Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Property Matters

Property Matters

One-time lease rent constitutes payment for the entirety of the period of lease covered by the document – Therefore, that component of the amount which represents the remainder period after the plot is sold in terms of this Order, ought not to be charged by NOIDA from the Petitioners

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) — Respondent (…

Property Matters

U L (Ceiling & Reg) Repeal Act, 1999 – Ss 3(1)(a) and S 3(2) – Ownership and possession -There is nothing on record, that conclusively establishes possession of the suit property either by the Competent Authority or the Appellant herein. Given the conflicting averments made by the parties, this is a pure question of fact – Matter to be remitted to the D B of the Karnataka High Court to consider the case afresh.

Feb 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH U.A. BASHEER THROUGH G.P.A. HOLDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran,…

Property Matters

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Ss 8 & 11 – Landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable as they are not actions in rem but pertain to subordinate rights in personam that arise from rights in rem overrule the ratio laid down in Himangni Enterprises vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, (2017) 10 SCC 706 and hold that landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable as the Transfer of Property Act does not forbid or foreclose arbitration – However, landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by rent control legislation would not be arbitrable

Dec 16, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DURGA TRADING CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna And Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

Property Matters

Every transfer of land not exceeding thirty standard acres made by a person upto the thirty first day of December, 1969 in favour of an agriculturist domiciled in Rajasthan- transfer was executed way before the cutoff date stipulated under Section 30DD i.e. 31.12.1969. Therefore, the registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 was a bona fide transfer squarely covered within the ambits of Section 30DD, which intended to protect the rights of agriculturalists.

Dec 13, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer…

Property Matters

Gift Deed Property – Deficiency in stamp duty on deed – Imposition of extreme penalty HELD Collector is not required by law to impose the maximum rate of penalty as a matter of course whenever an impounded document is sent to him. He has to take into account various aspects including the financial position of the person concerned – It is only in the very extreme situation that penalty needs to be imposed to the extent of ten times

Sep 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TRUSTEES OF H.C. DHANDA TRUST — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash…

Property Matters

Gift Deed Property – Deficiency in stamp duty on deed – Penalty – Facility to deposit the penalty by post dated cheques cannot be approved and the appellant being subsequent purchaser was liable to deposit the amount of penalty which was outstanding against the property and which was subject matter of the gift deed.

Sep 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. MSD REAL ESTATE LLP — Appellant Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMPS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash…

Property Matters

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sections 20, 21 and 38(4) – Grant of exemption – competent authority being a creature of the statute under Section 2(d) of the Act, cannot act beyond its statutory jurisdiction and the exercise of its powers shall remain circumscribed by the provisions of the Act – Hence demand of price and recovery of property price outside the purview of act illegal.

Sep 3, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIDHAR C. SHETTY (DECEASED) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton…

Property Matters

Decree of possession – A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property – It is well settled that, where a Plaintiff wants to establish that the Defendant’s original possession was permissive, it is for the Plaintiff to prove this allegation and if he fails to do so, it may be presumed that possession was adverse, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Aug 28, 2020 sclaw

 “A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property. “   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAZIR MOHAMED — Appellant…

Property Matters

Pleas Of Title And Adverse Possession Cannot Be Advanced Simultaneously HELD  The possession has to be in public and to the knowledge of the true owner as adverse, and this is necessary as a plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner.And From The Same Date HELD

Aug 27, 2020 sclaw

The Supreme Court has observed that plea of title and adverse possession cannot be advanced simultaneously and from the same date.  “We fail to appreciate how, on the one hand…

You missed

Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw