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
Arbitration

M/S MOTILAL AGARWALA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award under Section 31(5) must be made to the 'party' as defined in Section 2(1)(h); delivery to an authorised representative or Assistant Engineer who is not a party and lacks authority to take the final decision to challenge the award does not constitute effective service and therefore does not start the limitation period under Section 34(3); for government parties effective delivery must be to an official with knowledge and authority (e.g., Secretary or Executive Engineer).

Source excerpt

  • Service of arbitral award
  • Delivery under section 31(5)
  • Definition of 'party' under section 2(1)(h)
  • Limitation under section 34(3)
Read case analysis
Arbitration

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. versus SANDEEP GURAV

Where an application or request under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed within the Section 33 time and with notice, the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) for challenging the award begins from the date on which that request is disposed of by the arbitral tribunal, regardless of whether the tribunal effects any correction, interpretation or additional award; accordingly the High Court order was set aside and the matter remanded.

Source excerpt

  • Computation of limitation under section 34(3)
  • Requests under section 33
  • Setting aside arbitral award
  • Commencement of limitation
Read case analysis
Property law

KISHUNDEO ROUT & ORS. versus GOVIND RAO & ORS.

Unless a plea of adverse possession is specifically raised in the pleadings and put in issue, with cogent evidence led on the necessary factual elements and an opportunity given to the opposite party to meet that case, the plea cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal; appellate courts may do so only where the record contains sufficient facts and the opposite party is not taken by surprise.

Source excerpt

  • Adverse possession
  • Pleadings
  • Principle of secundum allegata et probata
  • Framing issues in appeal
  • First appeal under section 96 cpc
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION versus VIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

The Court held the suit was not maintainable against the appellant because mandatory pre‑institutional notice requirements (Section 80 CPC) and core issues as to jurisdiction and maintainability were not adjudicated; the trial Court erroneously applied the repealed Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993 to a 1985 supply and wrongly fastened liability on the appellant contrary to Section 29 S.F.C. Act; the decree and consequent execution against the appellant are therefore unenforceable and are set aside, and respondent ordered to refund amounts received.

Source excerpt

  • Doctrine of sub silentio
  • Section 47 cpc
  • Section 80 cpc
  • Section 21 limitation act
  • Interest on delayed payments act, 1993
  • State financial corporation act, 1951
Read case analysis
Insolvency and bankruptcy

IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED versus ADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED

The Balance Sheet of F.Y. 2019-20, read in the context of earlier audited financial statements and the appended cash flow statement, constituted a valid acknowledgement of a subsisting liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act; the Balance Sheet was signed on 12.08.2020 which renewed limitation from that date; applying the Supreme Court's order of 10.01.2022, Para 5(I) excludes the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 so limitation reckoning the 12.08.2020 acknowledgment commenced on 01.03.2022 and continued till 28.02.2025, hence the Section 7 application filed on 15.01.2024 was within tim…

Source excerpt

  • Valid acknowledgement of debt
  • Entry in balance sheet as acknowledgement
  • Section 7 ibc application
  • Section 18 limitation act, 1963
  • Extension of limitation orders (10.01.2022)
Read case analysis
Motor vehicles

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus GOPU & ANR.

The appeal to the High Court was barred by excessive delay and Sections 6 and 5 of the Limitation Act do not permit the period to be extended for appeals; where minors were represented by their natural guardian who chose not to appeal, the claimed disability of minority cannot be invoked to condone the delay. Therefore the High Court's enhancement of compensation was not sustainable and its judgment is set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Limitation to file appeal
  • Legal disability (minority)
  • Natural guardian
  • Enhancement of compensation
  • Condonation of delay
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS. versus SRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS.

On the plaint's averments and attached registered sale deeds and revenue records showing an oral family partition in 1968 and registered sales in 1978, the plaintiffs had constructive notice and slept on their rights; the trial court correctly allowed the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit did not disclose a cause of action and was prima facie barred by limitation, and the High Court erred in remanding the matter.

Source excerpt

  • Return of plaint
  • Order vii rule 11 cpc
  • Partition
  • Registered sale deed
  • Remand
  • Cause of action
Read case analysis
Consumer protection

M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED versus SNEHASIS NANDA

On the facts, the essential sale transaction was between the respondent and the borrower and there was no privity of contract between the respondent and the appellant; therefore the respondent was not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the NCDRC's direction that the appellant pay Rs.13,20,000 (part of the claimed Rs.31,00,000) was unsustainable; the appellant's liability, if any, was limited to satisfying the borrower's Home Loan Agreement obligations (quantified sums) and could not exceed the sanctioned loan amount, hence the impugned NCDRC order was set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Definition of consumer
  • Privity of contract
  • Non-joinder
  • Tripartite agreement
  • Home loan agreement
  • Agreement for sale
Read case analysis
Limitation

OM PRAKASH GUPTA ALIAS LALLOOWA (NOW DECEASED) & ORS. versus SATISH CHANDRA (NOW DECEASED)

An application for substitution filed by heirs/ legal representatives of a deceased party under Order XXII Rule 4 is valid even if not filed by the opposite party; where such an application was pending or properly presented, dismissal of a second appeal as abated is unsustainable. The correct sequence under Articles 120 and 121 is substitution within 90 days of death, application to set aside abatement within the next 60 days, and only after 150 days is a Section 5 condonation application required. Rule 10-A requires clear intimation to court (including date of death) and the court to notify…

Source excerpt

  • Condonation of delay
  • Substitution of legal representatives
  • Abatement of suits/appeals
  • Article 136 remedies
  • Order xxii rule 10-a compliance
Read case analysis
Limitation

H. GURUSWAMY & ORS. versus A. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

The High Court erred in condoning an inordinate delay of about 2200 days without properly considering the Trial Court's findings about insufficiency of cause, prior adjudication and the lengthy pendency of the suit; therefore the rules of limitation must prevail and the Trial Court order dismissing the recall application is to be restored.

Source excerpt

  • Order 9 rule 13 cpc
  • Condonation of delay
  • Res judicata
  • Recall of order
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.