Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Corporate

Corporate

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Section 15Z – Appeal to Supreme Court – – A question of law may arise when there is an erroneous construction of the legal provisions of the statute or the general principles of law. In such cases, the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of Section 15Z may substitute its decision on any question of law that it considers appropriate.

Apr 2, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. MEGA CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,…

Corporate

When the contract not entered under MSME and parties would not be governed by the MSME Act and the parties shall be governed by the laws of India applicable and/or prevailing at the time of execution of the contract – Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council would have no jurisdiction

Apr 2, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. VAISHNO ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. HAMILTON MEDICAL AG AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Corporate

When the auction bid of the respondent had been Rs. 1.935 crores for the assets under sale, the Company Court had fixed the value of immovable property therein at Rs. 1.4 crores; and the District Registrar was also satisfied with that valuation. Therefore, stamp duty was to be collected only on the said valuation i.e., Rs. 1.4 crores

Mar 31, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SUB REGISTRAR ERNAKULAM KOCHI 16 — Appellant Vs. K. SYED ALI KADAR PILLAI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and…

Corporate

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 – Regulation 9, 10, 11 and 12 – Whether an investigation report under Regulation 9 of the PFUTP Regulations must be disclosed to the person to whom a notice to show cause is issued – Held, Person has a right to disclosure of the material relevant to the proceedings initiated against him

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T. TAKANO — Appellant Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv…

Corporate

Cancellation of lease – A person who misleads the Development Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief – HELD Cancellation of lease – A person who misleads the Development Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief -Cancellation of lease – – Filing of a false affidavit disentitles the plaintiff for any equitable relief – any irregularity in the process of cancellation stands cured with Chief Executive Officer granting permission.

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGHVI (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 382 of 2012 Decided on : 15-02-2022 Cancellation of…

Corporate

Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 69 – Suit for declaration and injunction by unregistered firm – HELD that Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIV DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SUNILBHAI SOMABHAI AJMERI — Appellant Vs. AKSHARAY DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram…

Corporate

Competition Act, 2002 – Sections 2(u) 3 and 4 read with Section 19(1)(a) – Complaint – Lottery business can continue to be regulated by the Regulation Act – If in the tendering process there is an element of anti-competition which would require investigation by the CCI, that cannot be prevented under the pretext of the lottery business being res extra commercium, more so when the State Government decides to deal in lotteries.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Corporate

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – 29 and 30 – Infringement of the trade mark – Permanent injunction – When the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RENAISSANCE HOTEL HOLDINGS INC. — Appellant Vs. B. VIJAYA SAI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V.…

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