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
Urban land (ceiling and regulation) law

DALSUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI SATASIA & OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

Because notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was not served on the actual possessors (the appellants), de facto possession was not transferred to the State by any of the statutory methods before the Repealing Act came into force; consequently proceedings under the ULC Act relating to transfer of possession abated under Section 4 of the Repealing Act and the appellants are entitled to consequential reliefs; the High Court's contrary findings were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Vesting
  • Possession
  • De jure and de facto possession
  • Paper possession
  • Abatement of proceedings
  • Notice requirements under s.10(5) ulc act
Read case analysis
Forest law

ROHAN VIJAY NAHAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Where vesting under Section 3(1) of the MPFA is asserted on the basis of Section 2(f)(iii) by reference to notices under Section 35(3) of the IFA, those notices must have been served in accordance with Section 35(5) and form part of a live process capable of culminating in a Section 35(1) notification; absent proof of service, a final notification and other contemporaneous statutory steps (possession, inquiry, compensation), vesting has not occurred and consequential revenue mutation entries cannot perfect acquisition; accordingly the High Court’s dismissal was set aside and impugned mutation…

Source excerpt

  • Vesting under maharashtra private forests (acquisition) act, 1975
  • Service of notice under section 35(3) of the indian forest act, 1927
  • Mutation and revenue entries
  • Strict construction of expropriatory legislation
  • Precedent and stare decisis
  • Article 141 and judicial discipline
Read case analysis
Landlord-tenant law

GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD) versus K. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.

There was no cogent material on record showing the appellants committed acts or negligence destructive of or injurious to the land or crops to bring the case within s.3(2)(b); the Revenue Court erred in mechanically relying on the commissioner’s report and the High Court erred in affirming that order in revision. Given the protective purpose of the Act 1955, eviction is permissible only on cogent and reliable evidence of gross violation; accordingly the High Court’s order and the Revenue Court’s eviction order were set aside and the appellants’ possession protected.

Source excerpt

  • Section 3(2)(b) tamil nadu cultivating tenants protection act, 1955
  • Eviction of cultivating tenants
  • Cutting/pruning of trees
  • Commissioner’s report
  • Beneficial/beneficent construction
  • Revision under section 6-b
Read case analysis
Property law

MAHESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR(S) versus BRIJESH KUMAR & ORS.

Because the land was declared non-agricultural under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act during the pendency of the litigation and the tenancy agreement showed non-agricultural use from inception, the Civil Court had jurisdiction; subsequent declaration during the proceedings must be noticed and the High Court's order returning the plaint was set aside and the matter remitted for adjudication on merits.

Source excerpt

  • Plaint
  • Return of plaint
  • Jurisdiction
  • Order vii rule 10 cpc
  • Section 143 upzalr act
  • Non-agricultural land
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD. versus MAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.

The High Court erred in rejecting the plaint in its entirety under Order VII Rule 11 CPC because the plaint, on its face, raised multiple and distinct causes of action including a separate cause based on sale deeds executed after revocation of authority which gave rise to triable issues of title; where any triable issue survives, the plaint should not be summarily rejected and the matter must be adjudicated by a civil court; accordingly the High Court order was set aside and the trial court order restored.

Source excerpt

  • Order vii rule 11 cpc
  • Rejection of plaint
  • Title to immovable property
  • Unregistered agreement to sell
  • Power of attorney
  • Mortgage vs sale
Read case analysis
Property law

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. versus DR. PASUPULETI NIRMALA HANUMANTHA RAO CHARITABLE TRUST

The Supreme Court held that the District Collector's 08.02.2001 alienation was a conditional allotment of Government land under the statutory scheme (Rules 1975, G.O.Ms. No.635 and Board Standing Order 24), not a sale; the allotment was subject to express conditions known to the allottee (charitable use, completion period, tree planting) and Section 10 TPA does not nullify such statutory conditions; because the allottee violated the conditions by cutting a colony and selling plots, that conduct amounted to a fraud on the statute, and the High Court's characterization of the transaction as an…

Source excerpt

  • Alienation/allotment of state land
  • Conditional allotment and resumption
  • Section 10 transfer of property act restraint on alienation
  • Fraud on statute
  • Use of land for charitable purposes
Read case analysis
Service law

AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

The charges against the Appellant were held to be allegations of a wrongful quasi-judicial order passed in good faith without evidence of extraneous influence or gratification and thus do not fall within the K.K. Dhawan exceptions to warrant disciplinary proceedings; further, there was an unexplained inordinate delay of 14 years in initiating departmental proceedings when the alleged misconduct was within the department's knowledge, and such delay justified quashing the State's appeal and restoring the Single Judge's order quashing the chargesheet.

Source excerpt

  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Quasi-judicial orders
  • Land settlement
  • Chargesheet
  • Unexplained delay
  • Extraneous influence
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

PERIYAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS. versus V. RAJAMANI & ANR. ETC.

The Court held that respondent nos.1 and 2 could not successfully invoke cultivating-tenant protection to defeat a decree for specific performance and possession affirmed by higher courts where they failed to contest the original suit and produced no independent documentary evidence; matters which ought to have been raised in the original suit cannot be allowed to undermine the decree in execution proceedings; the High Court and executing court orders allowing the respondents’ Section 47 application and refusing the appellants’ amendments were erroneous and are set aside; possession must be d…

Source excerpt

  • Section 47 cpc
  • Order xxi rules 97-103 cpc
  • Execution of decree
  • Cultivating tenants protection
  • Possession and eviction
  • Amendment of execution petition
Read case analysis
Criminal law

PRADIP N. SHARMA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Quashing of FIR was refused because the allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences involving alleged misuse of official position and required thorough investigation; however, anticipatory bail was granted because custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary for the documentary nature of the allegations, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and cooperation with investigation; appeals disposed accordingly.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of fir
  • Anticipatory bail
  • Misuse of official position
  • Criminal breach of trust
  • Investigation
  • Custodial interrogation
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANR versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.

The Court held that appellants were entitled to interest on the refunded stamp duty despite absence of an express statutory provision because retention of the amount was without authority of law (Article 265), restitution and unjust enrichment principles apply, and money retained without right carries the obligation to pay interest; accordingly the respondents were directed to pay interest of Rs. 4,35,968 within two months.

Source excerpt

  • Refund of stamp duty
  • Interest on delayed refund
  • Doctrine of restitution
  • Unjust enrichment
  • Article 265
  • Article 226
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.