Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query...!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query...!
Scanned Judgements…!
Case Name and Citation - Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy is a notable legal matter involving disputes over land and contractual obligations, with multiple references in Supreme Court judgments and High Court proceedings ["
M/S. TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. vs M S MURTHY AND OTHERS - Supreme Court
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10775"].Main Legal Issue - The case primarily addresses the validity of agreements, the authority of representatives (e.g., whether P.S. Parthasarathy, as GPA holder, had the capacity to represent Trinity Infraventures Ltd.), and the enforceability of sale agreements. It also touches upon jurisdictional questions and the use of previous verdicts, notably the decision in Trinity Infraventures Ltd., by lower courts ["2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 133"] ["2023 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 28288"].
Court Findings and Insights - The Supreme Court emphasized that the sale agreement was executed in favor of Trinity Infraventures Ltd. and not by an individual in a personal capacity, highlighting the importance of proper authorization and representation. The Court also clarified that the verdict in Trinity Infraventures Ltd. cannot be directly used or followed in subsequent cases due to specific legal restrictions, including Supreme Court orders prohibiting reliance on that judgment in certain contexts ["2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 133"] ["2023 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 28288"].
Jurisdictional and Procedural Aspects - Several judgments discuss the procedural aspects, such as the rights of parties to file additional evidence, the implications of non-impleadment of third parties in suits, and the importance of following proper legal procedures. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judgments from other courts or earlier decisions should not be used as binding precedents if prohibited or if they do not directly apply to the facts ["
M/S. TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. vs M S MURTHY AND OTHERS - Supreme Court
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 53829"].Conclusions - The case underscores the necessity of proper authorization for contractual actions, adherence to judicial orders regarding precedents, and careful consideration of jurisdictional boundaries. The Supreme Court's rulings reinforce that agreements must be executed by authorized persons and that courts must respect binding directives to ensure legal clarity ["
M/S. TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. vs M S MURTHY AND OTHERS - Supreme Court
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10775"].References:- ["
M/S. TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. vs M S MURTHY AND OTHERS - Supreme Court
"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10775"]- ["2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 133"]- ["2023 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 28288"]- ["M/S. TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. vs M S MURTHY AND OTHERS - Supreme Court
"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3687"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 683"]- ["2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5560"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 53829"]
In the complex world of Indian property law, disputes over land titles, mutations, and revenue records often lead to high-stakes litigation reaching the . One such intriguing matter involves , a case tied to property claims in Andhra Pradesh/Telangana regions. If you're searching for the Trinity Infraventures v. M.S. Murthy case citation, this guide breaks it down based on available legal references, highlighting why it's relevant for landowners, developers, and legal practitioners.
This post explores the query: trinity infraventures v. m s murthy case citation. While primary legal documents may not directly cite it, related filings and High Court observations provide crucial leads. Note: This is general information for educational purposes and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Trinity Infraventures Ltd., formerly linked to entities like , has been involved in multiple property disputes, particularly around land in areas like Hafeezpet village. These cases often revolve around , , and challenges under the (APRLP Act). M.S. Murthy appears as a key respondent in several proceedings, suggesting adversarial claims over land ownership or development rights.
The core issues typically include:- Refusal by revenue authorities to mutate names in (revenue records).- Denials of construction permissions by municipal bodies like the .- Invocation of to enforce mutation orders under . 2020 0 Supreme(Telangana) 755
A related observation notes: the subject matter of this case is land in Hafeezpet village which is subject matter of C.S. No. 14 of 1958... and there are certain findings recorded by a Division Bench in Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v... This indicates ongoing original suits and appellate references. 2020 0 Supreme(Telangana) 755
When querying legal databases for Trinity Infraventures v. M.S. Murthy case citation, initial reviews of standard judgments reveal no direct mention in documents covering probate finality 1984 0 Supreme(SC) 257, arbitration jurisdiction 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 774, criminal investigations 2018 3 Supreme 190, or eviction proceedings 2002 6 Supreme 487. These sources discuss unrelated principles like the finality of probate 1984 0 Supreme(SC) 257 and jurisdiction of courts in arbitration 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 774, confirming the absence of this specific case.
However, records provide direct hits:- : This appears as a key citation involving multiple applicants and respondents.- : References SLP(C) Nos. 24590-24592/2018 with M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. as petitioner.- and : List Trinity Infraventures as respondent in connected matters.- : Hearing note for petitions versus M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. dated .- : Ties back to SLP No. 24592/2018.
These are not standalone judgments but diary numbers or SLP references, indicating special leave petitions that may have been disposed of or linked to broader litigation. For full citations, check official SCC or Manupatra databases.
The disputes underscore enforcement of mutation orders. In one fact pattern: The court directed the respondents to implement mutation orders in the revenue records and incorporate the petitioner's name in the of Hafeezpet Village. The court set aside GHMC's refusal, noting prior rejections of government land claims by courts and the . 2020 0 Supreme(Telangana) 755
highlights:- Authorities must implement mutation per Rule 30, APRLP Act, 1971. 2020 0 Supreme(Telangana) 755- No reliance on rejected government title claims.- Costs imposed on respondents for unjustified delays.
Another reference under dismissed writs against Joint Collector's orders, holding: there was no ; that the properties are not traceable to the plaint schedule... petitioners were not entitled to have mutation... unless and until a ... is passed. 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 289
This duality shows how preliminary claims falter without final decrees in suits like C.S. No. 14 of 1958. 2020 0 Supreme(Telangana) 755
Land mutation battles are common post-bifurcation, involving:- : Essential for title proof under APRLP Act.- : Challenging tahsildar/joint collector orders. 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 289- Oversight: SLPs ensure uniformity, as seen in multiple Trinity filings
.
Related docs touch property writs 2003 3 Supreme 1 and tenancy defenses 2002 6 Supreme 487, but lack direct ties. The implication? Absence in isolated docs doesn't negate existence—cross-reference SC portals.
To locate the precise Trinity Infraventures v. M.S. Murthy citation:1. Search of India portal with parties' names.2. Review for WP No. 35004/2016 or C.S. No. 14/1958. 2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 165223. Consult Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Act commentaries.4. Engage local revenue experts for mutation status.
Exceptions: These findings are source-limited; broader research may yield full judgments.
While core documents 1984 0 Supreme(SC) 257 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 774 2018 3 Supreme 190 omit Trinity Infraventures v. M.S. Murthy, entries like
confirm its procedural footprint in property mutation wars. Key takeaway: Secure final decrees before seeking mutations, and enforce Rule 30 diligently. 2020 0 Supreme(Telangana) 755
For developers, this case exemplifies persistence in revenue challenges. Always verify with primary sources—legal outcomes may vary by facts.
References:- 1984 0 Supreme(SC) 257 Probate finality.- 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 774 Arbitration jurisdiction.- 2018 3 Supreme 190 Criminal procedures.- 2020 0 Supreme(Telangana) 755 Mutation directives.-
Main SLP.- 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 289 Section 9 dismissals.
Stay informed on land laws to navigate these intricacies effectively.
#TrinityInfraventures, #LandLawIndia, #CaseCitation
TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. ETC. APPLICANTS VERSUS M.S. MURTHY AND OTHERS & ORS. ETC. ... TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. ETC. APPLICANTS VERSUS M.S. MURTHY AND OTHERS & ORS. ETC.
No. 4053/2023 passed by the Supreme Court of India] M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS MS MURTHY & ORS.
Trinity Infraventures Limited represented by its authorised signatory, P.S.Parthasarathy, the petitioner in W.P.No.2918 of 2019. The document also records that M/s. Trinity Infraventures Limited already paid the full consideration to the eight principals. ... Trinity Infraventures Limited and not P.S.Parthasarathy, the GPA holder, who was only a Director of the said company. ... Trinity Infraventures Limited.’ ... 9. The agreement of sale dated 15.01....
Moreover, the said case of Trinity Infraventures Ltd. ... By asking this Bench to follow the findings/observations/decision in Trinity Infraventures Ltd. ... He stated that the subject matter of this case is land in Hafeezpet village which is subject matter of C.S. No. 14 of 1958 (an original proceeding still pending on the file of this Court) and there are certain findings recorded by a Division Bench in Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. ... We pointed ....
(C) Nos. 881-883/2019 in SLP(C) Nos. 24590-24592/2018 M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS S.
Petitioner(s) VERSUS TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LIMITED & ORS.
Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 17-03-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
No. 24592/2018 passed by the Supreme Court Of India) M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. THROUGH P.S.
Petitioner(s) VERSUS TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LIMITED & ORS.
INFRAVENTURES LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRZA IBRAHIM BAIG & ORS. ... PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.10959/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-04-2022 in WP No. 35004/2016 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad) M/S TRINITY
Ltd, (formerly known as Goldstone Engineering Ltd.) Ac.74.00 2. B/807/2011 19-08-2011 57 Ac.10.20 Mr. L.P. Sashi Kumar Ac.01.20 Mr. R. Ramamurthy Ac.01.00 Dr. P.S. Prasad Ac.14.00 M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd. Ac.20.00 M/s. Goldstone Exports Ltd, (presently known as Trinit....
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
