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

PREM AGGARWAL versus MOHAN SINGH & ORS.

The respondents complied with this Court's direction by tendering and depositing the award of Rs.2,00,00,000 within the stipulated period; the appellant unjustifiably obstructed execution and cannot retain possession after the suit for specific performance was dismissed and compensation awarded; therefore warrants of possession with police assistance were properly directed and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Execution of decree
  • Obstruction in execution of decree
  • Specific performance
  • Permanent injunction
  • Actus curiae neminem gravabit
  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

CUDDALORE POWERGEN CORPORATION LTD versus M/S CHEMPLAST CUDDALORE VINYLS LIMITED AND ANR.

Order II Rule 2 does not bar the second suit because the reliefs of specific performance and cancellation of the sale deed, though the respondent was entitled to them, were not available at the time of the first suit due to a Government Order which prevented registration of sale deeds; when the High Court quashed that GO the rights crystallized and a new cause of action arose, so the second suit was not barred and the plaint was rightly restored by the High Court.

Source excerpt

  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
  • Order vii rule 11(d) cpc
  • Specific performance
  • Permanent injunction
  • Cause of action
  • Registration of sale deeds
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

UNIWORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. versus INDEV LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.

Because the respondent had expressly reserved its rights in the first suit to claim arrears and damages, and the two suits arose from separate causes of action with leave granted under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC, the second suit for recovery of arrears and damages was maintainable; therefore the High Court order granting leave and dismissing the rejection application was correctly upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Rejection of plaint
  • Leave and license agreement
  • Termination of agreement
  • Permanent injunction
  • Arrear of rent
  • Damages
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER versus ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

The Court held that a suit for possession and a subsequent suit for damages for use and occupation are different causes of action; because the earlier suit sought only possession and did not claim damages, the later suit claiming damages from 1998 was maintainable and the application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was rightly dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Order vii rule 11(d) cpc
  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
  • Mesne profits
  • Damages for use and occupation
  • Cause of action
  • Maintainability of suit
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

A. VALLIAMMAI versus K.P. MURALI AND OTHERS

The suit for specific performance (O.S. No.21 of 2004) was barred by limitation under the second limb of Article 54 because the plaintiffs/assignees had notice of the defendant's refusal by July–September 1991; the decree of specific performance was therefore set aside and, in exercise of Article 142, substituted by a monetary decree of Rs.50,00,000 in favour of the assignees, with an interest direction if not paid within six months.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Limitation period under article 54
  • Readiness and willingness to perform
  • Constructive res judicata
  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
  • Section 63 indian contract act
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA versus SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

The High Court correctly allowed the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Order II Rule 2 CPC applies only to subsequent suits and not to amendments in an existing suit; amendments that are necessary to determine the real controversy and do not cause uncorrectable prejudice should be permitted; the provisos to s.21(5) and s.22(2) of the Specific Relief Act support allowing amendments to claim compensation or other reliefs at any stage, and the impugned High Court order permitting enhancement of the alternative claim for damages is affirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
  • Order vi rule 17 cpc
  • Limitation
  • Constructive res judicata
  • Specific performance
Read case analysis
Tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959

R. M. SUNDARAM @ MEENAKSHISUNDARAM versus SRI KAYAROHANASAMY AND NEELAYADHAKSHI AMMAN TEMPLE (THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER) NAGAPATTINAM, TAMIL NADU

The 26 items of jewellery were held to be a specific endowment (Adipooram Thiruvabaranam) donated for the religious purpose of adorning the deity during the Adipooram festival; dedication can be inferred from long uninterrupted possession and temple records; the appellant has no proprietary title, and the prior 1981 suit did not operate as res judicata because it was dismissed on technical grounds and did not decide the title on merits; appeals dismissed and appellant restrained from interfering with temple's rights to the jewellery.

Source excerpt

  • Specific endowment
  • Dedication of jewellery
  • Kudavarai (temple vault)
  • Religious charity
  • Constructive res judicata
  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

SRI LANKAPPA & ORS. versus KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the question of title and the deemed cancellation of the government grant in favour of KIC had been directly and finally adjudicated in earlier proceedings; KIC, being a party to those proceedings, was bound by those findings and could not maintain a subsequent suit for declaration of title based on the same grant. The trial court was therefore justified in rejecting the plaint as not maintainable, and the High Court erred in setting aside that rejection.

Source excerpt

  • Res judicata
  • Maintainability of suit
  • Rejection of plaint
  • Injunction
  • Title and possession
  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
Read case analysis
Specific relief

AKKAMMA & ORS. versus VEMAVATHI & ORS.

Although the plaintiffs failed to establish possession and therefore were not entitled to injunctive relief and the plea to amend the plaint to seek possession was properly rejected as time-barred, the trial court had positively found that the original plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and, because the 1987 plaint sought both declaratory and consequential relief, the proviso to Section 34 did not bar a declaratory decree; accordingly the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree declaring them owners of the suit property and that part of the High Court judgment denying declaratory relief…

Source excerpt

  • Declaratory relief
  • Injunction
  • Possession
  • Amendment of plaint
  • Maintainability
  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
Read case analysis
Hindu law

V. KALYANASWAMY (D) BY LRS. & ANR. versus L. BAKTHAVATSALAM (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

The Supreme Court held the propounders had proved the Will under s.69 Evidence Act and it was genuine, but the newspaper notice relied upon to effect severance was dated 12.05.1955 on the record so could not have been communicated and replied to on 11.05.1955; therefore no division was proved to have been brought about before the testator's death on 01.06.1955 (pre-1956 Act), so s.3(2) of the 1937 Act applied producing a limited estate in the widow which became absolute under s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and her compromise conferred the respondent branch the rights they claimed; c…

Source excerpt

  • Will and testament
  • Proof of execution of wills (ss.68,69 evidence act)
  • Partition and coparcenary
  • Section 14 hindu succession act 1956
  • Order ii rule 2 cpc
  • Section 33 evidence 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.