exclusive possession was with the contracting party when the suit was decreed. Thus the High Court and Trial Court com…

Source excerpt

  • Order i rule 10 cpc
  • Order xxii rule 4 cpc
  • Section 11 kerala buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1965
  • Section 28 specific relief act, 1963
  • Res judicata
  • Transfer of possession implicit in decree
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

AMIT KUMAR DAS, JOINT SECRETARY, BAITANIK, A REGISTERED SOCIETY versus SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST

The High Court erred in vacating the conditional stay order in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction because vacating the stay did not restore the parties to their original position nor deprive the contemnor of the benefit of the completed disobedience; the concluded act of breach amounted to civil contempt and the proper course was to continue contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The impugned order was set aside to that extent and the matter remanded to the High Court to continue with contempt proceedings.

Source excerpt

  • Contempt jurisdiction of high court
  • Willful violation
  • Status quo orders
  • Vacating stay
  • Restitutive measures
  • Civil contempt
Read case analysis
Land acquisition

M/S. JAGAN SINGH & CO. versus LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS.

The High Court erred in setting aside the auction sale because (a) the site plan and proceedings sufficiently identified the property and there was no fatal discrepancy in identification, (b) the Judgment Debtor failed to take the objections at the stages required by Order XXI (presentation, attachment, proclamation, auction) and did not lead evidence of material irregularity or fraud, and (c) the dual test under Order XXI Rule 90 (material irregularity/fraud and substantial injury) was not satisfied; accordingly the Executing Court and Appellate Court findings upholding the sale were sustain…

Source excerpt

  • Compensation under la act
  • Attachment and auction sale
  • Order xxi cpc (rules 54, 66, 89, 90)
  • Setting aside sale for irregularity or fraud
  • Identification of property (khasra)
  • Bona fide auction purchaser
Read case analysis
Limitation act, 1963

MANJIT SINGH SODHI versus THE CUSTODIAN & ORS.

The Special Court's finding that the execution petition was not barred by limitation was a determination affecting parties' rights and liabilities and thus the order was not merely interlocutory; the appellate court will not interfere with the Special Court's directions for disclosure of assets issued under the Act of 1992, while preserving the Custodian's right to contend that the Limitation Act does not apply to the execution application in light of L S Synthetics.

Source excerpt

  • Interlocutory order vs final order
  • Acknowledgement of liability under section 18 limitation act
  • Applicability of limitation act to special court proceedings
  • Disclosure of assets
  • Enforcement/execution of decree
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus N. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER

Order XXI Rule 101 CPC requires the executing court dealing with an application under Order XXI Rule 97 to determine all questions, including right, title or interest, relevant to adjudication of the application; therefore the executing court erred in refusing impleadment of BDA and in not adjudicating BDA's objection based on acquisition under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976; the High Court and executing court orders dismissing BDA's applications were quashed and set aside and the executing court directed to implead BDA and decide the objection within six months.

Source excerpt

  • Order xxi rule 97 cpc
  • Order xxi rule 101 cpc
  • Impleadment of obstructor
  • Resistance/obstruction to possession
  • Adjudication of right, title or interest in execution
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

VARADARAJAN versus KANAKAVALLI & ORS.

The Executing Court rightly found on evidence that the appellant was the legal representative of the deceased based on a duly attested Will and, in the absence of any rival claimant, was entitled to continue execution under the summary procedure of Order XXII Rule 5 CPC; the High Court erred in setting aside that order in revision without satisfying the limited and specific tests for interference under Section 115 CPC, and therefore the High Court order was set aside and the Executing Court order restored.

Source excerpt

  • Order xxii rule 5 cpc
  • Order xxii rule 12 cpc
  • Section 115 cpc revision jurisdiction
  • Legal representative impleadment in execution
  • Proof and execution of wills
  • Eviction under execution of decree
Read case analysis
Civil law

ASHUTOSH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

A decree against a firm may be executed against the separate property of partners under Order 21 Rule 50 CPC if the liability is not disputed. The Will executed by the partner was held to be a device to delay recovery and not bona fide. Justice requires tempering the claim for excessive interest; debtor is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 in full satisfaction of the claim.

Source excerpt

  • Execution of decree against partnership property
  • Liability of partners
  • Attachment under order 21 rules 49 and 50 cpc
  • Fraudulent transfer under will
  • Interest on decretal amount
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

SATYANARAIN BAJORIA AND ANR. versus RAMNARAIN TIBREWAL AND ANR.

Where fresh execution is initiated more than two years after decree, issuing and serving notice under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC is mandatory. Without actual, proven service on the judgment-debtor, subsequent steps including attachment, proclamation, and sale cannot validly proceed; reliance on order sheets or presumption of service does not suffice. If notice is not duly served, and the entire process is held ex parte in ignorance of the judgment-debtor, the sale is vitiated by fraud and material irregularity, leading to presumption of substantial injury and invalidity of the sale, which must then…

Source excerpt

  • Auction sale
  • Limitation
  • Execution of decree
  • Notice requirement
  • Fraud in execution
  • Setting aside sale
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.