Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Suits for Possession and Damages: Distinct Causes of Action

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And another, thereby affirming the maintainability of separate legal suits for possession and damages in cases of property disputes.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, ruled against the appellants who challenged the High Court’s decision dismissing their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. in a suit filed by ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd. This suit claimed liquidated damages for the wrongful occupation of a property post the expiration of its lease on December 31, 1997.

In a significant observation, the Court noted, “suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action.” This statement underlines the judgment’s essence, emphasizing the legal distinction between seeking possession and claiming damages in property-related litigations.

The dispute centered around a property initially leased to Bharat Petroleum’s predecessors. Post the lease’s expiration, ATM Constructions, the current owner, sought possession. Subsequently, they also filed for damages due to the wrongful occupation of the property by the appellants from January 1, 1998, till June 2022, when possession was finally handed over.

Rejecting the appellants’ contention that the suit for damages was not maintainable, as it followed a suit for possession without claiming damages, the Supreme Court highlighted the distinct legal grounds for both claims. The Court’s decision sets a precedent, clarifying that a suit for damages can be separately pursued even if the initial suit only sought possession.

Further, the Court distinguished this case from the precedent set in Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, thereby underlining the specific circumstances and the unique legal basis in this instance.

Date of Decision: 30th November 2023

M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHE VS ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD

Latest Legal News