Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corporate

Corporate

Foreign Exchange Management (Realisation, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2000 – Regulation 6 – Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Section 16(3), 10(6), 46 and 47 – Contravention referred to in Section 10(6) by its very nature is a continuing offence –

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBORNO BOSE — Appellant Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Corporate

Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 – Sections 4(2), 4(5), 7 and 20 – Loan – Recovery proceedings – Claim by the lender Bank towards which a decree had already been granted in respect of one claim and the other claim is pending consideration. The fact as to whether in the matter of take over, the liabilities were also included is one aspect of the matter HELD This is an aspect which is to be examined after providing opportunity to the parties, if need be, after tendering evidence in that regard – Question of liability could neither have been decided in the writ proceedings before the High Court nor in this appeal

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UCO BANK — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Corporate

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(1)(d) – Leases of immovable property – Lease deeds allegedly executed between the defaulting rice miller(s) and the respondent(s), as they do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 17(1) (d) HELD The writ petitions filed by the respondent lessees are dismissed, however, with liberty to pay dues with penalty/interest of the original rice millers and thereafter on production of ‘No Dues Certificate’ seek allocation of paddy for custom milling in accordance with the policy of FCI.

Mar 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. V.K. TRADERS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI , B.R.…

Corporate

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Rule 16(2) – Attachment (DRT) – If an attachment has been made under Schedule II to the Act, any private transfer or delivery of the property shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment HELD Rule 16(1) also stipulates that no civil court can issue any process against such property in execution of a decree for the payment of money. However, the property can be transferred with the permission of the Tax Recovery Officer.

Mar 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CONNECTWELL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

Corporate

Tender – Installation and maintenance of 74 videoscopes at various field formations of CBEC – direct that out of the payment to be made to M/s. ASVA Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd., a sum of Rs. 63 lakhs shall be deducted and orders with regard to that amount shall be passed after hearing the parties in detail at the time of final hearing.

Feb 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF LOGISTICS — Appellant Vs. ALMIGHTY TECHSERV, PROPRIETOR MR. MANISH DALMIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha…

Corporate

IMP ::: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 5(8) and 43 – Mortgage by a Corporate debtor to secure debts of third party not “Financial Debt” within meaning of Section 5(8) – Whether lenders of Jaiprakash Associates Limited could be treated as financial creditors, HELD it cannot be said that the corporate debtor owes them any ‘financial debt’ within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code; and hence, such lenders of Jaiprakash Associates Limited do not fall in the category of the ‘financial creditors’ of the corporate debtor Jaypee Infratech Limited – Appeals are allowed

Feb 27, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANUJ JAIN INTERIM RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR JAYPEE INFRATECH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar…

You missed

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process.

Feb 10, 2026 sclaw
Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw