LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Suresh Srivastava & Ors. vs. Sundeep Bhutoria

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 321Decided 21 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 2022
Dinesh Maheshwari · Aniruddha Bose

Background

After the Delhi High Court disposed of a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 126 of 2022) involving a dispute between the appellants and the respondent over an association called the Indian Federation of United Nations Association, it directed registration of a fresh Public Interest Litigation on the same subject, and in doing so allowed the respondent (an opposing party in the underlying dispute) to assist the Court almost like an amicus curiae. The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court, also pointing out that a related civil dispute between the parties was already pending before a Delhi trial court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's core decision to register the matter as a PIL, leaving the appellants free to raise all their objections and factual submissions before the High Court itself. However, it found it inappropriate for the respondent (who was, in substance, an interested party opposed to the appellants) to be given the role of an amicus curiae in what was meant to be a non-adversarial PIL. The Court therefore struck down that specific part of the High Court's order (paragraph 17) while leaving the PIL itself, and the appointment of an independent amicus curiae, intact. The appeal was disposed of without any opinion on the merits.

Lesson Learnt

A Public Interest Litigation is meant to be non-adversarial, so a person who has a personal stake or dispute with a party cannot be allowed to function as the court's amicus in that same PIL: impartial assistance to the court must come from someone genuinely disinterested.

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