Supreme Court of India Judgements

46905 Judgements hosted as on 12/10/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Limitation

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 375 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOHAN LAL — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…

Limitation

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 7 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 –The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay, noting the appellant’s negligence and inconsistency in statements – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the lower courts and refusing to condone the inordinate delay.

Apr 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 281 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL) — Appellant Vs. GYANENDRA PRATAP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna…

Land Acquisition Limitation

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3 – The court emphasized the importance of the law of limitation, stating that litigation must have an end and cannot be prolonged indefinitely – The court discussed the mandatory nature of Section 3 of the Limitation Act and the discretionary nature of Section 5, which allows for condonation of delay if ‘sufficient cause’ is shown – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the Special Leave Petition due to the petitioners’ negligence and lack of due diligence in pursuing the matter.

Apr 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 286 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) — Respondent ( Before :…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Court emphasized the importance of timely litigation and found no sufficient cause to condone the extensive delay – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision not to condone the delay – The respondent was entitled to the decree’s benefits without further legal delays.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 262 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha…

Limitation

Court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments, stating that the time spent before the Tehsildar should be excluded from the limitation period, as it was pursued with due diligence and good faith – The appeal is allowed, the previous orders are set aside, and the execution application is restored for fresh consideration regarding the limitation period – The Court emphasizes the need to interpret Section 14 of the Limitation Act in a manner that advances justice.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURNI DEVI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BABU RAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration Limitation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The court allows the petition and appoints a former judge of the Supreme Court as the sole arbitrator – The court also suggests that the Parliament should consider bringing an amendment to the Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1996

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S APTECH LTD — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Limitation

Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, is not governed by the prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – In the absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to file an appeal, the same would be governed by the principle of ‘reasonable time’, for which, by virtue of its very nature, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be determined as per the facts and

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL(ASSAM) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Limitation Rent

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Sections 7(1) and 7(2) – Non-payment of arrears of rent – Extension of time – While the Limitation Act may be generally applicable to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, the restricted proviso under Section 7 of the said Act, providing a time period beyond which no extension can be granted, has to be applicable.

Oct 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEBASISH PAUL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMAL BORAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Condonation of delay of around 479 days in presentation of an appeal from the decision of the Reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court’s decision to condone the delay does not suffer from any error warranting interference, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State – A court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below – An appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong.

Oct 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 451 & 457 — Release of Seized Property — Trial Court rejecting release application for iron ore on grounds of applicant’s failure to substantiate ownership — High Court setting aside trial court’s order without examining correctness of its finding on ownership — High Court should have either agreed with trial court’s finding on ownership or recorded reasons for disagreeing — Failure to do so warrants interference and remand.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 50 — Opinion as to relationship, when relevant — Opinion expressed by conduct of person with special knowledge on relationship is relevant — Essentials are court’s opinion, expression through conduct, and person having special knowledge — Conduct alone is not proof but an intermediate step to infer opinion — Opinion must be proved by direct evidence — Court needs to weigh evidence to form its own conclusion; Trial Court erred in treating opinion of witnesses as fact rather than evidence to be weighed and failed to independently assess credibility.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Corruption

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Bail — Anticipatory Bail — Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against High Court’s rejection of bail in anticipation of arrest — Custodial interrogation not required — Appellant may be admitted to bail in anticipation of arrest upon arrest, subject to terms and conditions fixed by the trial court — Appellant directed not to dissuade witnesses from disclosing facts to authorities.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 366 — Death Sentence Reference — Sentencing Procedure — Conviction and death penalty were pronounced on the same day without a proper inquiry into aggravating and mitigating circumstances, psychological evaluation, or jail conduct report. This haste violated established sentencing principles and vitiated the death sentence.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw