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

THIRUNAGALINGAM versus LINGESWARAN & ANR.

The High Court order condoning the delay of 1116 days is set aside because the respondents relied on the same explanations that had earlier been considered and rejected by the courts including this Court in SLP (C) Nos.2054 & 2055 of 2022; repetition of previously adjudicated and dismissed grounds without new material amounts to abuse of process; consequently the delay cannot be condoned and the High Court order is perverse.

Source excerpt

  • Condonation of delay
  • Order ix rule 13 cpc
  • Order xli rule 3a cpc
  • Ex‑parte decree
  • Abuse of process
Read case analysis
Specific relief act

SHYAM KUMAR INANI versus VINOD AGRAWAL & ORS.

The Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 was validly proved and enforceable; plaintiffs paid full consideration, took possession and established part performance under Section 53A; the suit was within limitation under the second part of Article 54; allegations of fraud, pardanashin status, vagueness and undervaluation were not proved by defendants; subsequent sale deeds executed during pendency and in violation of injunction are void; Power of Attorney holders with firsthand knowledge could testify; High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court and trial court decree is restored.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Agreement to sell
  • Power of attorney
  • Possession
  • Lis pendens
  • Pardanashin
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
Transfer of property act

PRAKASH (DEAD) BY LR. versus G. ARADHYA AND ORS.

The Sale Deed, on its terms, conveyed absolute title for a consideration of ₹5,000 with delivery of possession and entitlement to mutation; the reconveyance agreement executed separately conferred only a personal right to repurchase for five years. Under the proviso to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a reconveyance condition must be embodied in the document effecting the sale to constitute a mortgage by conditional sale. Therefore the transaction was an absolute sale with a collateral reconveyance agreement and not a mortgage, and the High Court's dismissal of the appella…

Source excerpt

  • Mortgage by conditional sale
  • Sale with condition of repurchase
  • Reconveyance agreement
  • Section 58(c)
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

BHASKER & ANR. versus AYODHYA JEWELLERS

The Court expressed a prima facie view that to avoid inconsistency between Order XXI Rule 95 and Article 134, Article 134 should be read to start from the date on which the sale certificate recording confirmation of auction is actually issued to the purchaser; the decision in Pattam Khader Khan (particularly paragraph 11) requires reconsideration, and the issue is referred to a larger Bench for final determination.

Source excerpt

  • Order xxi rules 92, 94, 95
  • Article 134 limitation act
  • Sale certificate as condition precedent
  • Starting point of limitation for rule 95 applications
Read case analysis
Waqf act

SABIR ALI KHAN versus SYED MOHD. AHMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS

Where transfers of waqf property are void ab initio for lack of statutory prior sanction, the transferees' possession is adverse from the date of transfer and limitation under Article 65 runs from that date; Article 96 applies only to voidable transfers by a manager and cannot be invoked to revive claims barred by Section 27 of the Limitation Act; a beneficiary (distinct from a Mutawalli/manager or trustee) may acquire title by adverse possession of waqf property; Section 107 of the Waqf Act, 1995 does not revive rights extinguished under pre-existing limitation law; applying these principles…

Source excerpt

  • Recovery of waqf property
  • Registration of waqf
  • Validity of transfers in contravention of statutory sanction
  • Application of articles 65 and 96 of the limitation act
  • Effect of section 107 of the waqf act
Read case analysis
Insolvency and bankruptcy

M/S TECH SHARP ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. versus SANGHVI MOVERS LIMITED

The Court held that the material date for computing limitation is the date on which the right to sue accrues (date of default), not the date of enforcement of the IBC; pendency of proceedings in a parallel forum which had jurisdiction does not suspend or save limitation for initiating CIRP under Section 9; because the last acknowledgment was in 2013 and no fresh acknowledgment or jurisdictional defect existed, the Section 9 application filed in 2018 was barred by limitation and the NCLAT order remitting the matter was unsustainable.

Source excerpt

  • Initiation of cirp under section 9
  • Limitation
  • Acknowledgment of debt
  • Condonation of delay
  • Winding up proceedings
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

SARANPAL KAUR ANAND versus PRADUMAN SINGH CHANDHOK AND OTHERS

By majority (Justice Sanjiv Khanna) the plaint, read with documents and legal notices filed and relied upon, disclosed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the 1969 sale well before filing suit; applying Article 58 of the Limitation Act the declaration claim was time-barred and Section 17 could not rescue the claim because the plaintiff did not plead discovery date or inability to discover with reasonable diligence; therefore the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) and applications for amendment were unnecessary and rightly dismissed. The court held that procedural prov…

Source excerpt

  • Rejection of plaint under order vii rule 11(d)
  • Preliminary issue under order xiv rule 2
  • Judgment on admissions under order xii rule 6
  • Pleading of fraud (order vi rule 4, order vii rule 6)
  • Section 17 limitation act (fraud/mistake)
Read case analysis
Insolvency and bankruptcy code

V NAGARAJAN versus SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD.& ORS.

Sections 61(1) and (2) IBC, read with Rule 22(2) NCLAT Rules and Section 12 Limitation Act, require that for appeals under the IBC the aggrieved party exercise diligence and apply for a certified copy upon pronouncement of the order; limitation runs from pronouncement unless an application for a certified copy is filed within the limitation period so that time to obtain the copy may be excluded. A party cannot await a statutorily mandated free copy under s.420(3) Companies Act/Rule 50 NCLT Rules to prevent limitation from running where IBC omits the words 'made available' and timing is critic…

Source excerpt

  • Limitation period for appeals under ibc
  • Requirement of certified copy for appeal to nclat
  • Computation of limitation from receipt of free certified copy
  • Application of section 12 limitation act explanation
Read case analysis
Arbitration

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER versus M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.

The Court held that section 43 of the Arbitration Act makes the Limitation Act applicable to appeals under section 37 and that where appeals fall under the Commercial Courts Act (specified value at or above three lakh rupees leading to s.13(1A)), a uniform 60-day limitation applies; section 5 Limitation Act remains available but must be interpreted in the context of the Arbitration Act and Commercial Courts Act so that only short delays may be condoned in exceptional cases where the appellant acted bona fide and not negligently. The Court overruled N.V. International (2020) 2 SCC 109 to the e…

Source excerpt

  • Condonation of delay
  • Limitation period for appeals
  • Appeals under section 37 arbitration act
  • Application of section 5 limitation act
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Speedy disposal of disputes
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.