LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (now Khoday India Limited) v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 298Decided 1 Mar 2019
Civil Appeal No. 2432 of 2019
Justice A.K. Sikri · Justice S. Abdul Nazeer · Justice M.R. Shah

Background

In a long-running money-recovery dispute between Khoday Distilleries and a sugar cooperative, the Karnataka High Court had decreed the suit in the cooperative's favour, and the Supreme Court dismissed Khoday's special leave petition against that decree without giving reasons. Khoday then went back to the High Court seeking a review of its original judgment, but the High Court refused even to consider the review, holding that once the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP, it no longer had power to review its own judgment. This raised a recurring legal question on which different two-judge benches of the Supreme Court had taken conflicting views, so it was referred to a larger bench.

Decision Breakdown

The three-judge bench held that there was no real conflict between the two earlier three-judge precedents (Abbai Maligai and Kunhayammed) once properly read, and reaffirmed the settled law from Kunhayammed: a non-speaking (reasons-less) dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not "merge" the High Court's judgment into the Supreme Court's order, and therefore does not by itself bar the High Court from later entertaining a review petition against its own judgment. Applying this, since Khoday's SLP had been dismissed in limine without reasons, its review petition before the High Court was legally maintainable and should have been decided on its merits: the Court set aside the High Court's refusal and remanded that review petition for a decision on merits, while in the connected appeal it found the High Court had correctly entertained a review on grounds of fraud and left that appeal to be heard separately on its own merits.

Lesson Learnt

If the Supreme Court dismisses your special leave petition without giving any reasons, that dismissal does not automatically close the door on a review petition in the High Court against its own judgment: the specific wording and nature of the Supreme Court's order determines whether review remains open.

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