Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Property Matters

Property Matters Rent

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 — Scope and Applicability — Overriding Effect over State Rent Control Legislations — Whether PP Act 1971 prevails over State Rent Control Acts (such as Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 or Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) regarding eviction from ‘Public Premises’ defined under Section 2(e) — Both PP Act 1971 and State Rent Control Acts are special laws; conflict resolved by legislative purpose and policy, which dictates that PP Act 1971 must prevail — A person in unauthorised occupation of public premises cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. (Paras 2, 5.6.3, 5.7.1, 5.8.2, 13(i), 13(ii), 13(iv))

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1419 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. VITA ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…

Property Matters

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1372 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JYOTI BUILDERS Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 105, 106, 107 and 108 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Unregistered deed of lease for immovable property – In the absence of a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from other evidence on record as well as the purpose of tenancy In the present case, factum of creation of tenancy has been established – But the purpose of tenancy, so as to attract the six months’ notice period under Section 106 of the 1882 Act cannot be established by such evidence as in such a situation, registration of the deed would have been mandatory

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S PAUL RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AMIT CHAND MITRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath,…

C P C Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 106 — Notice terminating tenancy — Service by registered post — Return with endorsement “ND” (Not Delivered) — General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 27 — Deemed service — High Court set aside ejectment decree solely on ground of “ND” endorsement, misinterpreting deemed service provisions — Supreme Court held High Court erred in not considering Section 27 of GC Act regarding deemed service by registered post.

Jul 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 859 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNA SWAROOP AGARWAL (DEAD) THR. LR. Vs. ARVIND KUMAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 372 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHENDRA NATH SORAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA NATH SORAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and…

Joint Family Property Matrimonial Property Matters

Suit for Partition – The Court found that ‘C’ remarriage extinguished her rights to her first husband’s property, and she could not pass on any title to the plaintiff – The Court applied the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, and relevant case law to determine the impact of Chiruthey’s remarriage on her property rights – The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff could not inherit the property through ‘C’, as her rights were nullified upon remarriage, and the deeds did not confer valid title.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 287 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

Property Matters

“Family Feud Over Property: Kamla Nagar Goes to One Side, Malcha Marg to the Other” – The court analyzed the Registration Act’s requirements for documenting transfers of property rights and concluded that the lack of registration indicated no settlement existed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment regarding the Kamla Nagar property, restoring the Trial Court’s decision and confirming the appellants’ sole ownership – The decision regarding the Malcha Marg property was upheld, leaving it exclusively to the respondents.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUGAL KISHORE KHANNA(D) THR LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUDHIR KHANNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Property Matters

Property Dispute – The case involves disputes over property ownership after the original owner, ‘S’, passed away in 1947 – The Court found no foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plaintiff’s claim, as the necessary facts were not adequately pleaded or proved – The appeals were dismissed, with the Court upholding the original decrees and granting the appellant time until March 31, 2025, to vacate the property, subject to certain conditions.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. RADHESHYAMLAL — Appellant Vs. V SANDHYA AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw