Civil Law

Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Eviction Disputes: Himangni Enterprises vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, Civil Law, Delhi Rent Act, 1955, Delhi Rent Act, 1955 with Section 3, Eviction, Judges, Jurisdiction, R.K. Agrawal, Tenancy Disputes

Can a civil court hear an eviction suit when the lease agreement has an arbitration clause? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in Himangni Enterprises vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia. This case clarifies that eviction matters, especially those involving statutory protections for tenants, fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts, not arbitrators. The […]

Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Eviction Disputes: Himangni Enterprises vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses DDA Appeals Based on Prior Judgment: Delhi Development Authority vs. J.B.M. Builder Pvt. Ltd. (2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Civil Law, Civil Procedure, Delhi Development Authority, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of prior judgment in similar cases CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. M/S. J.B.M. Builder Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 06 October 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 06 October 2017 Citation: Not Available Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J., and Amitava Roy, J. Can a

Supreme Court Dismisses DDA Appeals Based on Prior Judgment: Delhi Development Authority vs. J.B.M. Builder Pvt. Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Settles Family Partition Dispute: Chhipa Faridmahmmed Suleman vs. Chhipa M. Suleman Khedawala & Ors. (2017)

/ Civil Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Partition, Property Law, R. Banumathi, Settlement

Date of the Judgment: September 7, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and R. Banumathi, J. Can a decades-long family property dispute finally reach a peaceful resolution? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this very issue in a case involving two brothers embroiled in a partition dispute since 1987. The

Supreme Court Settles Family Partition Dispute: Chhipa Faridmahmmed Suleman vs. Chhipa M. Suleman Khedawala & Ors. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Section 80 CPC Notice Requirement in Property Dispute: Sant Prasad vs. Kausla Nand Sinha (2017)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Property Disputes, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is mandatory before instituting a suit against the government. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Sant Prasad vs. Kausla Nand Sinha & Ors. [Judgment Date]: September 01, 2017 Date of the Judgment: September 01, 2017 Citation: Not available

Supreme Court clarifies Section 80 CPC Notice Requirement in Property Dispute: Sant Prasad vs. Kausla Nand Sinha (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers PIL on Building Concessions: Janhit Manch vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Appeals, Ashok Bhushan, Building Regulations, Civil Law, Civil Procedure, Development Control Regulations, Floor Space Index, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning building concessions should be transferred to the Supreme Court when related Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) are already pending. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Civil Case Name: Janhit Manch & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Judgment Date: 31 July 2017 Introduction Can a Public Interest

Supreme Court Transfers PIL on Building Concessions: Janhit Manch vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court ensures uniform compensation in land acquisition cases: Munshiya vs. State of U.P. (2017)

/ Civil Appeals, Civil Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition, R. Banumathi

Can land owners receive different compensation for land acquired under the same notification? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case concerning land acquisition compensation. The court emphasized the need for uniformity in compensation for land acquired under the same notification. This judgment ensures that landowners receive equal treatment. Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court ensures uniform compensation in land acquisition cases: Munshiya vs. State of U.P. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Ex-Gratia Payment Despite Bank’s Legal Victory in Loan Recovery Case

/ Anil R. Dave, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 65, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Loan Recovery, Property Auction

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a bank, having legally acquired a property through auction for loan recovery, is obligated to share the surplus from the property’s subsequent sale with the original borrower, especially when the borrower faces extreme financial distress and health issues. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal. Case Name: State Bank of Travancore & Ors. vs. R.

Supreme Court Orders Ex-Gratia Payment Despite Bank’s Legal Victory in Loan Recovery Case Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Possession Decree After Land Acquisition: Market Committee Hodal vs. Sukhdevi (2015)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Anil R. Dave, Civil Law, Civil Suit, Decree of Possession, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6

Date of the Judgment: 15th October, 2015 Citation: Not Available Judges: Anil R. Dave, J. and Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. Can a civil court decree possession of land when that land has already been acquired by the government? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case where a lower court had

Supreme Court Overturns Possession Decree After Land Acquisition: Market Committee Hodal vs. Sukhdevi (2015) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses Receiver Appointment in Property Dispute: Satya Pal Anand vs. Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society (2013)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 40, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Rule 1, Indian Contract Act, 1872, J. Chelameswar, Judges, M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, M.P. Cooperative Societies Act with Section 64, P. Sathasivam, Property Law

Date of the Judgment: 17 July 2013 Citation: Satya Pal Anand v. Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society & Others, Special Leave Petition(C) No. 13255 of 2012 Judges: P. Sathasivam, J., J. Chelameswar, J. Can a court appoint a receiver for a property when the applicant has already received compensation and a third party is in possession?

Supreme Court Refuses Receiver Appointment in Property Dispute: Satya Pal Anand vs. Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society (2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies property sale order in Specific Performance Case: Satya Jain vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (2013) INSC 371 (8 May 2013)

/ Civil Law, Judges, Modification of Judgments, P. Sathasivam, Property Law, Ranjan Gogoi, Review of Judgments, Section 16, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Supreme Court Rules, 1966

Date of the Judgment: 8 May 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 371 Judges: P. Sathasivam, J., Ranjan Gogoi, J. Can a court modify its final order after it has been passed? The Supreme Court addressed this question when it was asked to clarify its earlier order regarding the sale of a property. This case involves a

Supreme Court clarifies property sale order in Specific Performance Case: Satya Jain vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (2013) INSC 371 (8 May 2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies liability for Provident Fund dues between Holding and Subsidiary Companies: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. ABS Spinning Orissa Ltd. (2008)

/ Civil Law, Dalveer Bhandari, Declaration, H.S. Bedi, Judges, Permanent Injunction, Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 with Section 166

Date of the Judgment: October 1, 2008 Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Aftab Alam, J. Can a holding company be held responsible for the Provident Fund dues of its subsidiary? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case between the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ABS Spinning Orissa Ltd. The court clarified that a subsidiary

Supreme Court clarifies liability for Provident Fund dues between Holding and Subsidiary Companies: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. ABS Spinning Orissa Ltd. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Condones Delay in Filing Letters Patent Appeals: Union of India vs. Fataji Chaturji (2008)

/ Aftab Alam, Appeal, Civil Law, Condonation of Delay, Judges, Letters Patent Appeal, Limitation Act, Tarun Chatterjee

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 11, 2008 Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Aftab Alam, J. When is it acceptable for a court to excuse a delay in filing an appeal? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a case where the Union of India appealed against a decision by the High Court of Gujarat, which

Supreme Court Condones Delay in Filing Letters Patent Appeals: Union of India vs. Fataji Chaturji (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top