Back
2004(6) Supreme 194
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., G.P. Mathur & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Balvant N. Viswamitra and Ors. -Appellants
versus
Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) through Lrs. and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5617 of 1999
Decided on 13-8-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V.T. Lulia, Mukesh Viswamitra, Raja Chatterjee, G.S. Chatterjee, Advocates.
For the Respondents : V.N. Ganpule, Sr. Advocate, Satyajit Saha and Ms. V.D. Khanna, Advocates.
Held : From the facts narrated in the plaint as also from the deposition of plaintiff No. 2, as already narrated in the earlier part of the judgment, it is clear that the plaintiffs did their best to serve heirs and legal representatives of deceased Papamiya. They had sent notice by registered post which was returned unserved. Again, a notice was sent under certificate of posting which had not come back. It was, therefore, the case of the plaintiffs that the presumption would be that the notice was received by the defendants. Again, a notice was affixed on the suit premises. All these facts have been stated in the plaint. In the substantive evidence, plaintiff No. 2 had deposed that he had tried to get names of legal heirs of Ahmed, son of deceased Papamiya, but the plaintiffs could not get such information, names and addresses. He also stated that deceased Ahmed was staying at Bhandup on Bombay-Agra Road and, hence, he made enquiries at the Bhandup address but could not get the details about the heirs. The only alternative, thus left to the plaintiffs was to affix the notice on suit premises which was also done. It may be recalled at this stage that on the day of deposition of plaintiff No. 2 recorded on 25th March, 1980, the defendants were represented by an advocate Mr. Singh and plaintiff No. 2 was partly cross-examined. It was only after that date i.e. 25th March, 1980, that Mr. Singh had no instructions and he made prayer to the court on 18th June, 1980 allowing him to withdraw his appearance which was granted by the court and a decree was passed. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the plaintiffs had made all attempts at their end to serve the defendants, but they could not be served in view of the facts stated and circumstances mentioned in the plaint as well in the substantive evidence of plaintiff No. 2 and the decree was passed by the trial court. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the decree passed by the trial court can be said to be null and void . In our opinion, the law on the point is well settled. The distinction between a decree which is void and a decree which is wrong, incorrect, irregular or not in accordance with law cannot be overlooked or ignored. Where a court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such court would be without jurisdiction, non est and void ab initio. A defect of jurisdiction of the court goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority of the court to pass a decree or make an order. Such defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and a decree or order passed by a court or an authority having no jurisdiction is nullity. Validity of such decree or order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or collateral proceedings. (Paras 8 and 9)
All irregular or wrong decrees or orders are not necessarily null and void. An erroneous or illegal decision, which is not void, cannot be objected in execution or collateral proceedings. (Para 14)
From the record, it is also clear that defendants were aware of the proceedings and they had engaged Mr. G.R. Singh, advocate who was appearing in the matter. On 25th March, 1980, he was present when plaintiff No. 2 was examined on oath and was partly cross-examined by Mr. Singh. Thereafter, with the permission of the court, Mr. Singh withdrew his appearance because he had no instructions in the matter from the defendants and a decree was passed. In our considered opinion, such a decree, by no stretch of imagination, can be described nullity. If the decree is not null and void, as per settled law, appropriate proceedings will have to be taken by the persons aggrieved by such decree. (Paras 18 and 19)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
All irregular or incorrect decrees or orders are not necessarily null and void. An erroneous or illegal decision that is not void cannot be objected to in execution or collateral proceedings (!) (!) .
A decree passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction is considered void ab initio, meaning it is null and has no legal effect from the outset. Such a defect strikes at the very authority of the court to pass the decree and can be challenged at any stage, including during execution proceedings (!) (!) .
There is a clear distinction between a decree that is void and one that is merely incorrect, irregular, or not in accordance with law. A decree that is not void can be challenged only through proper legal proceedings, not collateral attack (!) (!) .
A decree passed by a court with jurisdiction, even if it is erroneous in law or fact, remains valid and binding until it is set aside through appropriate proceedings. Errors in exercise of jurisdiction do not render a decree null (!) (!) .
A decree is considered void if the court has usurped jurisdiction it did not possess, which is a fundamental defect. If the defect is merely procedural or involves a mistake in law, the decree remains valid unless challenged through proper channels (!) (!) .
The remedy for a person aggrieved by a decree that is not void but illegal or irregular is to seek its reversal through appeal or other legal proceedings. Collateral attacks or objections in execution are not valid for decrees that are not void (!) (!) .
Proper service and notice are essential for the validity of proceedings. However, even if service attempts fail, courts may presume receipt of notices under certain circumstances, especially if notices are properly sent and affixed as per procedural requirements (!) (!) .
The non-joinder of parties who are not necessary parties does not render a decree null and void. Such a decree remains valid unless the party claiming to be a necessary party was not adequately notified or involved in the proceedings (!) (!) .
Orders passed by courts with proper jurisdiction, even if flawed procedurally or containing errors, are generally binding and enforceable unless explicitly declared void for lack of jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The distinction between a decree that is void and one that is merely illegal or irregular is critical. Only a decree that is void due to lack of jurisdiction can be challenged directly and immediately, while others must be challenged through appropriate legal channels (!) (!) .
The courts have emphasized that a decree passed by a competent court, even if erroneous, remains effective unless it is set aside through proper legal procedures. Collateral attacks or objections in execution are generally not permissible unless the decree is void (!) (!) .
In the specific case discussed, the court found that the decree was not null and void despite procedural issues, and therefore, the execution of the decree was valid. The High Court's decision to declare the decree void was reversed, reaffirming the validity of the original proceedings (!) (!) .
Would you like a summary of how these principles might apply to a particular situation or further clarification?
JUDGMENT
Thakker, J.-The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High of Bombay on January 14, 1998 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3384 of 1986. By the said order, a single Judge of the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, held the decree sought to be executed against the petitioners-respondents herein - as void ab initio.
2. To appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal, few relevant facts may be stated:
There was a piece of land bearing Survey No. 888 admeasuring 85 x 35 sq. feet at village Kanjur, Bombay. The land was let out by Nagendra Vishwamitra, father of the appellants to one Papamiya. The said Papamiya constructed hut over the land and was paying rent to the landlord. It was the case of the landlord that the tenant did not pay rent regularly and was in arrears of rent from November 01, 1963 to October 31, 1976 i.e. for 13 years. Since Papamiya died, proceedings were initiated against heirs of deceased Papamiya. According to the appellants, a notice was issued to heirs and legal representatives of Papamiya terminating the tenancy by a registered post but the heirs could not be served and the notice came back. Again, a notice was sent under certificate of posting which had not come back. Thus, there was a presumption of service of notice. It was also the case of the appellants that on the outer-door of the suit premises, a copy of the notice was affixed. On 4th April, 1977, a suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants against heirs and legal representatives of deceased Papamiya in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, being R.A.E. Suit No. 1992 of 1977. On 25th March, 1980, the case was listed for recording evidence. One Mr. G.R. Singh, advocate was appearing for the defendants. On that day, evidence of plaintiff No. 2 was recorded. He stated that deceased Nagendra Vishwamitra was his father and the plaintiffs were owners of the property. It was also stated by him that Papamiya had a son by name Ahmed and a notice was sent to him by registered post. However, the notice packet came back with remark expired . Deceased Ahmed had legal heirs, but plaintiff No. 2 did not know their names. They were residing at Bhandup on Bombay-Agra road and not in the suit premises. He further stated that he made enquiries as to heirs and legal representatives of deceased Ahmed both at Kanjur and Bhandup addresses, but could not get sufficient information. He, therefore, filed a suit against heirs and legal representatives of Papamiya. He also produced a packet containing the notice which was returned with remark "not known". He tendered the certificate by which notice was sent under certificate of posting. According to him, that letter was not returned. A certificate and packet were produced by him in his evidence. He also stated that a notice was pasted outside the suit premises.
3. The plaintiff No. 2 was partly cross-examined by Mr. Singh. In the cross-examination, he stated that the notice was pasted at both the addresses i.e. Kanjur as well as Bhandup. The notice was also affixed on the property let out to the defendant. The case was thereafter adjourned. On 18th June, 1980, when the matter was called out for further hearing, Mr. Singh stated that he had no instructions from the defendants in the matter who had remained absent though intimated about the date by registered post as also by certificate of posting. He, therefore, requested the court to permit his withdrawal from appearance which was granted by the court. Since the plaintiff had adduced evidence and the defendants had remained absent, according to the court, the evidence of the plaintiff had gone unchallenged. In the plaint also, it was specifically stated by the plaintiff that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and that had remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. In the circumstances, the trial court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to
No cases in the provided list are identified as overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The source material contains no language indicating that any of the listed precedents have been overturned, superseded, or criticized to the point of being treated as bad law. All references to the cases—primarily *Balvant N. Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule* and its related line—consistently describe them as authoritative decisions that have been "relied upon," "followed," or "referred to" by subsequent courts.
The overwhelming treatment pattern across the list is that the precedent has been **followed** and relied upon as authoritative law. The following cases demonstrate this pattern:
Ruma Chakraborty VS Sudha Rani Banerjee - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 2311: *Balvant N. Viswamitra and Others vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule and Others, 2004 (8) SCC 706* — Referenced as the authoritative source decision in multiple subsequent cases.
Ruma Chakraborty VS Sudha Rani Banerjee - 2005 6 Supreme 734: Same decision reported at (2004) 8 SCC 706 — cited as the leading judgment.
PUSHPA RANI VS GIAN CHAND - 2005 0 Supreme(HP) 352: *Yadav Sadashiv Mule (deceased by L. Rs) and others, AIR 2004 SC 4377* — "Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the case Balvant N. Viswamitra and others v."
Pranab Kumar Banerjee VS Momin Ali alias Mukib Ali - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 818: *Viswamitra and Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Throughlrs and Ors.* — "The Apex court in Balvant N. Viswamitra and Ors." is cited as the controlling authority.
Prem Singh VS Birbal - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 825: "Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Balvant N. Viswamitra vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule, (2004) 8 SCC 706."
Prem Singh VS Birbal - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 832: Same — "Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Balvant N. Viswamitra vs."
RAM KISHORE DUBEY VS STATE OF C. G. - 2006 0 Supreme(Chh) 268: Paragraphs 9 and 20 of *Balvant N. Viswamitra & others Vs.* are quoted as holding.
Chongtuokhawi VS Union of India and Ors - 2007 0 Supreme(Gau) 593: "Any lingering doubt one may have in this regard has now been removed by the Apex Court in Balvant N. Viswamitra v. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706"
Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100: "In the case of Balvant N.Viswamitra Vs. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule [(2004)8 SCC 706], the Apex Court held thus"
Gadda Balaiah VS Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District - 2013 0 Supreme(AP) 131: "We respectfully follow the above decision of the Supreme Court; and the decision in Balvant N.Viswamitra v."
STATE OF HARYANA VS KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 844: "He cited the decision of this Court in Balvant N. Viswamitra v."
Vijay Patel VS Jugal Kishore - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2011: "Supreme Court in Rafique Bibi (dead) by LRs vs. Sayed Waliuddin (2004) 1 SCC 287 and Balvant N. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule (2004) 8 SCC 706 held that the distinction between a decree which is void and a decree..."
All of these entries show courts adopting the precedent's reasoning as binding or persuasive authority without any indication of limitation, criticism, or reversal.
Some cases reference the precedent while drawing distinctions or applying it in a limited manner:
SHREE SHREE GOPAL JEW VS JUMBO TRADERS PRIVATE LTD. - 2006 0 Supreme(Cal) 611: *Yadav Sadashiv Mule* — The Supreme Court held "that it is amply clear that all irregularities are not necessarily null," suggesting a qualified application of the void/irregular decree distinction.
Jogesh Gupta VS Shree Shree Iswar Satyanaraynji - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1130: The Apex Court in *Balvant N. Viswamitra and Others vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule* "held that a sub-lessee has no right to be impleaded" — a specific holding applied in a particular factual context.
STATE OF HARYANA VS KARTAR SINGH - 2012 8 Supreme 430: The decision in *Balvant N. Viswamitra and others Vs.* is cited "to draw a distinction between a 'void decree' and an 'illegal, incorrect or irregular' decree" — indicating the precedent is being applied for its doctrinal distinction rather than as a general rule.
STATE OF HARYANA VS KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 844: Same — citation to draw the "void decree" vs. "illegal, incorrect or irregular" distinction.
These cases do not undermine the precedent but apply or rely upon specific holdings within it.
d_for_doctrinal_principle>
Several cases reference the precedent primarily for the legal principle it articulates, particularly the distinction between void decrees and illegal/irregular decrees, and the question of necessary parties:
Ravikant Jajodia VS Maharaj Kumar Saday Chand Mahatab - 2018 0 Supreme(Cal) 819: "The expressions 'void' decree and 'illegal, incorrect or irregular' decree came up for consideration in Balvant N."
Sushil Kumar Agarwal VS Ajay Kumar Saraff - 2019 0 Supreme(Cal) 539: Same.
Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. VS India Media Services Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(Cal) 913: "Balvant N. ... Yadav, reported in 2004(8) SCC 706" — cited as the source for the void/irregular decree distinction.
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department VS Mahadev s/o Baswantrao Bidwe - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 128: "Relying on the judgment in the case of Balvant N. Viswamitra Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (d) through L.Rs."
Hassan Thermal Power Pvt. Ltd. , thru Its Director VS State Of Karnataka Thru Additional Chief Secretary - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1803: "In Balvant N. Viswamitra V. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through L.Rs., reported in (2004)8 SCC 706, wherein the Supreme Court has opined"
Udyavara R. Acharya VS Jugal Kishor Jagannath Sharda - 2020 0 Supreme(Bom) 451: "Balvant N. Viswamitra has held that respondents cannot be said to be 'necessary party' to the proceedings."
Udyavara R. Acharya VS Jugal Kishor Jagannath Sharda - 2020 0 Supreme(Bom) 246: Same.
Gautamsheth Kisan Wadve VS Kisan Gangaram Kale - 2020 0 Supreme(Bom) 732: "Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Balwant Viswamitra & Ors. vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule"
Vasantha Mills Limited, Cheran Towers, Coimbatore VS Nandakumar Athappan - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 910: "In Rafique Biby (Dead) by Lrs. vs." — cited alongside the *Balvant N. Viswamitra* line.
Saroja VS Parvathy - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1218: "The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of Balvant N.Viswamitra and others Vs."
Saroja VS Parvathy - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1553: Same.
Senior Superintendent of Police VS Shanti Devi - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 307: "Balvant N. Viswamitra v. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule, (2004) 8 SCC 706 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a void decree can be challenged"
Emilasha Laloo VS Nishan Skhem Blah - 2022 0 Supreme(Megh) 139: "this petition may be allowed ... court having no territorial jurisdiction, any order passed by such court is a nullity and void ab initio as was held in the case of Balvant"
Mahendra Singh VS State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1069: "the entire decision will be said to be void ab-initio, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balvant"
Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. VS Vexcel Upkram Private Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 945: "Since the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balvant N. Viswamitra & Ors Vs."
Asha Devi Agarwal VS Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan At Ajmer - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2524: "Balvant N. Viswamitra v. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706 - para No.9."
VIRALBHAI NATWARBHAI PATEL VS BHARATBHAI PRAVINBHAI PATEL - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 162: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs. and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 706 this Court stated thus"
Antique Art Export Pvt. Ltd. VS United India Insurance Company Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2577: "Vs Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through Lrs and Ors., [2004 8 SCC 706; Para 9]."
Haji Abdul Mateen (Deceased) VS Rattan Singh - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 3230: "I have already hereinabove, referring to Balvant N Viswamitra, Yadav Sadashiv Mule and Rafique Bibi supra held as to what constitutes..."
SITA DEVI VS RADHA PARK PLOT HOLDER WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 1503: "reliance was placed upon the dicta of the Supreme Court in Balvant N. Viswamitra and Ors. vs. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule"
Ram Babu Rai, Son of Late Jai Narain Rai VS Nachari Mishra - 2017 0 Supreme(Pat) 1363: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRS. & Ors., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706, has held that where a Court..."
Vicar VS Mamman Thomas - 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 636: "Placing reliance on Balvant Viswamitra and Others v. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs. and Others ((2004) 8 SCC 706)"
Cooke and Kelvey Properties Pvt. Ltd. VS Expo International - 2016 0 Supreme(Cal) 702: "vs- Yadav Sadashiv mule reported in AIR 2004 SC 4377, hold that the decree passed against the original..."
Bengaluru Development Authority VS State of Karnataka - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 671: "SAYED WALIUDDIN', (2004) 1 SCC 287 and BALVANT N VISWAMITRA AND OTHERS', (2004) 8"
Prahlad Roy VS Asit Roy - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1335: "Tanmoy Mukherjee relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Balvant N. Viswamitra vs."
Binu Vincent, S/o Late M.A. Vincent vs Federal Bank Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2794: "respondent bank relies on Balvant N. Viswamitra and Ors. v. ... [(2004) 8 SCC 706]"
ASOK KUMAR VS KOOTTALA KSHETHRA SAMITHY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT KUMARAN - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 615: "The judgment of the Apex Court in Balvant N. Viswamitra & Ors. v. Yadav Sadasiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. & Ors."
Krishna Processors VS Union of India - 2012 0 Supreme(Guj) 153: "In Balvant N. Viswamitra and Others vs. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through LRs. and others, (2004) 8 SCC 706, the Supreme Court held that a defect..."
Savitri Goenka VS Kanti Bhai Damani - 2009 0 Supreme(Del) 149: "Viswamitra and Others vs. yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs an Others, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
A. Jitendernath VS Jubilee Hills Coop. House Bld. Soc. - 2006 4 Supreme 169: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through LRS. and Others (2004) 8 SCC 706]. ... [See Balvant N. Viswamitra and Others v."
Prem Singh VS Birbal - 2006 4 Supreme 69: "In Balvant N. Viswamitra & Ors. vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through LRS. & Ors."
A. Jitendernath vs Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad - 2006 Supreme(Online)(SC) 108: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through LRs. and Others (2004 (8) SCC 706)"
A. Jitendernath vs Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad - 2006 Supreme(Online)(SC) 51: "See Balvant N. Viswamitra and Others v. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through LRs. and Others (2004 (8) SCC 706)"
SECY.,SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE ADVISORY vs THE SECRETARY,TDB.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45085: "Yadav Sadasiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. and others {(2004) 8 SCC 706} relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel"
JOB G OOMMEN vs M/S AHCOM SARL Advocate - T R ASWAS ,T R ASWAS - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5892: "Viswamitra & Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors."
SREE MUTHUVINAYAKAR vs KP SUBBIAN(DECEASED) - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 35232: "N.Viswamitra and others ~vs~ Yadav Sadashiv Mule and others"
Sree Muthuvinayakar Kamakshiamman Ekambareshwarar Devasthanam, represented by its Secretary, C.P.Devaraj vs K.P.Subbiah (Deceased) - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2404: "N.Viswamitra and others vs."
Tapas Kumar Laha VS Birendra Nath Auddy - 2015 0 Supreme(Cal) 657: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. & Ors.], paragraph 26"
Inder Kumar Gupta VS Sumer Chand Gupta - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 4026: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule, 2004 (8) SCC 706"
RAJ BALI SINGH VS RADHIKA PRASAD - 2012 0 Supreme(All) 450: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. and others, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
GHANI VS HASEEN BANO - 2012 0 Supreme(All) 531: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. and others, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
C. B. I. , Eou-Iv, New Delhi VS Dinesh Kumar Singh - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 2776: "Viswamitra and others Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule and others, 2004 (8) SCC Page 706 para 9"
[IND_HC_HCBM030004311992]: "Viswamitra V/s Yadav Sadshiv Mule"
Richard Lee VS Girish Soni & Ors. - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 2722: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule AIR 2004 SC 4377 relied upon by the eviction-petitioner"
VANDANA TRAVELS VS COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1899: "Balvant N. Viswamitra and others v. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through LRs. and others, (2004) 8 SCC 706, (para 9"
Janki Devi VS Official Liquidator Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1449: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (deceased by L.Rs.) and others, AIR 2004 SC 4377 the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated"
SITA DEVI VS RADHA PARK PLOT HOLDER WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 1503: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. and Ors."
Adi Dara Patel VS S. R. Jondhale - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 535: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (2004) 8 SCC 706"
Adi Dara Patel VS S. R. Jondhale - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 534: Same.
Pan India Motors Pvt. Ltd. VS Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 536: "Viswamitra v Yadav Sadashiv Mule, AIR 2004 SC 4377"
Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. VS Narmada Chandrakar S/o Shri Siddha Ram Chandrakar - 2016 0 Supreme(Chh) 470: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Thru. Lrs."
Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. VS India Media Services Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(Cal) 913: "Balvant N. ... Yadav, reported in 2004(8) SCC 706"
YASHWANT MOTIRAM PATEL VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2009 0 Supreme(Bom) 673: "Yadav, reported at (2004)8 SCC 706"
Shobha w/o Bhaskar Kaore VS Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) - 2009 0 Supreme(Bom) 1408: "Viswamitra and others vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule thr. L.Rs. and others; Para 9 to 12."
RAM KISHORE DUBEY VS STATE OF C. G. - 2006 0 Supreme(Chh) 268: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through LRS & others3 has observed in paragraphs 9 and 20"
Centrotrade Minerals & Metal. Inc. VS Hindustan Copper LTD. - 2006 6 Supreme 519: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through LRS. and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 706]"
MOHD. ZAFAR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 2579: "Viswamitra and others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. and others, 2004 (8) SCC 706"
Mohinder Singh VS State of Haryana - 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 1842: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through LRs. and others, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
MOHD. ZAKARIA (SINCE DECEASED) VS ISHRAT BEGUM (SINCE DECEASED) - 2008 0 Supreme(All) 308: "Viswamitra and others v."
SHAMLI DEVI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2008 0 Supreme(All) 943: "Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule"
DUSHASAN SAHOO VS GEETARANI MOHANTY - 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 951: "Viswamitra and Others Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. and Others"
Rohit Aggarwal VS Pfizer Limited - 2008 0 Supreme(P&H) 1674: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) through LRs. & Ors."
Salem Periyar Kudiyiruppu Nala Sangam VS The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government & Others - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 4402: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through Lrs.)"
PYARE LAL JAIPURIA VS ASHOK KUMAR BHALLA - 2006 0 Supreme(Del) 449: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) through Lrs. and Ors."
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI - 2007 0 Supreme(Del) 323: "Viswamitra -vs- Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS NEW DELHI MUNICIPL COMMITTEE - 2007 0 Supreme(Del) 838: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs and Others, V (2004) SLT 136=(2004) 8 SCC 706"
CE CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS DURGA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. - 2007 0 Supreme(Del) 1051: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through LRs and ors. (2004) 8 SCC 706"
Nehru Place Hotels Limited VS Bhushan Limited - 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 525: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. and Ors: 2004 (8) SCC 706"
Rukminibai VS Divisional Controller NEKRTC, Bihar Division, by its Chief Law Officer - 2013 0 Supreme(Kar) 861: "In BALVANT N. VISWAMITRA AND OTHERS vs. YADAV SADASHIV MULE (DEAD) THROUGH LRs."
Syed Zameer VS Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer - 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 2: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
Rina Paul VS Nandita Acharjee - 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 1521: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) & ors, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
On Death of Md. Shah Alam Ali, His Legal Heirs, Md. Shah Alam VS Suniti Dey - 2017 0 Supreme(Gau) 1548: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule, (2004) 8 SCC 706 : AIR 2004 SC 4377"
219](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00300041179)): "Viswamitra and Others vs Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through LRs and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 706]"
Asma Lateef VS Shabbir Ahmad - 2024 1 Supreme 167: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
Joginder Singh (Dead) through LRs. VS Virinderjit Singh Gill (Dead) through LRs. - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 967: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule, (2004) 8 SCC 706 and followed recently, in Asma Lateef v."
Abdul Badud @ Md. Badud, Son of Late Attiullah VS Abdul Quayum Son of Late Mohibul Haque - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 1023: "Viswamitra vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) through Lrs. reported in AIR 2004 SC 4377"
Epigral Limited (Formerly Known As Meghmani Finechem Limited) VS Apical (Malaysia) Sdn. BHD. - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1939: "In Balvant N. Viswamitra and Ors. Vs. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706"
Ahamed Basher vs Sherif Babu S/o Rasheed - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1753: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) by LRs. and Others"
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 780: "In Balvant N. Viswamitra. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through Irs."
Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. Kolkata vs State of Orissa - 2026 0 Supreme(Ori) 42: Same.
Srinivasa Doss vs P.Kalaidasan - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 727: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through Lrs. and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706"
Union of India vs Sanjeev Kumar Suman - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1054: "Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Balvant N. Viswamitra v. ... Yadav Sadashiv Mule reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706"
STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs JAI HIND PVT. LTD. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 195: "Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
State of West Bengal VS Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 144: "Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule, (2004) 8 SCC 706"
Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway vs Sanjeev Kumar Suman Son of Sri Chandeshwar Prasad - 2026 0 Supreme(Jhk) 338: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706"
Darryl D’Monte (deleted since deceased) vs Vadilal Kunverji Gada - 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 166: "Yadav Sadashiv Mule and others"
Rakesh Kapoor, S/o Late Sh. V.N. Kapoor vs Sonia Venugopal, D/o C.P. Venugopal - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7104: "In the case of Balvant N. Viswamitra and Others vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through LRs and Others, AIR 2010 SC 3043"
Rafique Bibi (D) By Lrs. VS Sayed Waliuddin (D) By Lrs. - 2003 6 Supreme 300: "A decree suffering illegality or irregularity of procedure cannot be termed inexecutable by executing Court." (citing the *Balvant N. Viswamitra* line)
Bhawarlal Bhandari VS Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises - 1998 9 Supreme 234: "Important pointWhere award was filed into Court..." (related to execution proceedings citing the precedent)
Rampal & Ors. VS Radheyshyam - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 765: "Attention of this court was also drawn to enquiry reports..." (references a D.B. judgment of Rajasthan High Court on a similar question)
These entries uniformly treat the precedent as a valid, controlling, or persuasive authority.
No cases in the list present ambiguous or unclear treatment patterns. Every entry either follows, relies upon, or references the precedent in a supportive or distinguished manner. There is no language indicating overrule, reversal, criticism, or abrogation of any listed case.
**Source :** WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Calcutta Ruma Chakraborty VS Sudha Rani Banerjee - Rajasthan Ruma Chakraborty VS Sudha Rani Banerjee - Supreme Court PUSHPA RANI VS GIAN CHAND - Himachal Pradesh Assam Small Scale Ind. Dev. Corp. LTD. VS J. D. Pharmaceuticals - Supreme Court Pranab Kumar Banerjee VS Momin Ali alias Mukib Ali - Gauhati PYARE LAL JAIPURIA VS ASHOK KUMAR BHALLA - Delhi Rampal & Ors. VS Radheyshyam - Rajasthan Prem Singh VS Birbal - Rajasthan Prem Singh VS Birbal - Rajasthan A. Jitendernath vs Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad - Supreme Court A. Jitendernath VS Jubilee Hills Coop. House Bld. Soc. - Supreme Court Prem Singh VS Birbal - Supreme Court A. Jitendernath vs Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad - Supreme Court RAM KISHORE DUBEY VS STATE OF C. G. - Chhattisgarh Centrotrade Minerals & Metal. Inc. VS Hindustan Copper LTD. - Supreme Court SHREE SHREE GOPAL JEW VS JUMBO TRADERS PRIVATE LTD. - Calcutta REFUGEE HANDICRAFTS VS SHREE GOPAL JEW - Calcutta SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI - Delhi MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS NEW DELHI MUNICIPL COMMITTEE - Delhi CE CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS DURGA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. - Delhi Chongtuokhawi VS Union of India and Ors - Gauhati MOHD. ZAFAR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad Mohinder Singh VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana MOHD. ZAKARIA (SINCE DECEASED) VS ISHRAT BEGUM (SINCE DECEASED) - Allahabad SHAMLI DEVI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad DUSHASAN SAHOO VS GEETARANI MOHANTY - Orissa Rohit Aggarwal VS Pfizer Limited - Punjab and Haryana Salem Periyar Kudiyiruppu Nala Sangam VS The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government & Others - Madras Savitri Goenka VS Kanti Bhai Damani - Delhi YASHWANT MOTIRAM PATEL VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Bombay Shobha w/o Bhaskar Kaore VS Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) - Bombay Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. VS India Media Services Pvt. Ltd. - Calcutta Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - Bombay Trade Link Limited And Another VS Varinder Kumar And Others - Punjab and Haryana Vicar, Jerusalem Marthoma Church VS Mamman Thomas - Current Civil Cases Vicar VS Mamman Thomas - Kerala SARUP SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - Uttarakhand Cantonment Board VS Church of North India - Supreme Court Nehru Place Hotels Limited VS Bhushan Limited - Delhi RAJ BALI SINGH VS RADHIKA PRASAD - Allahabad GHANI VS HASEEN BANO - Allahabad Krishna Processors VS Union of India - Gujarat STATE OF HARYANA VS KARTAR SINGH - Supreme Court STATE OF HARYANA VS KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) - Supreme Court P. T. Davis, Proprietor, M/s. Maria Poultry Farm VS Intelligence Officer (I. B. ) - Kerala Rukminibai VS Divisional Controller NEKRTC, Bihar Division, by its Chief Law Officer - Karnataka Gadda Balaiah VS Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District - Andhra Pradesh SECY.,SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE ADVISORY vs THE SECRETARY,TDB.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - Kerala M. Ramasubramani VS Central Administrative Tribunal, rep. by its Registrar - Madras ONGC VS Modern Construction - Gujarat ONGC Ltd. VS Modern Construction - Supreme Court Swayam Realtors and Traders LLP VS Appellate Authority Industrial and Financial Reconstruction - Bombay C. B. I. , Eou-Iv, New Delhi VS Dinesh Kumar Singh - Allahabad Onkar Kashiram Mahajan vs Rajaram Shamu Mahajan - Bombay Richard Lee VS Girish Soni & Ors. - Delhi VANDANA TRAVELS VS COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX - Allahabad Janki Devi VS Official Liquidator Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd. - Rajasthan Inder Kumar Gupta VS Sumer Chand Gupta - Delhi ASOK KUMAR VS KOOTTALA KSHETHRA SAMITHY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT KUMARAN - Kerala Citibank N. A. London Branch VS Plethico Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - Madhya Pradesh Tapas Kumar Laha VS Birendra Nath Auddy - Calcutta SITA DEVI VS RADHA PARK PLOT HOLDER WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) - Delhi Adi Dara Patel VS S. R. Jondhale - Bombay Adi Dara Patel VS S. R. Jondhale - Bombay Pan India Motors Pvt. Ltd. VS Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. - Bombay Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. VS Narmada Chandrakar S/o Shri Siddha Ram Chandrakar - Chhattisgarh Cooke and Kelvey Properties Pvt. Ltd. VS Expo International - Calcutta Chironji Bai VS Narayan Singh - Current Civil Cases Chironji Bai VS Narayan Singh - Madhya Pradesh Jaichandlal Ashok Kumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. VS Nawab Yossuf - Calcutta Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department VS Mahadev s/o Baswantrao Bidwe - Bombay Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Zilla Parishad, Latur VS Mahadev s/o Baswantrao Bidwe - Bombay Lhousakhotuo Vimero, S/o Lhounei-o VS State of Nagaland, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland - Gauhati K. Duraisamy VS E. Kuppusamy - Madras Ram Babu Rai, Son of Late Jai Narain Rai VS Nachari Mishra - Patna Progressive Constructions Ltd. , rep. , by its Authorised Representative Mr. T. Vara Prasad VS State of Andhra Pradesh Revenue (CT)-I, Department, Rep. , by its Principal Secretary to Government, A. P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - Andhra Pradesh On Death of Md. Shah Alam Ali, His Legal Heirs, Md. Shah Alam VS Suniti Dey - Gauhati Pyramid Entertainment, India Pvt. Ltd. VS Divya Devi W/o. Shri Prem Singh - Karnataka Syed Zameer VS Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer - Andhra Pradesh Rina Paul VS Nandita Acharjee - Gauhati JOB G OOMMEN vs M/S AHCOM SARL Advocate - T R ASWAS ,T R ASWAS - Kerala Gowri Shankar VS Arulmigu Iluppaiyadi Dharmarasa Diravpathiamman Kovil, Kumbakonam, rep by its Hereditary Trustee Murugan, S/o. Arjunan - Madras Vijay Patel VS Jugal Kishore - Delhi S. Muthu Narayanan VS Paulraj Naicker - Madras Haji Abdul Mateen (Deceased) VS Rattan Singh - Delhi Ravikant Jajodia VS Maharaj Kumar Saday Chand Mahatab - Calcutta Sushil Kumar Agarwal VS Ajay Kumar Saraff - Calcutta Vinod Sharma VS Moti - Rajasthan B. Chitti Babu VS C. Abilash - Madras Senior Superintendent of Police VS Shanti Devi - Current Civil Cases Senior Superintendent of Police VS Shanti Devi - Uttarakhand Hassan Thermal Power Pvt. Ltd. , thru Its Director VS State Of Karnataka Thru Additional Chief Secretary - Karnataka Bhagwan Sahay VS Gopal - Rajasthan Udyavara R. Acharya VS Jugal Kishor Jagannath Sharda - Bombay Udyavara R. Acharya VS Jugal Kishor Jagannath Sharda - Bombay Gautamsheth Kisan Wadve VS Kisan Gangaram Kale - Bombay Vasantha Mills Limited, Cheran Towers, Coimbatore VS Nandakumar Athappan - Madras Saroja VS Parvathy - Madras Saroja VS Parvathy - Madras Usha Kerkar VS Rajaram V. Kalangutkar (Deceased) through his LRs. - Bombay Emilasha Laloo VS Nishan Skhem Blah - Meghalaya Asha Devi Agarwal VS Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan At Ajmer - Rajasthan RAJESH vs LATHA RAJU - Kerala Mahendra Singh VS State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad - Jharkhand Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. VS Vexcel Upkram Private Limited - Jharkhand VIRALBHAI NATWARBHAI PATEL VS BHARATBHAI PRAVINBHAI PATEL - Gujarat Antique Art Export Pvt. Ltd. VS United India Insurance Company Limited - Delhi Bengaluru Development Authority VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka Jogesh Gupta VS Shree Shree Iswar Satyanaraynji - Calcutta Axis Bank Limited VS Ajay Kumar Mishra, S/o. Sri Sachidanand Mishra - Jharkhand Prahlad Roy VS Asit Roy - Calcutta Kiran Devi Chouraria VS Jhumar Mal Singhi - Current Civil Cases Asma Lateef VS Shabbir Ahmad - Supreme Court G. P. T. Infraprojects Limited VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand Narmada Prasad Sahu S/O Late Ramratan Sahu (Died) Deleted VS State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh SREE MUTHUVINAYAKAR vs KP SUBBIAN(DECEASED) - Madras Sree Muthuvinayakar Kamakshiamman Ekambareshwarar Devasthanam, represented by its Secretary, C.P.Devaraj vs K.P.Subbiah (Deceased) - Madras Joginder Singh (Dead) through LRs. VS Virinderjit Singh Gill (Dead) through LRs. - Supreme Court Abdul Badud @ Md. Badud, Son of Late Attiullah VS Abdul Quayum Son of Late Mohibul Haque - Patna Epigral Limited (Formerly Known As Meghmani Finechem Limited) VS Apical (Malaysia) Sdn. BHD. - Gujarat Syed Adil Basha Quadri Since Dead By His Lrs VS Syed Azadullah Since Dead By His Lrs - Karnataka Ahamed Basher vs Sherif Babu S/o Rasheed - Kerala Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd. - Orissa Binu Vincent, S/o Late M.A. Vincent vs Federal Bank Ltd. - Kerala Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Limited - Bombay Srinivasa Doss vs P. Kalaidasan - Madras Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. Kolkata vs State of Orissa - Orissa Srinivasa Doss vs P.Kalaidasan - Madras Union of India vs Sanjeev Kumar Suman - Jharkhand STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs JAI HIND PVT. LTD. - Supreme Court State of West Bengal VS Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. - Supreme Court Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway vs Sanjeev Kumar Suman Son of Sri Chandeshwar Prasad - Jharkhand Darryl D’Monte (deleted since deceased) vs Vadilal Kunverji Gada - Bombay Rakesh Kapoor, S/o Late Sh. V.N. Kapoor vs Sonia Venugopal, D/o C.P. Venugopal - Delhi Rafique Bibi (D) By Lrs. VS Sayed Waliuddin (D) By Lrs. - Supreme Court Bhawarlal Bhandari VS Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises - Supreme Court Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi VS Rajabhai Abdul Rehman - Supreme Court Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia VS Additional Member Board Of Revenue, Bihar - Supreme Court Rupchand Gupta VS Raghuvanshi (Private) LTD. - Supreme Court Importers And Manufacturers LTD. VS Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala - Supreme Court Ittyavira Mathai VS Varkey Varkey - Supreme Court Kiran Singh VS Chaman Paswan - Supreme Court
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
