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 and conciliation act, 1996

M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. versus M/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE

Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only where the seat of arbitration is in India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is Indian law; the Distributorship Agreement designated Dubai as the venue with UAE Arbitration & Conciliation rules as curial law and UAE law governing the contract, so Dubai is the seat and Part I is inapplicable; consequently the Section 11 petition in India is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Seat of arbitration
  • Applicability of part i of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996
  • Jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction clauses
  • Choice of law
  • Doctrine of forum non conveniens
  • Closest connection test
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA versus IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA

The contemnor deliberately and with clear intention breached solemn undertakings and orders of this Court, suppressed material developments (including the Kenyan High Court order dismissing registration), obstructed visitation and communications, and invoked foreign proceedings to challenge enforceability of Indian orders; these acts constituted both civil contempt (willful disobedience and breach of undertakings) and criminal contempt (obstructing administration of justice and lowering the authority of the Court). Accordingly, the contemnor was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fin…

Source excerpt

  • Civil contempt
  • Criminal contempt
  • Undertakings to court
  • Mirror order/registration
  • Child custody
  • Article 129
Read case analysis
Child and family welfare

ROHITH THAMMANA GOWDA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and ordered return of the child to the United States, holding that the welfare of the child (a naturalised US citizen born and brought up in the US for about a decade) required return to his native country; the High Court had failed to give due weight to the child’s nationality, upbringing and the US court orders directing return, and therefore the best interests of the child supported custody being given to the appellant (father) and the child’s return to the USA.

Source excerpt

  • Child custody
  • Habeas corpus
  • Parens patriae jurisdiction
  • Recognition of foreign court orders
  • Best interests of the child
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

RAJESWARI CHANDRASEKAR GANESH versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Court held that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the children; having regard to the facts (both children residents of and educated in the USA, one a US citizen and the other a US permanent resident, the mother's stable situation in the USA and the circumstances of removal), the petitioner established a prima facie case that custody with the father was contrary to the children's welfare and that repatriation to the USA would be in their best interests; accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the father was directed to take steps to return the children to the USA and comp…

Source excerpt

  • Welfare of the child
  • Parens patriae
  • Parental alienation syndrome
  • Comity of courts and foreign orders
  • Repatriation of children
  • Guardianship legislation
Read case analysis
Micro, small and medium enterprises act, 2006

M/S. VAISHNO ENTERPRISES versus HAMILTON MEDICAL AG & ANR.

The Agreement's choice of law clause makes the laws of India prevailing at the time of contract execution applicable; since the contract was executed on 24.08.2020 and the appellant was not registered as an MSME until 28.08.2020, under Section 2(n) read with Section 8 of the MSME Act the Act was not applicable to the supplier at the time of the contract; therefore the Council had no jurisdiction under Section 18 to entertain the dispute with respect to Respondent No.1, and the High Court's order to that effect was correctly affirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of msme facilitation council under section 18
  • Choice of law clause
  • Effect of timing of msme registration
  • Applicability of msme act to foreign buyers
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH) versus GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD.

The Supreme Court held that the expression 'District Court' in Section 44A CPC, read with Section 2(4) CPC and Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, includes a High Court when it is exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction by reason of the notified pecuniary limit; therefore where the decretal amount exceeds the pecuniary limit notified under Section 5(2) the Delhi High Court is competent to execute a foreign money decree filed under Section 44A CPC. The Division Bench judgment holding otherwise was quashed and the execution petition was restored to the Division Bench for dec…

Source excerpt

  • Execution of foreign decrees
  • Jurisdiction of courts for execution
  • Pecuniary jurisdiction
  • Section 44a cpc
  • Delhi high court act section 5(2)
Read case analysis
Family law

SRI NILANJAN BHATTACHARYA versus THE STATE OF KARANATAKA AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, held that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and that the High Court's direction allowing repatriation to the US was in the child's interest; however, the specific conditions requiring (a) a District Health Officer certificate that India is free of COVID-19 and (b) a certificate from a US medical authority that the US region is congenial for residence were unenforceable and were set aside, subject to the appellant's undertaking to comply with prevailing Indian and US travel and public health regulations, and w…

Source excerpt

  • Habeas corpus
  • Parens patriae jurisdiction
  • Welfare of the child
  • Foreign custody orders
  • Comity of courts
  • Covid-19 travel restrictions
Read case analysis
Limitation act, 1963

BANK OF BARODA versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

The limitation period for executing a decree passed by a foreign court of a reciprocating country in India is the limitation prescribed in the cause (reciprocating) country, subject to the decree being executable under Section 13 CPC; limitation begins to run from the date the decree was passed in the cause country, but if the decree-holder first takes steps-in-aid to execute the decree in the cause country and the decree is not fully satisfied, the decree-holder may file in India within three years from finalisation of those execution proceedings (Article 137).

Source excerpt

  • Limitation for execution of foreign decrees
  • Section 44a cpc
  • Articles 136 and 137 limitation act
  • Cause country vs forum country
  • Date from which limitation runs
  • Steps-in-aid to execution
Read case analysis
Family law

G H JASMEET KAUR versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

The minor children and parties are U.S. citizens with ordinary residence in the U.S.; the paramount welfare of children is best secured by joint parenting in the U.S. Indian courts lack jurisdiction as the children were not ‘ordinarily residing’ in India under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Directions securing the welfare of the children and ensuring due process for both parents in the U.S. were issued, balancing comity and best interest principles.

Source excerpt

  • Guardianship and custody of children
  • Jurisdiction of indian courts in custody matters
  • Comity of courts
  • Enforcement of foreign custody orders
Read case analysis
Succession law

JOSE PAULO COUTINHO versus MARIA LUIZAVALENTINA PEREIRA & ANR.

The Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as enforced through the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, is an Indian law and applies to succession and inheritance of all properties of Goan domiciles, wherever situated in India. Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act and personal law statutes do not apply to such Goan domiciles. Probate granted to a will does not affect inheritance rights under the Code; the inventory of properties must include assets situated outside Goa.

Source excerpt

  • Applicability of portuguese civil code post-annexation
  • Succession and inheritance for goan domiciles
  • Effect of probate on inheritance
  • Special law versus general law in succession
  • Inventory proceedings including out-of-state property
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.