LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik & Anr. v. Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar & Ors.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · Neutral citation not assigned (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 25331-33 of 2015)Decided 1 Mar 2017
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 25331-33 of 2015
Chief Justice J.S. Khehar · Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Background

The petitioners had occupied commercial premises in Mumbai since 1968 under what courts repeatedly found to be a conducting agreement (not a tenancy). After a City Civil Court decreed possession in favour of the respondents in 2012, the petitioners' appeal was effectively settled by their own undertaking to vacate by 30 November 2014, which the High Court later extended once to 31 March 2015 "as the last extension." Instead of vacating, the petitioners filed a review petition and sought a further five-year extension, and then approached the Supreme Court with Special Leave Petitions riddled with delays of 500+ days.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the underlying question of title/tenancy had already been conclusively settled against the petitioners through multiple rounds of litigation, and that their repeated extension requests and the present petitions were a deliberate strategy to prolong occupation and misuse court process. The Court strongly condemned litigative strategies designed to profit from delay, holding that such abuse erodes the sanctity of the judicial process and must be met with exemplary costs. It dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, directed the petitioners to vacate by 7 March 2017 (failing which they would face civil and criminal consequences), to pay arrears of rent, and to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondents, while clarifying that separate contempt proceedings against them would continue unaffected.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not tolerate litigants who use repeated applications, extensions, and reviews merely to delay compliance with a final decree: such abuse of process can attract heavy exemplary costs on top of losing the underlying case.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSupreme Court of India

Haramani Sahoo & Ors. v. Lalita Nayak & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the appellants had exercised due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, since the relevant facts about the later sale only came to their knowledge during the suit. While acknowledging the considerable delay in seeking the amendment and the inconvenience this could cause the other side, the Court set aside the trial court's and High Court's orders refusing the amendment, and allowed it subject to the appellants paying Rs. 25,000 in costs to the contesting respondents. All underlying questions of limitation, maintainability, and the merits of the parties' claims were left open for the trial court to decide.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case