Sahayata & Sahayata

Case Details Case Name: Tharammel Peethambaran and Another v. T. Ushakrishnan and Another Citation / Case Number: 2026 INSC 134 | Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11868 of 2024) Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti (Judgment authored by S.V.N. Bhatti, J.) Date of Judgment: February 06, 2026 Factual Matrix The 1st Respondent (Plaintiff), residing in Mumbai, is the undisputed owner of the Plaint A-Schedule properties situated in Kozhikode . In 1998, she executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) in favor of her brother, the 1st Appellant (1st Defendant), who resided in Kozhikode, solely to manage the schedule properties . According to the Plaintiff, she specifically struck out all clauses authorizing mortgage or alienation from the initial draft (Exh. A-3) before executing the final PoA (Exh. A-4) . In March 2007, the 1st Defendant executed registered sale deeds in favor of his...

 The file is a judgment from the Supreme Court of India in the case of Urmila Pasari Versus Exide India Limited . Here are the key details from the document, focusing on paragraphs 7, 8, and 9: Case Details Case Title: Urmila Pasari Versus Exide India Limited Court: Supreme Court of India Hon'ble Judges: Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha, JJ. Decided On: February 4, 2020 Relevant Acts/Rules: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), specifically Order I Rule 10(2) and Order XXII Rule 10 . Background The case arose from an old Title Suit for ejectment and mesne profits filed in 1982. The original plaintiff and the proforma defendant (defendant no. 2), Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari, both passed away during the suit's pendency. Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari (defendant no. 2 and the real beneficiary) willed the suit property to the appellants (Urmila Pasari and others). A registered deed of assignment was executed in favor of the appellants. The appellants filed an application under Order I Rul...

The Hon'ble  Gujarat High Court in the case of Fatesinhrao Pratap Sinhrao Gaekwad Versus Savjibhai Haribhai Patel . Here are the key details about the case and the judgment: Case Title: Fatesinhrao Pratap Sinhrao Gaekwad Versus Savjibhai Haribhai Patel Case Type: Civil Revision Application No. 2010 of 1982 Decided On: March 30, 1984 Hon'ble Judge: R.A. Mehta, J. Key Issue and Decision The main question addressed in the judgment was whether the trial court was justified in allowing the plaintiff's application to join additional defendants under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) . Additional Defendants: The plaintiff sought to join the specified authority , competent authority , and the State Government —all under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 . Trial Court Decision: The trial court allowed the addition of these parties . High Court Decision: The High Court dismissed the Revision Application filed by the original d...

Title: Neeraj Kainth v. M/S Campuseai India Pvt Ltd & Ors. Court: High Court of Delhi Decision Date: December 20, 2024 Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora Executive Summary The Delhi High Court recently clarified the boundaries of impleading company directors in civil suits . The Court ruled that directors cannot be made personal parties to a lawsuit unless there is a specific cause of action, a personal guarantee, or a clear case for "lifting the corporate veil" . 1. Background: The Dispute The plaintiff, a former CEO, filed a suit for: Unpaid salary and travel reimbursements against Defendants 1 and 2 (the companies) . Share allotments against Defendants 3 and 4 (sister concerns) . Personal Impleadment: The plaintiff also sued Defendants 5 and 6 in their personal capacity, alleging they were the "chief controllers" and decision-makers of the corporate entities . 2. The Legal Tug-of-War The Directors' Defense: Defendants 5 and 6 ...