Popular Searches
Contact Us Contact Us
Type Name, Keywords to find judgments
Popular Searches

Civil Appeal

Mala Devi vs. Union of India & Ors.

In the landmark case of Mala Devi vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a railway employee's widow seeking family pension. The deceased, Shri Om Prakash Maharaj, worked continuously for over 9 years in the Railways as a substitute employee before dying in harness. Both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court had denied pension benefits citing lack of regularization and minimum service of 10 years. The Supreme Court overruled these decisions, holding that Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 allows pension benefits to temporary employees with at least one year of continuous service. The Court directed payment of arrears and regular pension, plus ex gratia relief of Rs. 5 lakhs under Article 142 of the Constitution.
July 29, 2025

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Usha Devi & Ors.

In The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Usha Devi & Ors., the Supreme Court partially allowed two appeals filed by insurance companies challenging the High Court’s order awarding Rs.15,00,000/- compensation to the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased, a truck driver, died in a collision involving two vehicles. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for lack of negligence evidence. The High Court reversed this, which was partly set aside by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court recalculated compensation as per the Second Schedule of the Act, holding that negligence is irrelevant under Section 163A and awarded Rs.4,77,839/- with 8% interest, payable jointly and severally by the insurer of the offending dumper truck.
July 29, 2025

Suresh Chandra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. vs. Parasram & Ors.

In Suresh Chandra (Deceased) vs. Parasram, the Supreme Court dealt with the legal implications of failing to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased co-appellant in a second appeal. The High Court had dismissed the appeal due to abatement caused by non-substitution. The Court rejected the appellants' plea for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of diligent procedural conduct. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order and reinforcing procedural rigour in civil appeals.
July 29, 2025

Sanju Bai Prajapati & Ors. vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

In Sanju Bai Prajapati vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., the Supreme Court reversed a High Court ruling that had denied compensation to the widow and minor children of a deceased accident victim. The Tribunal had granted Rs. 46,29,152/- based on credible eyewitness testimony and valid documentation. The High Court, however, questioned the delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in the witness statement. The Supreme Court held that the FIR delay was explained by the Murg report filed on the same day, and that the High Court had unjustly discredited the witness. The order of the High Court was set aside, and compensation reinstated. (Drafted Summary)
July 29, 2025

BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited

In BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited, the Supreme Court addressed whether Clause 13 of a contract constituted a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11, citing Clause 13. The High Court rejected the plea, emphasizing the conditional language "may be sought" in the clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Clause 13 merely offered a possibility for arbitration, requiring further mutual consent, and did not amount to a binding arbitration agreement. The Court reiterated the scope of judicial review under Section 11 is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. (Drafted Summary)
July 29, 2025

Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez-Goa vs. State of Goa & Ors. (Civil Appeal)

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which had affirmed the Administrative Tribunal's refusal to permit the Communidade of Tivim to enter into a compromise regarding tenancy rights. The Court held that the consent terms proposed by the Communidade were in violation of statutory provisions under the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, as they effectively transferred ownership rights and enabled non-agricultural use of land. The Court emphasized that statutory compliance and legal integrity cannot be overridden by private agreements.
July 29, 2025

Orissa High Court vs. Banshidhar Baug (CIVIL APPEAL)

The judgment addresses the legality of the Orissa High Court’s administrative decision to deny regularization of a daily wage employee. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court’s Single and Division Benches, holding that the respondent had no legal entitlement to regularization as his appointment was not in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that sympathy cannot replace legality in service matters.
July 29, 2025

Krishan Gopal vs. Gurmeet Kaur (Dead) Through LRs – CIVIL APPEAL

The case revolved around inheritance rights arising from ancestral property. The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision that granted partition rights to the respondent. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, reaffirming that legal heirs have valid claims under the Hindu Succession Act, and procedural objections cannot override substantive inheritance rights.
July 29, 2025

Arifa vs. Abhiman Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd – CIVIL APPEAL

This judgment concerns the legality of cancellation of a flat allotment by a housing co-operative society. The appellant, Arifa, was allotted a flat which was later canceled due to non-payment. The Supreme Court noted that the payment had already been made and that there was no legal basis for the cancellation. The Court set aside the High Court and Trial Court decisions, restoring the appellant’s rights.
July 29, 2025

Meena (Dead) Through LRs vs. Prayagraj – CIVIL APPEAL

The case pertains to the right of a daughter to inherit ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act. The Supreme Court set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts that had denied the appellant’s claim based on procedural delays. The Court emphasized the substantive right of a daughter to inherit and held that technicalities should not defeat the intent of the law. The matter was remanded for trial.
July 29, 2025

Umedraj Jain vs. V. Sudarsanan – CIVIL APPEAL

The case arose from a suit for money recovery based on a mortgage through title deeds. The appellant, who had purchased the mortgaged property pending litigation, challenged subsequent enforcement actions against him. After prolonged litigation and partial payments, the Supreme Court settled the matter by modifying the High Court’s order, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 15 lakhs in full and final settlement. The ruling emphasized practical resolution in long-pending litigation without creating precedent.
July 29, 2025

Pandurangan vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr. – CIVIL APPEAL

This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether a suit can be dismissed as barred by res judicata under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the plaintiff was not a party to the previous proceedings. The Court ruled that such a determination requires detailed analysis of prior pleadings and cannot be summarily decided at the stage of rejecting the plaint. The order of the High Court and the Trial Court rejecting the plaint was set aside, restoring the suit for full trial.
July 29, 2025

Dhanasingh Prabhu vs. Chandrasekar – CIVIL APPEAL

This judgment revolves around the validity of a Will allegedly executed by one Kannan in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment which dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession. The Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts that the Will had not been proved as required under the Indian Evidence Act and Succession Act. The decision reinforces the evidentiary threshold required for proving testamentary documents and the limitations of revisiting concurrent findings of fact.
July 29, 2025

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR vs. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Another – CIVIL APPEAL

This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether the plaintiff (Jagir Kaur) successfully proved ownership of the disputed land. The Court held that the findings of the First Appellate Court, which denied relief due to lack of credible evidence, were correct and ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court in second appeal. The High Court had erred in reversing findings of fact without identifying any perversity or substantial question of law. This case reinforces judicial discipline in second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC.
July 29, 2025

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Nirmala Devi – CIVIL APPEAL

The Supreme Court held that cancellation of a residential plot allotment by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on grounds of non-payment must be preceded by adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, in line with principles of natural justice. The Court affirmed the High Court's setting aside of the cancellation due to lack of personal service and absence of fair hearing. The Estate Officer failed to notify the allottee effectively and did not properly consider her request for time extension based on her husband's illness. The case reinforces that administrative actions must adhere to procedural fairness.
July 29, 2025

Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Dead) Through Legal Representative vs. Arvind Kumar – CIVIL APPEAL

This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether an eviction decree based on a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is valid when the notice sent via Registered Post is returned with an endorsement "ND" (Not Delivered). The Court ruled that such notice satisfies the requirement of "deemed service" under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The High Court had erred in reversing the Trial Court's eviction decree by misinterpreting postal endorsement. The judgment clarifies the legal standards for deemed service and restricts unwarranted interference in second appellate/revisional jurisdiction where procedural fairness has not been compromised.
July 29, 2025

M/s Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai – CIVIL APPEAL

The core legal issue in this appeal is whether time-barred claims can be entertained in conciliation and arbitration under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) but held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2). Consequently, time-barred claims can be discussed and settled during conciliation, but cannot be the basis of arbitration awards. The Court harmonized the provisions of the MSMED Act, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Limitation Act to ensure clarity and consistency in the law governing delayed payments to micro and small enterprises.
July 29, 2025

Ram Charan & Ors. vs Sukhram & Ors. (Civil Appeal)

In Ram Charan & Ors. vs Sukhram & Ors., the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the daughters of a Scheduled Tribe woman seeking partition in ancestral property. The trial and appellate courts had denied them the claim, holding that no custom supporting female succession had been proved. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that in absence of any proven custom to the contrary, the principles of justice, equity and good conscience—preserved under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875—must prevail. It emphasized that denial of inheritance to female heirs, without lawful justification, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
July 29, 2025

Suresh Jatav vs Sukhendra Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal -Motor Accident Compensation)

In Suresh Jatav vs Sukhendra Singh & Ors., the Supreme Court allowed the claimant’s appeal in a motor accident compensation case and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 7,19,480. The appellant, a skilled mason, suffered a compound leg fracture and arm fracture, leading to long-term disability. The Court held that the lower courts had erroneously undervalued the income, degree of disability, and future loss. The Supreme Court accepted expert medical testimony and reaffirmed that assessments of disability should not be based on conjecture but medical evidence.
July 29, 2025

The State of Kerala and Ors. vs. The Principal, KMCT Medical College and Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has resolved a major dispute over medical college fees in Kerala. The state government had tried to create a central fund to help poor students by taking a portion of the higher fees paid by NRI students. The Court ruled this was illegal because there was no law to support it. However, it did not order a refund to the NRI students. Instead, the Court directed that the extra money collected should be returned to the individual private colleges. These colleges must now act as "trustees" of this money and use it to provide scholarships and subsidized education to the BPL students enrolled in their own institutions.
July 6, 2025

Dr. Vimal Sukumar vs. D. Lawrence & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has stepped in to resolve a major leadership dispute within the Church of South India (CSI). The Court ruled that the election of the Church's head, the Moderator, was invalid because it was based on constitutional amendments that were not properly approved. However, the elections of other key office bearers were upheld. The Court cancelled the High Court's decision to appoint a committee to oversee all elections. Instead, it confirmed the appointment of a retired judge to conduct a fresh, fair election only for the post of Moderator. This judgment aims to restore proper governance while ensuring the day-to-day functioning of the Church continues.
July 6, 2025

Gopal Dikshit vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has sided with a homeowner whose insurance claim for a flooded basement was rejected. The insurance company denied the claim, blaming "seepage" (a slow leak) instead of "flooding" from heavy rain, which was covered by the policy. The company based its decision on a second, delayed inspection report. The Supreme Court found this unacceptable, noting that the first, immediate report had clearly identified flooding from heavy rain as the cause. The Court called the second report arbitrary and unreliable, set aside the rejection, and sent the case back to the National Consumer Commission to calculate the compensation owed.
July 5, 2025

Muruganandam vs. Muniyandi (Died) Through LRs. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ruled that an unregistered and unstamped agreement to sell property can be used as evidence in a lawsuit for specific performance. A man was prevented by lower courts from submitting such a document in his case. The Supreme Court overturned these decisions, explaining that while the document can't prove a completed sale, it can be used to prove the existence of the contract itself or an oral agreement to sell. The Court allowed the document to be placed on record, clearing the way for it to be considered in the trial.
July 5, 2025

Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute vs. Shweta Kabra and Others Etc. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ruled that a new, lower fee structure set for a dental college cannot be applied to students from previous academic years. The Chhattisgarh Dental College had charged a higher fee to students admitted in 2003-04 and 2004-05. A fee committee later fixed a lower fee of ₹1.25 lakh per year, but only from the 2005-06 session onwards. The High Court had ordered the college to refund the extra fees to the older batches. The Supreme Court overturned this, stating that the new fee structure was not meant to be retrospective. The college is now allowed to recover the refunded amount by encashing the bank guarantees provided by the students.
July 5, 2025

Tata Mohan Rao vs. S. Venkateswarlu and Others Etc. (CIVIL APPEAL – Contempt of Court)

The Supreme Court has punished a government officer (Tehsildar) for contempt after he demolished people's homes despite a High Court order protecting them. While the Court called his actions "inhumane," it decided against sending him to jail to protect his family from suffering the consequences of his dismissal from service. Instead, the officer was demoted from his current rank of Deputy Collector back to Tehsildar and was ordered to pay a hefty fine of ₹1 lakh. The ruling emphasizes that no one is above the law, especially public servants.
July 4, 2025

A. Raja vs. D. Kumar (CIVIL APPEAL – Election Petition)

The Supreme Court has restored the election of MLA A. Raja, whose victory from the reserved Devikulam constituency was cancelled by the Kerala High Court. The High Court had ruled that he was not eligible for the Scheduled Caste seat. The Supreme Court overturned this, establishing a crucial legal principle: the validity of a caste certificate cannot be questioned in an election petition. Such challenges must go through the dedicated state-level Scrutiny Committee. The Court also found that the evidence claiming Raja was a Christian was weak and insufficient to disqualify him.
July 4, 2025

M. Seetharama @ Seetharama Gowda vs. The Manager Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

The Supreme Court has increased the compensation for a 38-year-old man who lost part of his foot in a 2015 road accident. The Court found the amount awarded by the High Court (₹12.65 lakh) was too low. It raised his assumed monthly income to ₹10,000, added an amount for future career growth, and increased the compensation for his pain and suffering. The final revised compensation stands at ₹17,06,486, highlighting the need for courts to award fair and just compensation in accident cases.
July 4, 2025

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts should not interfere with orders from the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) when a dedicated appeals body, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), is available. The case involved CERC allowing PGCIL to seek compensation from MPPTCL for project delays. Instead of appealing to APTEL, MPPTCL went to the High Court. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision to hear the case, clarifying that CERC has the authority to issue such orders to fill regulatory gaps, and any challenge must first go through the proper statutory channel of appeal.
July 4, 2025

Krishan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ordered equal compensation for landowners from two adjacent villages in Haryana whose lands were acquired for a township. The High Court had awarded a lower amount to the landowners of Kukrola village compared to the neighboring Fazalwas village, despite the lands being similar. The Supreme Court corrected this disparity, stating that it was unfair to pay different rates for lands with similar potential. It increased the compensation for the affected landowners in Kukrola to match the higher rate of ₹1.21 crore per acre.
July 4, 2025

M/s Gayatri Project Limited vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot challenge an arbitration award on the grounds of "wrong jurisdiction" if you did not raise that objection during the arbitration process itself. In a dispute involving a Madhya Pradesh government contract, a company participated in arbitration under the central law without protest. After losing, it tried to get the award cancelled by claiming a special state law should have been used. The Supreme Court said this was not allowed and that parties must raise such objections at the earliest stage.
July 4, 2025

Old Jalukai Village Council vs. Kakiho Village & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

The Supreme Court has intervened in a dispute over the creation of a new village in Nagaland. The High Court had ordered the state to officially recognize the new village, but an older, neighboring village objected, claiming the new village was on its ancestral land. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's order, emphasizing that Nagaland's unique customary laws, which require a 'No Objection Certificate' from the parent village, must be respected. The Court has now directed the state to reconsider the matter after hearing all objections.
July 2, 2025

Arabian Exports Private Limited vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (CIVIL APPEAL) Supreme Court of India Judgment

The central issue is whether a dispute raised by an insured party, after signing a full and final discharge voucher in favour of the insurer, can still be referred to arbitration. The Court had to determine if the signing of such a voucher under alleged financial duress and coercion extinguishes the arbitration agreement or if the dispute regarding the validity of the discharge itself is arbitrable.
July 2, 2025

Lt. Col NK Ghai (Retd.) vs. Union of India and Another (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

The Supreme Court has given a retired Army officer a fresh chance at promotion. The officer, Lt. Col. NK Ghai, was repeatedly denied promotion to the rank of Colonel. The Court found that another officer in a similar situation had his case reconsidered and was promoted. To ensure fairness, the Court has now directed the Chief of Army Staff to reconsider Lt. Col. Ghai's case as well, and if he is found fit, to grant him the promotion with all associated benefits.
July 2, 2025

State of Kerala & Another vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. & Others (CIVIL APPEAL; WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)) Supreme Court of India Judgment

The Supreme Court has ruled that DTH operators like Tata Play are liable to pay both service tax to the Central Government and entertainment tax to State Governments. The Court explained that providing a DTH service has two different aspects: the "service" of broadcasting and the "entertainment" you receive. Since these are two distinct aspects, both the Centre and the States have the power to tax their respective parts of the same activity. This judgment settles a major tax dispute and confirms the power of states to levy entertainment tax on DTH services.
July 2, 2025

M/s Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited vs. Union of India & Anr. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration : The central issue is whether a commercial suit filed after the enactment of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but before the Supreme Court's declaration of its mandatory nature in Patil Automation, should be rejected for non-compliance with the pre-institution mediation requirement, or if it can be kept in abeyance to allow the parties to undergo mediation.
June 28, 2025

Kalyani Transco vs. M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The central issue is the legality and validity of the resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL), which was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Supreme Court had to determine whether the resolution process complied with the mandatory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had acted within its jurisdiction while modifying the approved plan and dealing with related issues, such as the attachment of assets by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
June 28, 2025

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vs. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration : The central issue is whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the appellant's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court had to determine if the plaint, on its face, failed to disclose a valid cause of action, particularly concerning the execution of sale deeds by a person whose power of attorney had already been revoked.
June 28, 2025

K.R. Suresh vs. R. Poornima & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration : The central issue for consideration is whether the appellant (original plaintiff) is entitled to a refund of the advance money of ₹20,00,000 paid towards an agreement to sell, after he failed to pay the balance consideration and the agreement was terminated by the sellers. This involves determining the validity of the forfeiture of the advance money and interpreting the law on seeking alternative relief for a refund under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
June 28, 2025

Prasannatma Das vs. K.N. Haridasan Nambiar (Dead) and Others. (CIVIL APPEAL)-Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration : The central issue revolves around the ownership and control of the ISKCON temple and its properties in Bangalore. The Court had to determine which of the two rival societies—ISKCON Mumbai (the parent society) or ISKCON Bangalore (a locally registered society)—was the rightful owner of the properties. This involved examining the validity of the registration of ISKCON Bangalore, the legitimacy of its governing body, and the nature of the property allotment made by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
June 28, 2025

Maya P.C. & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The central issue is whether the State Government can, through a subsequent Government Order (G.O.), withdraw service benefits like seniority, probation, and promotion from persons with disabilities who were already regularized in service against supernumerary posts under a previous G.O. The Court had to determine if denying these benefits, after the employees had been given a "regular appointment," was discriminatory, irrational, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
June 28, 2025

Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The central issue is whether the High Court was correct in upholding the dismissal of the appellant's partition suit by the Single Judge under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The Court had to determine if the suit was maintainable in light of previous decrees and admissions made by the parties in earlier litigations concerning the same properties, and whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action for a fresh partition.
June 28, 2025

R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.(CIVIL APPEAL)-Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The central issue is the legality and constitutional validity of a retrospective amendment to the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955. This amendment granted en bloc seniority to in-service candidates (departmental quota) over more meritorious direct recruits selected from the open market in the same recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Court had to determine if this preferential treatment, which overturned seniority based on merit, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
June 28, 2025