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
Consumer protection

M/S SUNEJA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. versus ANITA MERCHANT

The Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should not as a matter of routine award compound interest as compensation or punitive damages in real-estate refund matters; the decision in Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga does not constitute a precedent obliging fora to award compound interest universally; awarding compound interest is an exceptional equitable measure that requires detailed justification and specification of relevant factors and period of compounding.

Source excerpt

  • Compound interest
  • Punitive damages
  • Jurisdiction of consumer fora
  • Compensation assessment
  • Unjust enrichment
Read case analysis
Banking

PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED versus VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 challenging a proposed or actual measure under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act against a private Assets Reconstruction Company are not maintainable where an efficacious statutory remedy by appeal under Section 17 exists, and that the High Court erred in entertaining the writs and continuing ex-parte interim stay orders; the High Court's interim orders were vacated and the writ petitions dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Sarfaesi act
  • Section 13(2)
  • Section 13(4)
  • Section 17
  • Security interest (enforcement) rules, 2002
  • Writ jurisdiction under article 226
Read case analysis
Arbitration

CHANDIGARH CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

The Court held that the arbitrator's award fixing premium at 93.12% was unsustainable because reasons were not given and the contract/tender documents supported a sanctioned premium of 35.02%; accordingly claims under Nos.2,3,8 and 12 are allowed but to be calculated at 35.02% premium and paid with interest at 12% p.a.; Claim No.1 as allowed by the High Court is sustained; interest as awarded by arbitrator at 18% was excessive and reduced to 12% with a higher rate of 18% for delayed payment beyond the specified period.

Source excerpt

  • Arbitral award reason requirement
  • Interpretation of contract clauses (clause 39, clause 63)
  • Calculation of tender premium for extra items
  • Claims for extra work on construction contracts
  • Interest on delayed payments
  • Remittal to arbitrator vs determination by court
Read case analysis
Contract law

GANESH SHET versus DR. C.S.G.K. SETTY AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that there was no concluded contract between the parties on 25.1.1984 at Delhi, and the plaintiff did not accept the opportunity to amend the plaint to plead an agreement of 28.4.1984. Relief for specific performance cannot be granted based on evidence alone, without proper pleadings. The discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing specific performance was not contrary to established principles. No decree for specific performance can be granted.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Discretionary relief
  • Pleadings and evidence
  • Variation in contract terms
Read case analysis
Contract law

KALYANPUR LIME WORKS LTD versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

Neither party was under a mistake of fact; mistake, if any, was one of law regarding the effect of assignment of lease. Section 18(a) of the Specific Relief Act applied as the government held imperfect title at time of contract but was competent to grant lease after previous encumbrances expired. As a substantial portion of the lease period had already lapsed, relief could only be granted under section 15 of the Specific Relief Act with compensation, as plaintiff relinquished further claims. Specific performance was refused as only a short period of the lease remained and compensation was hel…

Source excerpt

  • Mistake as to fact and law
  • Government leases
  • Specific performance
  • Compensation in lieu of specific performance
  • Assignment of lease without consent
  • Imperfect title and rights of purchaser/lessee
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.