Supreme Court of India Judgements

47030 Judgements hosted as on 11/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corporate

Corporate

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – A personal Loan to a Promoter or a Director of a company cannot trigger the Corporate Resolution Process under the IBC. Disputes as to whether the signatures of the Respondents are forged or whether records have been fabricated can be adjudicated upon evidence including forensic evidence in a regular suit and not in proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.

Aug 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED. — Appellant Vs. K.P. JAYARAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee,…

Corporate

Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – Sections 3(2) and 9A – Imposition of quantitative restrictions – Central Government has no right and power to impose ‘quantitative restrictions’ except under Section 9A of the FTDR Act – Section 9A of the FTDR Act does not elide or negate the power of the Central Government to impose restrictions on imports under sub-section (2) to Section 3 of the FTDR Act.

Aug 26, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AGRICAS LLP AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and…

Corporate

AGR Case] ‘Why Shouldn’t Jio Pay Dues Of Reliance Communications For Using Its Spectrum?’ SCOI Asks Reliance Jio HELD directed them (telcos) to place on record the information relating to Agreement entered into with respect to using of spectrum by the respective parties.

Aug 16, 2020 sclaw

AGR Case] ‘Why Shouldn’t Jio Pay Dues Of Reliance Communications For Using Its Spectrum?’ SC Asks Reliance Jio Justice Mishra: Jio is using since 2016(spectrum). Why should we not ask Jio…

Corporate

HELD limitation period for application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is three years as provided by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which commences from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 of Limitation Act if any case for condonation of delay is made out.

Aug 14, 2020 sclaw

Limitation period for application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is three years as provided by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which commences from the date…

Corporate

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 21(5) – Permission to resume regular mining operations – Delay in payment of the compensation along with interest is condoned – Applicant permitted to resume mining operations subject to all necessary clearances required in accordance with law being obtained

Aug 11, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH COMMON CAUSE — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian,…

Corporate

HELD “sample being sent and tested 8 months beyond the shelf life of the product in this case. It is thus clear that the valuable right granted by Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act kicks in on the facts of this case, which would necessarily render any penalty based upon the said analysis of the sample as void.”

Aug 10, 2020 sclaw

A valuable right is granted to a person who is sought to be penalized under these Acts to have a sample tested by the Government Analyst that is found against…

Corporate

“The owner is liable to pay charges after the goods have been taken charge by port and receipt issued to vessel owner. when the Port Trust takes charge of the good ” The point of time at which title to the goods passes to the consignee is not relevant to determine the liability of the consignee or steamer agent in respect of charges of the Port Trust” ” it would be the duty of the Port Trust to destuff every container that is entrusted to it, and return destuffed containers to any such person within as short a period as is feasible in cases where the owner/person entitled to the goods does not come forward to take delivery of the goods and destuff such containers. 

Aug 6, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, COCHIN PORT TRUST — Appellant Vs. M/S AREBEE STAR MARITIME AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Corporate

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 – Sections 8(3), 8(4) and 68 – Imposition of penalty – Plea of the appellant that he was part-time, non-executive Director not in charge of the conduct of business of the Company at the relevant time was erroneously discarded by the authorities and the High Court HELD present is a case where the liability has been fastened on the appellant without there being necessary basis for any such conclusion.

Jul 27, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAILENDRA SWARUP — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…

Corporate

Copyright Law–Dramatic work–Provisions of the Act make a distinction between the ‘literary work’ and ‘dramatic work’–Copyright in respect of performance of ‘dance’ would not come within the purview of the literary work but would come within the purview of the definition of ‘dramatic work’–Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(h) and

Jul 26, 2020 sclaw

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1000 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Sudershan…

Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 – Sections 397 and 398 – Inheritance of shares – Jurisdiction – Dispute as to inheritance of shares is eminently a civil dispute and cannot be said to be a dispute as regards oppression and/or mismanagement so as to attract Company Court’s jurisdiction under sections 397 and 398

Jul 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUNA OSWAL — Appellant Vs. PANKAJ OSWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. ) Civil…

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