LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd.

Miscellaneous Application · 2026 INSC 483Decided 12 May 2026
MA-001276 - 2026
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Background

This miscellaneous application arose out of an earlier Civil Appeal concerning a Gujarat High Court interim order directing resumption of land from Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. and others, which the Supreme Court had earlier disposed of by an order dated 27.01.2026 (signed and uploaded on 12.02.2026). The applicants, some of the original respondents, claimed there was a variance between what the Court orally dictated to the court-master in open court on 27.01.2026 and the final signed order uploaded later, and relied on media reports, a YouTube video recording, and their own transcript of the proceedings to argue the dictated version was the true, binding order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a draft order dictated in open court is not the final judgment. It remains subject to correction, refinement, and removal of inadvertent errors before signing, provided no material change is made without further hearing. Citing the settled principle from Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. (as applied in later precedent), the Court explained that a judgment crystallises only when formally delivered/signed as the operative decision, and judges retain a "locus poenitentiae" (opportunity to change their mind) until that point. It held that the applicants' attempt to treat an unofficial video transcript of the oral dictation as the binding order was legally untenable, and that the properly signed and uploaded order dated 27.01.2026 was the only version with legal force. The application was dismissed as not maintainable and on merits, and the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 2,000 each on the applicants for what it called a frivolous attempt to undermine the Court's authority.

Lesson Learnt

What a court says aloud while dictating an order in open court is only a draft; the final, signed, and officially uploaded order is the one that is legally binding, and litigants cannot rely on unofficial recordings or transcripts to contest the authenticated version, doing so risks being penalised as an abuse of process.

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

More rulings in Civil Procedure

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
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case