Corporate Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

January 16, 2026 11:34 pm

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 43 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

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. )…

Corporate

Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 — Section 37 — Proceedings on annulment — The validity of acts done by a court or receiver before annulment of adjudication of insolvency depends on whether the sales and dispositions of property and payments made were “duly made.” If these acts are found to be not duly made, Section 37 will not protect them.

Oct 5, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1159 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SINGAMASETTY BHAGAVATH GUPTHA AND ANOTHER Vs. ALLAM KARIBASAPPA (D) BY LRS./ALLAM DODDABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam…

Corporate

Competition Act, 2002 — Sections 3(1), 3(3)(b), 27, 48 — Anti-competitive agreements — Penalty on office-bearers — Principles of natural justice — Show cause notice — Opportunity of hearing — Commission’s power to differ with DG — Competent to impose penalties and behavioural remedies on individuals responsible for contravention after due process.

Sep 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1167 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Vs. KERALA FILM EXHIBITORS FEDERATION AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ.…

Corporate G S T

Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 — Section 3 — Levy of tax — Requirement of motor vehicle being used or kept for use in a ‘public place’ — ‘Public place’ defined under Section 2(34) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as a road, street, way or other place to which public has a right of access — Visakhapatnam Steel Plant premises, being a restricted area with controlled access, not a public place — Tax not leviable on vehicles used exclusively within such premises.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw

025 INSC 1052 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. TARACHAND LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.…

Corporate

ESI – The definition of ‘principal employer’ under Section 2(17) is wide and includes not only the owner or occupier of a factory (or head of department in government establishments) but also the managing agent or any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment — Designation is immaterial if the person functions as a managing agent or supervises/controls the establishment

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 500 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAY RAJ SHETTY Vs. DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of…

Corporate

Validity of State rule providing for cancellation of Form C declaration — The power to prescribe the form of declaration (Form C) required under Section 8(4) of the CST Act, and the particulars to be contained therein, is conferred upon the Central Government under Section 13(1)(d) — The Central Government exercised this power by framing the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, which prescribe Form C (Rule 12(1)) but do not contain any provision empowering any authority to cancel such a declaration once issued.

Apr 19, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 496 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. COMBINED TRADERS ( Before : Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Constitution Corporate

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not absolutely barred by the statutory arbitration mechanism under the MSMED Act and can be exercised in exceptional cases, such as violations of fundamental rights, natural justice, or jurisdictional errors, despite the availability of alternative remedies

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 91 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, CJI,…

Banking Corporate

Bank Loan — Auction — Solatium — Co-operative Bank, granted a business loan of Rs. 25,00,000 to respondents 1, 2, 5, and 6 — Upon default, the bank initiated recovery proceedings before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who awarded Rs. 21,92,942 with interest to the bank — The borrowers’ property was auctioned, with the appellant offering the highest bid of Rs. 81,20,000 — A sale confirmation certificate was issued, but the 1st and 2nd respondents challenged the auction in the Karnataka High Court — The court set aside the auction, noting that the borrowers had deposited Rs. 25,61,400 within three months of the writ petition and ordered the bank to refund the auction amount along with 5% additional compensation to the appellant — The appellant argued that the 5% solatium was inadequate and sought interest for being deprived of the auction amount since July 2019 — The court found merit in the appellant’s claim, ruling that the 4th respondent bank, which initiated the auction, must pay the appellant interest at 6% per annum on the Rs. 81,20,000 from 21st July 2019 until the refund — The court modified the earlier judgments, setting aside the 5% compensation and directing the bank to pay interest.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 793 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIL R. UCHIL — Appellant Vs. VISHU KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Corporate

Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 — Paragraph 13 — Recovery of overcharged amount of drugs — Demand made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to recover an overcharged amount for a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation called Roscilox — The Court found that the appellant’s admission of purchasing the drug directly from the manufacturer made it liable under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) — The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that it was only a ‘dealer’ and not a ‘distributor’ under the DPCO, as the definitions of these terms under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive — The Court further noted that the objective of the DPCO is to control the prices of medicinal drug formulations and ensure they are made available to the common man, and thus, the provision should not be subjected to a restricted or hidebound interpretation — Appeal Dismissed.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 521 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

Corporate

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

Category: Corporate

You missed