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
Environmental law

ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

The appeals were dismissed because the pleadings in the original NGT application, the civil appeals and the subsequently filed writ petition before the High Court demonstrated overlap and parallel challenges to the same NOC dated 07.02.2024, the appellants failed to inform or seek permission from this Court about initiation of the writ petition while the civil appeals were pending, and there was reason to believe the NGT proceedings were instituted to subserve the business interest of appellant no.3; accordingly the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Source excerpt

  • Parallel proceedings
  • Non-disclosure of proceedings
  • Bonafides of parties
  • Siting criteria for petrol pumps
  • Challenge to noc
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Limitation act, 1963

INDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The High Court's condonation of the 1537-day delay is upheld because the dispute concerns title to land claimed by the State as government land and in the State's possession, a matter that requires adjudication on merits; accordingly the Second Appeal should be heard on merits, subject to the respondent paying costs of Rs.50,000 to the appellant within one month, failing which the Second Appeal shall be dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Condonation of delay
  • Second appeal
  • Sufficient cause
  • Government land
  • Possession
  • Limitation
Read case analysis
Service law

STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. versus SUDHANSU SEKHAR JENA

The Single Judge's order directing that the entire period of job-contract employment be counted for pension was not sustainable. Under Rule 18 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 a distinction exists between work-charged and job-contract establishments: for job-contract employees only such period of job-contract service as makes them eligible for pension may be added to qualifying service; the Court therefore set aside the Single Judge's contrary order. However, because the State pursued the matters in a careless and lethargic manner causing inordinate delay, the State was orde…

Source excerpt

  • Pension computation
  • Job contract employees
  • Work-charged employees
  • Inordinate delay
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY

The High Court rightly refused to condone the inordinate delay of 1788 days in filing the second appeal because the State failed to satisfactorily explain a sufficient cause arising within the prescribed period of limitation; accordingly the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Delay
  • Condonation of delay
  • Limitation
  • Second appeal
  • Sufficient cause
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Consumer law

RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. versus RAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS

The National Commission’s order foreclosing the appellant’s right to file a written statement was set aside because the record did not show that a copy of the complaint had been supplied to the appellant; therefore it was inappropriate to foreclose the right on conjecture and the appellant was permitted to file the written statement by a specified date subject to payment of costs, with timelines fixed for replication and affidavit of evidence.

Source excerpt

  • Foreclosure of right to file written statement
  • Service of complaint
  • Limitation for filing written statement
  • Affidavit of evidence
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Code of criminal procedure, 1973

K. RAVI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Section 216 does not confer a right on an accused to seek a fresh discharge after the court has framed charge where his earlier Section 227 discharge application was dismissed; an order dismissing an application for modification of charge under Section 216 is interlocutory and, in view of the bar in Section 397(2), a revision under Section 397 against such an interlocutory order is not maintainable. The High Court erred in allowing the revision and setting aside the Sessions Court charge; the High Court order is set aside and the Sessions Court order restored; costs awarded to the appellant.

Source excerpt

  • Section 216 cr.p.c.
  • Section 227 cr.p.c.
  • Section 397 cr.p.c.
  • Framing of charge
  • Alteration/modification of charge
  • Discharge
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. versus BIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS

Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 does not itself empower compulsory acquisition of immovable property; it enables the Municipal Commissioner to identify land required for public streets, parks etc., but compulsory acquisition must follow the procedure under Chapter XXXIII, in particular Section 537 whereby the State Government may order acquisition. Section 363 does not supply a procedure for compulsory acquisition. Further, Article 300A requires procedural safeguards (the seven identified sub-rights); a mere power coupled with a provision for compensation is insuffi…

Source excerpt

  • Compulsory acquisition of immovable property
  • Public purpose
  • Fair compensation
  • Procedural safeguards in acquisition
  • Interpretation of kolkata municipal corporation act, 1980
  • Article 300a rights
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus SUKHI RAM & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that courts have jurisdiction under Section 148 CPC to extend time for deposit in pre-emption suits where there is a bona fide, minor inadvertent deficiency (facts similar to Johri Singh), and therefore set aside the High Court order, permitted deposit of ₹14 by a specified date and awarded costs to respondents.

Source excerpt

  • Extension of time
  • Section 148 cpc
  • Pre-emption suit
  • Deposit of money
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

PARTEEK BANSAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

The Supreme Court held that the second FIR (FIR No.156 of 2015, Women Police Station, Udaipur) was an abuse of the process of law because it repeated the same allegations after an earlier complaint and FIR had been lodged at Hisar; the Udaipur complaint itself acknowledged the earlier Hisar complaint, the High Court's findings to the contrary were contrary to record, and the complainants' conduct (not withdrawing the first complaint and not appearing at trial) showed an intention to harass the appellant; accordingly the second FIR was quashed and costs were imposed.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of fir
  • Abuse of process
  • Misuse of state machinery
  • Jurisdiction
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Forest law

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. versus MOHD. ABDUL QASIM (DIED) PER LRS.

The High Court erred in exercising review by admitting and relying upon material produced after the decree and by material emanating from an authority lacking jurisdiction (District Collector) with respect to lands already declared reserved forest under Section 15 A.P. Forest Act; the review constituted a re-hearing beyond the limited scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and was therefore set aside and the judgment in A.S. No.145 of 1994 restored.

Source excerpt

  • Reserved forest
  • Review petition
  • Maintainability
  • Order xlvii rule 1 cpc
  • Section 15 a.p. forest act
  • Section 16 a.p. forest act
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.