LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. The State of U.P.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 966Decided 11 Aug 2025
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21747 of 2025
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

The petitioner company had obtained an ex parte ad-interim injunction from a Trial Court in Barabanki, U.P., protecting its claimed title and possession over certain land, based on a sale deed and claimed prior possession. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside that injunction, finding the suit itself to be "nothing but a legal jugglery": filed after the limitation period for specific performance had expired, without any claim to ownership benefits under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and granted by the Trial Court without recording the mandatory reasons required under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court also directed the case be transferred to a different judge and asked for administrative review of the Trial Court's conduct. The petitioner company challenged this before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, which requires a court granting an ex parte injunction to record reasons and requires the applicant to promptly serve copies of the application and supporting papers on the opposite side, both provisions being mandatory, as settled in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD. However, since the Trial Court hearing was scheduled for the very next day to decide the injunction application afresh on merits, the Supreme Court found no need to interfere with the High Court's order at that stage. It disposed of the petition, directing the Trial Court to hear both sides and decide the injunction question independently, uninfluenced by the High Court's observations. The Court found the earlier grant of injunction procedurally defective but chose not to disturb the High Court's corrective order, since a fresh, fair hearing before the Trial Court was already imminent: effectively deferring the substantive dispute back to the Trial Court.

Lesson Learnt

An injunction granted without notice to the other side must be backed by recorded reasons and prompt compliance with procedural safeguards; courts will not hesitate to set aside ex parte orders passed casually, even while leaving the underlying dispute to be decided afresh on its merits.

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