This compilation indexes 12 rulings delivered by Indian courts between August 2025 and August 2026 in which Section 63 was among the sections cited or engaged. The cases span the Supreme Court of India, and High Courts at Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Gujarat, Kerala, Madras, and Jammu & Kashmir. The subject matter ranges across property tax assessment, will execution and succession disputes, tenancy and land law, arbitration, and statutory registration — reflecting the breadth of legislative contexts in which "Section 63" appears across different Indian statutes. Each entry is drawn directly from the source judgment record and is presented as a research index entry only.

Disclaimer: This page is a structured research index compiled from publicly available court records. It is not legal advice, tax advice, or professional guidance of any kind. Readers should verify all entries against the full text of the original judgment and consult qualified professionals before acting on any legal matter.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

"Section 63" is a provision number that recurs across multiple Indian statutes, and the cases in this compilation engage different legislative instruments. Notably, Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 governs the execution of unprivileged wills, prescribing requirements of testator signature, attestation by two or more witnesses present at the same time, and each witness signing in the presence of the testator. Other legislative frameworks in which Section 63 appears and which are touched upon in the cases below include the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, the CGST/MGST Act, 2017, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, land revenue legislation, the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the Electricity Act, 2003. Because "Section 63" in each case refers to the section of the statute under which that particular dispute arises, readers must identify the applicable statute from the judgment text before drawing any interpretive conclusions.

The 12 rulings

1. Khan Market Welfare Association vs Uoi & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 21 August 2026
Sections engaged: 63(1), 72(1)(f)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(C) 3534/2024, CNR No. DLHC010117312024) was filed by Khan Market Welfare Association (Regd.) before the Delhi High Court challenging the assessment of property tax in the NDMC area. The petitioner contended that although the Dual Method introduced through the 2009 Bye-laws had been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court, NDMC continued to apply the principles underlying the Unit Area Method, actual rent, comparable rent, and historical rateable values, resulting in similarly situated properties being subjected to substantially different rateable values and excessive discretion being vested in assessing authorities. NDMC disputed the allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, and misuse of power, as per the source preview.

2. M/S Bhagwati Electronics vs Union Of India & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 5 August 2026
Sections engaged: 107, 63, 74, 75(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter (W.P.(C) 2179/2026 and connected petitions, CNR No. DLHC010055872026) was decided by the Delhi High Court on 5 August 2026 and comprised a batch of writ petitions filed by multiple petitioners — including M/S Bhagwati Electronics, M/S Vaishno Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Robin Bareja, Nikhil Verma, Kapil Arora & Ors., Neha Lalwani, M/S Cariano Pvt. Ltd., and others — all arrayed against Union of India & Ors. The source preview is primarily procedural in nature, listing the petitioner names, CNR numbers, and writ petition numbers across the connected matters. Substantive grounds are not discernible from the available preview.

3. Madhusudan Motilal Jayswal Since Decd vs Shrawankumar Motilal Jayswal

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 5 August 2026
Sections engaged: 227, 63, 68
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter arose out of R/First Appeal No. 265 of 2000 (with R/First Appeal No. 266 of 2000) before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad, filed against a common judgment dated 15.03.2000 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nadiad, Kheda, in Special Civil Suit No. 130 of 1996 (old Regular Civil Suit No. 66 of 1992). The appeal was heard as a CAV judgment reserved on 01.07.2026 and pronounced on 05.08.2026. The source preview is primarily procedural, identifying the parties, appearance of counsel, and the trial court proceedings; substantive grounds are not discernible from the available preview.

4. Manakkadu Suresh vs The Sub Registrar

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 22 July 2026
Sections engaged: 62, 63
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three writ petitions (W.P(MD) Nos. 20592, 20604 & 20612 of 2026) were filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner Manakkadu Suresh, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned refusal check slips (RFL/No.1 Joint Sub Registrar Thoothukudi/145/2026, 146/2026 and 144/2026 dated 17.06.2026) passed by the Sub-Registrar, and to direct registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner dated 17.06.2026. The second respondent was the Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department, T.R.O. No.1, Madurai. The source preview is primarily procedural and does not disclose the substantive grounds or final directions in full.

5. Lakshmi vs Gopi

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 63
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This reportable judgment (2026 INSC 709) arose from Civil Appeal filed at the Supreme Court (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9510 of 2023) in a dispute pertaining to the execution of the alleged last will and testament of one Thankam, who died on 27th August 2011. The Civil Court had held that the will could not be proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and passed a preliminary decree directing the suit property to be divided into 10 shares with the plaintiff-appellant entitled to a 2/10th share. The defendants approached the High Court, which passed a judgment of only two paragraphs and three-and-a-half pages, and the matter was thereafter brought before the Supreme Court by special leave, with leave granted.

6. Neo Metaliks Limited vs Orrisa Metaliks Private Limited

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 9 July 2026
Sections engaged: 34, 63
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (AO-COM No. 11 of 2025, arising out of A.P.(COM) No. 32 of 2024) was filed before the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court by the claimant, Neo Metaliks Limited, in assailment of a judgment and order dated January 6, 2025, passed in A.P.(COM) No. 32 of 2024, by which the learned Single Judge found no infirmity with the award passed by the learned Arbitrator on October 16, 2023 and dismissed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider that the counter claim allowed in the arbitral proceeding could not stand, as per the source preview; substantive conclusions are not discernible from the available preview.

7. Anil Badrinarayan Daga vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: 63
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Writ Petition No. 12515 of 2022 was filed before the Bombay High Court assailing an order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 1) granting permission for sale of subject land to Respondent No. 5, enabling him to sell to Respondent No. 6, under Section 63-IA of the Maharashtra Tenancy Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The writ petition was heard finally by consent of parties and was described in the source preview as highly contested by all parties. The substantive outcome is not discernible from the available preview.

8. J.N. Lighting India Llp vs Union Of India

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 29 April 2026
Sections engaged: 63, 70, 73(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Writ Petition No. 6079 of 2024 (2026:BHC-AS:20889-DB) was filed by J. N. Lighting India LLP before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the order of cancellation dated 09.10.2023 was against the provisions of the CGST/MGST Act, 2017, and to quash and set aside a show cause notice for cancellation dated 16.09.2023 and the order of cancellation dated 09.10.2023. The source preview indicates that this matter concerns CGST/MGST Act provisions; as the topic section for this compilation is Section 63 as cited in the source record, and this case's text_preview explicitly references the CGST/MGST Act, 2017 regime, it is noted that the Section 63 engaged here falls within that statutory framework rather than the Income Tax Act.

9. Kishor Bhagwandas Sadhwani, Legal vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 28 April 2026
Sections engaged: 63, 84
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: R/Special Civil Application No. 1195 of 2026 (along with Civil Application for Vacating Interim Relief No. 1 of 2026) was filed before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad by Kishor Bhagwandas Sadhwani, Legal Heirs of Late Bhagwandas Rochiram Sadhwani, against the State of Gujarat and others (neutral citation C/SCA/1195/2026). The source preview is primarily procedural, recording the case caption, appearance of senior counsel, and approval for reporting; the substantive grounds and outcome are not discernible from the available preview.

10. Dr. T.M. Thomas vs St. Johns College

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 26 March 2026
Sections engaged: 63, 70
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: RFA No. 350 of 2015 (2026:KER:26953) was filed before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 232 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pathanamthitta, against the dismissal of a suit filed for compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- against the respondents as not maintainable. The appellant, described in the preview as a retired English Lecturer with 32 years of service, had applied for a post of dean at the 1st defendant college. The appeal was heard and judgment delivered on the same day, 26.03.2026; further substantive findings are not discernible from the available preview.

11. High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir And vs Rajinder Gupta

Bench: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Date: 22 August 2025
Sections engaged: 62, 63
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: WP(C) No. 1668/2025, reserved on 31.07.2025 and pronounced on 22.08.2025, was filed by Rajinder Gupta before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, seeking, inter alia, a mandamus commanding the respondents (UT of J&K and others) to follow the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act and grant an opportunity of hearing before proceeding under Section 62 of the Land Revenue Act, and prohibition restraining the respondents from acting upon an impugned writ of demand notice issued under Section 62. The source preview sets out tabular details of premium amounts, rent dues, and unpaid balances across multiple years; substantive judicial conclusions are not discernible from the available preview.

12. Nabha Power Limited vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 19 August 2025
Sections engaged: 125, 63
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This reportable judgment (2025 INSC 1002) comprised two civil appeals — Civil Appeal No. 8694 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No. 8739 of 2017 — filed by Nabha Power Limited before the Supreme Court of India under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, arising from a common judgment dated 04.07.2017 in Appeal No. 47 of 2015 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi (APTEL). The common questions of law addressed included whether the Press Release of a Cabinet Decision pertaining to change of threshold of deemed export benefits would constitute a "Change in Law" under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), and if so, whether the appellants were entitled to restitutionary relief in the form of compensation. The claim primarily challenged the post-bid withdrawal of fiscal incentives; further substantive findings on the Section 63 reference are not discernible from the available preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 63 spans multiple statutes. Across all 12 entries, "Section 63" does not refer to a single provision. The cases engage Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (will execution — case 5), the NDMC Act / property tax framework (case 1), the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (case 7), the CGST/MGST Act, 2017 (case 8), the Land Revenue Act of J&K (case 11), and the Electricity Act, 2003 (case 12), among others. Researchers must always identify the parent statute before applying any ruling.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is a common procedural vehicle. Cases 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11 were all brought before High Courts as writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. This reflects the frequency with which statutory actions — refusal to register documents, cancellation orders, demand notices — are challenged through the extraordinary writ jurisdiction rather than through statutory appeal channels.
Source previews are predominantly procedural. Across the majority of the 12 entries, the available text preview discloses only the case caption, parties, counsel appearances, and the nature of relief sought, without revealing the operative findings or reasoning of the court. This is a dataset-level observation relevant to researchers who rely on preview text for quick substantive research: full judgment retrieval remains essential.
Succession and will disputes are a recurrent theme. At least two cases (case 5 — Lakshmi vs Gopi, and case 3 — Madhusudan Motilal Jayswal Since Decd vs Shrawankumar Motilal Jayswal) involve disputes arising in the context of succession, inheritance, and family property, with the Indian Succession Act's Section 63 (will execution) being directly engaged in case 5.
Multi-party and batch petition structures appear frequently. Case 2 (M/S Bhagwati Electronics) involves a batch of at least eight connected writ petitions decided together by the Delhi High Court, and case 1 involves multiple respondent parties. This batching pattern reflects a recurring judicial efficiency mechanism for similarly situated petitioners challenging the same statutory action or departmental order.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is intended as a starting-point research index for legal professionals, in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need to identify Indian court rulings in which Section 63 — under whichever statute — has been cited. Each entry provides the court, date, sections engaged, and a brief procedural note drawn from the source record. Because the source previews available for each case are largely introductory and procedural, this index should be treated as a pointer to the full judgment, not as a substitute for it.

Researchers are strongly advised to retrieve the full text of each judgment from indiankanoon.org, the official High Court portals, or the Supreme Court of India's official website before drawing any conclusions about the ratio decidendi, obiter, or operative holding. Many entries in this compilation record the outcome as "Outcome not specified in source," which means the dispositive order was not captured in the source preview — it does not mean the case was undecided or that no order was passed.

Before relying on any ruling indexed here, researchers should also verify whether the judgment has been stayed, appealed, reversed, or distinguished in a subsequent proceeding; check whether any relevant CBDT circular, CBIC instruction, or legislative amendment has superseded the statutory provision at issue; and confirm which statute's "Section 63" is engaged in each case, since the section number alone does not identify the applicable legal framework. Cross-referencing with parallel rulings on the same statutory provision and checking the current version of the relevant Act are essential steps in any rigorous research workflow.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 63 Case Law: 12 Indian Court Rulings (2025–2026)