Corporate Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

October 3, 2025 3:58 am

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…

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 16, 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…

Corporate Mining

Bird and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking and Other Properties) Act, 1980 – Sections 3 and 7 – Renewal of mining leases granted to Bird and Company Limited, which were later vested in Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL) after nationalization. BPMEL, in liquidation, and its subsidiary OMDC are central to the case – The dispute revolves around the renewal of three expired mining leases: Kolha-Roida, Thakurani, and Dalki – TGP Equity Management Private Limited, an assignee of UCO Bank’s claims against BPMEL, seeks renewal or transfer of these leases – The Government of Odisha and the Union of India argue against renewal, citing BPMEL’s non-operation and financial constraints – The Supreme Court dismissed TGP’s appeals and upheld the State of Odisha’s order, rejecting the renewal of the Kolha-Roida lease – The Thakurani and Dalki leases are also rejected, citing the impracticality of renewing leases for a defunct company and the lack of a viable mining operation plan – The dispute should be resolved, with dues settled under the Companies Act, 1956.

Jun 10, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 440 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA — Appellant Vs. BHARAT PROCESS AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Corporate

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Sections 75(1)(g) and 90- The Supreme Court ruled that Nagar Nigam’s workshop was a ‘factory’ under the Act of 1948, and that it was engaged in a manufacturing process with over 20 workers – The Corporation argued that the workshop was a ‘factory’ and should pay contributions under the Act – Nagar Nigam argued that their workshop was not a ‘factory’ and their employees were not engaged in a manufacturing process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s order, and clarified that Nagar Nigam could seek exemption under Section 90 of the Act of 1948 – The Court relied on precedents and statutory provisions of the Act of 1948 to determine that the workshop was a ‘factory’ and subject to the Act’s provisions – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in its judgment and Nagar Nigam should have approached the Insurance Court instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Jun 4, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 441 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. NAGAR NIGAM ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala…

You missed

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 139, 118 — Dishonour of cheque — Presumptions — Scope — Once execution/signature admitted, presumption arises that cheque was for consideration and discharge of legally enforceable debt — Burden initially on accused to rebut by raising probable defence — Mere plea of complainant’s financial incapacity, without documentary or independent evidence, not sufficient — Failure to reply to statutory notice, an adverse inference against accused — Defence that blank signed cheque given for obtaining bank loan, held unbelievable.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Setting aside of arbitral award — Scope of interference — Courts are prohibited from rewriting contracts and should not interfere with arbitral awards unless grounds under Section 34 are met, such as violation of public policy or patent illegality. Interference is justified when an award shocks the conscience or is contrary to basic notions of justice. The scope of appeal under Section 37 is narrower than Section 34.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Conversion of conviction — Where evidence shows that though accused had knowledge that injuries would cause death, there is no material to prove intention to kill, conviction under Section 302 IPC is not tenable and should be converted to Section 304 Part I IPC.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw

Acquittal

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374(2) — Appeals against conviction — High Court’s power to acquit — High Court, after considering evidence and finding patent infirmities and insufficiency of evidence in the prosecution case, rightly acquitted the accused giving them the benefit of doubt.- Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 65-B — Electronic records — Call detail records — Non-production of certificate under Section 65-B along with call detail records renders them inadmissible — Handwritten notes of call details without examining the scribe are not proved according to law.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw

Category: Corporate

You missed