Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Corporate

Corporate

Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 64(VB)(3) – No risk can be assumed by the insurer unless the premium payable is received in advance – HELD Proposal does not conclude the contract – A contract postulates an agreement between the parties – In the present case, the insurer while issuing the new policy at a fresh location specifically excluded STFI perils and refunded the premium – To hold to the contrary would be rewriting the agreement between the parties and creating a fresh contract

Jan 28, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHREE AMBICA MEDICAL STORES AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE SURAT PEOPLE’S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya…

Corporate

Debts Recovery Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing application for review under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993(RDB Act) HELD provisions of Limitation Act, including the provision to condone delay under Section 5 of it, apply only to original applications filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act and not to review applications.

Jan 27, 2020 sclaw

DRT Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Review Application Under RDB Act : SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 27 Jan 2020 12:59 PM The Supreme Court has…

Corporate

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 7, 9, 10 and 12-A – Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor – Case of MSL in their appeal is that they want to run the company and infuse more funds – MSL has raised the funds upon mortgaging the assets of the corporate debtor only. In such circumstances, This Court are not engaging in the judicial exercise of determining the question as to whether after having been successful in a CIRP, an applicant altogether forfeits their right to withdraw from such process or not HELD Court direct the Resolution Professional to take physical possession of the assets of the corporate debtor and hand it over to the MSL

Jan 23, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHARASTHRA SEAMLESS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PADMANABHAN VENKATESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

Corporate

Deferred Spectrum charges – Dismissal of Appeal for Refund – Centre’s Appeal against TDSAT order to refund of Rs 104 Crores to Reliance Communications – Order of the TDSAT does not call for any interference – The Union nowhere disputes that the respondent licensees’ liability toward payment of deferred spectrum charges, in May, 2018, was to the tune of Rs. 774.25 crores – The total amount realized upon encashment of the bank guarantees furnished by the respondents, however, was to the extent of Rs. 908.91 crores

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. F. Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

Corporate

Invocation or encashment of bank guarantee – HELD The settled position in law that emerges from the precedents of this Court is that the bank guarantee is an independent contract between bank and the beneficiary and the bank is always obliged to honour its guarantee as long as it is an unconditional and irrevocable one

Dec 23, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK — Appellant Vs. HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.…

Corporate

NCLT and NCLAT would have jurisdiction to enquire into questions of fraud, they would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes such as those arising under MMDR Act, 1957 and the rules issued thereunder, especially when the disputes revolve around decisions of statutory or quasi-judicial authorities, which can be corrected only by way of judicial review of administrative action.

Dec 3, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose…

Corporate

Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 62, 65 and 108 – Levy of wheeling charges and grid support charges – Plea of promissory estoppel is not attracted, and there was no unequivocal promise – There was no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case to attract the plea of promissory estoppel based on Government orders

Dec 1, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S RAIN CALCINING LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah…

Corporate

Telegraph Act, 1883 – Sections 16, 16(1) to 16(4) read with Section 10 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 164 – Construction of electricity transmission – Injunction – Appeal against – HELD monetary compensation which we will not like to adjudicate and would leave this issue open, given the order of the District Magistrate, Thane and as the present appeal is directed against an interim order. Continuation of injunction is not warranted and justified in law.

Nov 27, 2019 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CENTURY RAYON LIMITED @APPELLLANT — Appellant Vs. IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari,…

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