Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 22/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Companies Act

Companies Act Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 212(6) Second Proviso and Sections 447, 448, 451 — Cognizance of Offence — Bar on Special Court — Private Complaint — Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) mandates liability under Section 447; thus, the offence under Section 448 is an “offence covered under Section 447” specified in Section 212(6) — The second proviso to Section 212(6) prohibits the Special Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a written complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer — Cognizance cannot be taken upon a private complaint for offences under Section 448 or Section 451 (Punishment for repeated default) as they are inextricably linked to Section 447 — Taking cognizance under Section 448 without invoking the punishment section (Section 447) to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 26, 27, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 59, 60.I)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 42 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YERRAM VIJAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )…

Companies Act Corporate

The primary issue is whether the amalgamation of companies and the resulting transfer of leasehold rights amount to a transfer under the lease deed, requiring payment of unearned increase value to Delhi Development Authority (DDA) – The Court reasoned that the amalgamation did result in a transfer as per the lease deed’s clauses and that the appellant is liable to pay the unearned increase – The appeal was dismissed, confirming DDA’s demand for unearned increase value, and the respondent-DDA was allowed to withdraw the deposited amount with interest.

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.) — Appellant Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.…

Companies Act Corporate

Paid-up capital – Appellants cannot be described as having acted in a defective or in an unfair manner, in the matter of allotment of further shares particularly when the contention of the respondents about the bona fides of the decision to increase the authorised capital has been found in favour of the appellants

Jul 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR. — Appellant Vs. AMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and B.V.…

Companies Act Corporate

HELD purported to project a case of mismanagement and oppression by the appellants in the Petitions styled under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, By Order dated  the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench disposed of the petitions with the following directions –In this set of facts, it is not just and equitable to order winding up of the company

Jun 18, 2023 sclaw

HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR. vs. AMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8195 OF 2018 J. [K.M. JOSEPH] …………………………………………J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA] Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL…

Companies Act I B C

Companies Act, 2013 – Section 164(2)(b) – Insolvency Resolution Process – Unless a categorical finding was recorded in the competent forum as regards any such default and unless specific order disqualifying the resolution applicant as director because of such default came into existence, it could not have been taken by way of any process of assumption that the appellant-resolution applicant was disqualified

May 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.K. RAJAGOPALAN — Appellant Vs. DR. PERIASAMY PALANI GOUNDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Sections 8, 20, 23 — Recovery of contraband — Search and seizure — Procedural safeguards — Failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the Act concerning search and seizure, including informing the accused of their rights to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, vitiates the entire process and raises reasonable doubt. (Paras 8, 9, 13)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Corporate

Expression ‘date of this Notification’ means date of publication in Official Gazette – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Section 3 — Notification — Publication in Official Gazette — Essential requirement for enforceability — Delegated legislation requires publication for accessibility, notice, accountability and solemnity — Not an empty formality but transforms executive decision into law — Strict compliance with publication requirement is a condition precedent — Law must be promulgated or published in a recognisable way. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19)

Jan 22, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 60(5)(c) — Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority — Declaration of title to trademark — NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring title to trademark “Gloster” in favour of the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) while adjudicating an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, as the issue of trademark title was a highly contentious dispute beyond the scope of insolvency proceedings and not directly related to the CIRP.

Jan 22, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Labour Cases

Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 — Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 — Applicability — Cess could not be levied or collected before the constitution of Welfare Boards, as their constitution is a condition precedent for the implementation of these Acts.

Jan 21, 2026 sclaw