Latest Indian Case Laws October 2025

1. Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt Ltd v Ravinder Munshi and Others

 Citation: FAO(OS) 79 of 2022, Delhi High Court Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar JJ, judgment reserved 16 September 2025 pronounced 09 October 2025​

 Ratio: Delhi High Court ruled that trial courts can free properties from lis pendens rule under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act to shield honest owners from bad faith suits for specific performance based on shaky oral sale deals lacking proof of agreement or payment, as in claims relying on non-binding MoU dated 02 June 2021 stating no enforceable rights and superseded prior WhatsApp chats showing mere talks not concluded contract per Section 10 Indian Contract Act needing offer acceptance and consideration, holding appellants failed prima facie case for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 2 CPC due to no payment evidence like receipts or encashed cheques one misspelt and suppression of chat parts plus legal notice ignoring oral deal, emphasizing Supreme Court in Vinod Seth v Devender Bajaj 2010 8 SCC 1 allows exemption when success chance remote to avoid market cloud via frivolous claims by builders speculators enabling pressure tactics amid long trials, key sentences state “the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit is remote and therefore it is a fit case to exempt the suit property from the operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act during the pendency of the suit” and “Courts are vested with the power in appropriate cases to exempt properties from the rigours of Section 52 of the TP Act to insulate genuine property owners from being trapped in vexatious frivolous or mala fide litigations”, highlighting power protects real owners from land grabbers creating title clouds for leverage without Specific Relief Act Section 21 damages claim, and dismissed appeal with Rs 5 lakhs costs clarifying suit proceeds unaffected while property B-8 Pamposh Enclave free for sale during pendency.​

2. General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd v Achchey Lal and Another

 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2974 of 2016 with C.A. Nos. 3011–3013 of 2016, Supreme Court of India, J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta JJ, 2025 INSC 1175, decided 11 September 2025​

 Ratio: Supreme Court overturned lower courts ruling that canteen workers of a cooperative bank employees society were banks staff under Industrial Disputes Act by clarifying tests for employer-employee ties in labour laws like ID Act Factories Act focusing control test asking if bank appointed paid dismissed disciplined workers oversaw work manner with continuity plus multi-factor checks like who pays wages supervises dismisses provides tools integration into business chance of profit risk of loss per precedents Shivanandan Sharma v Punjab National Bank Dharangadhara Chemical Works Silver Jubilee Tailoring House Steel Authority of India and Balwant Rai Saluja v Air India requiring complete administrative control not mere subsidy infrastructure or facilities obligation, holding banks mere policy aid via 75 percent wage subsidy space electricity to society-run canteen lacked direct appointment salary payment by society committee oversight no bank supervision discipline right or service rules despite society closure terminating workers thus no master-servant link warranting reinstatement back wages as society not bank hired managed staff per Reserve Bank of India v Workmen State Bank of India v Canteen Employees distinguishing Indian Overseas Bank where bank fully funded controlled unlike here, key sentences state “to ascertain or rather the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish employeremployee relationship would include who appoints the workers who pays the salariesremuneration who has the authority to dismiss who can take disciplinary action whether there is continuity of service and extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision” and “the prima facie test of the relationship of master and servant was the existence of the right in the employer not merely to direct what work was to be done but also to control the manner in which it was to be done” highlighting courts must pierce sham veils but reject automatic canteen staff status without direct bank control even long service as facts vary case-by-case rejecting broad claims all canteen aides become employees, and set aside Allahabad High Court 08 October 2012 order affirming Labour Court 14 September 1999 award restoring no employer liability for Achchey Lal Satya Prakash Srivastava Vijay Kumar Leela Dhar terminations post 31 May 1995 canteen close.​

3. V Chandran v Aliamma George and Others

 Citation: RFA No 79 of 2013, Kerala High Court Sathish Ninan and P Krishna Kumar JJ, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 11080, decided 27 October 2025​

 Ratio: Kerala High Court upheld dismissal of suit for damages over tree cutting contract breach under Article 55 Limitation Act 1963 ruling that failure to obtain Forest Department passes was continuing breach during fixed one-year term from 01 September 1998 or alleged extension to 03 April 2001 per Ext.A1 agreement dated 06 August 1998 where limitation for compensation runs from cessation date i.e. contract expiry not initial breach or ongoing inability post-term as Section 22 Limitation Act triggers fresh periods only while breach lasts within stipulated time after which suit must file within three years of end else barred, holding plaintiffs claim filed 18 January 2005 time-barred even assuming extension since expiry triggered clock despite road shed labour costs as no proof full non-performance or timely suit while defendants proved completion via Ext.B4 new deal, emphasizing Article 55 covers single breach successive breaches or continuing ones with time from “when the breach in respect of which the suit is instituted occurs or where the breach is continuing when it ceases” and Section 22 states “In the case of a continuing breach of contract a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach continues” thus breach ceases at contract end not perpetuating beyond, key sentence notes “When the term of Ext.A1 agreement obliging the defendants to obtain passes from the Forest Department is breached by them there occurs a breach of the contract. That breach continues during the period fixed in the contract. On expiry of the period of the contract the breach ceases,” highlighting suits cannot revive post-expiry claiming endless ongoing harm from fixed-term failures requiring proof extension and timely action, and dismissed appeal affirming trial court order dated 23 March 2012 in OS No. 498 of 2006 I Additional Sub Court Thiruvananthapuram as time-barred without needing breach merits.