NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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