Supreme Court of India Judgements

467750 Judgements hosted as on 16/05/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I B C

I B C Limitation

The statutory limitation period for filing an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is thirty days, commencing from the date of pronouncement of the order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) — The NCLAT possesses discretion to condone delay for a further period not exceeding fifteen days, upon satisfaction of sufficient cause

Apr 14, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 447 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH A RAJENDRA Vs. GONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO AND OTHERS ( Before : Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Liability of a corporate debtor and its subsidiary — The court emphasized that a holding company and its subsidiary are distinct legal entities, and the assets of a subsidiary cannot be included in the resolution plan of the holding company. Separate applications under Section 7 — The court held that a financial creditor can file separate applications under Section 7 of the IBC against the corporate debtor and the corporate guarantor, which can be filed simultaneously. The court clarified that the payment made by the corporate guarantor under a resolution plan does not discharge the liability of the corporate debtor to repay the loan amount.

Jul 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 548 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRS VENTURES INVESTMENTS LTD. — Appellant Vs. SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

C P C I B C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rule 3(6)(b) — Suit for Recovery — Impact of Moratorium under IBC — The appellants argued that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) should halt the proceedings — However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the moratorium only applies to cases where the company is undergoing insolvency proceedings — In this case, the suit was not against a company undergoing insolvency, and therefore, the moratorium did not apply.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER — Appellant Vs. HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 340 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GLOBAL CREDIT CAPITAL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SACH MARKETING PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 31(1) and 60 – National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 11 – Inherent Powers – Recall of Resolution Plan approval order passed under Sec. 31(1) of IBC – Recall application was maintainable notwithstanding that an appeal lay before the NCLAT against the order of approval passed by the Adjudicating Authority – A Court or a Tribunal, in absence of any provision to the contrary, has inherent power to recall an order to secure the ends of justice and/or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court

Feb 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. PRABHJIT SINGH SONI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.…

You missed

Acquittal

Hostile witnesses — Effect — When a large number of witnesses, including eyewitnesses, turn hostile, prosecution case often collapses for want of evidence — While reasons for hostility can be varied (coercion, fear, monetary consideration, etc.), it cannot automatically lead to conviction based on prior S. 161 statements or IO’s testimony about such statements, as these are not substantive evidence — Court’s consternation at collapse of a serious case due to witness hostility cannot be a reason to convict on insufficient or inadmissible evidence, amounting to a moral conviction anathema to criminal jurisprudence.

May 13, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Sales Tax — Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Kerala Act) — Section 5A — Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act) — Section 7A — Purchase Tax — Liability of assessee purchasing goods from dealers exempt from sales tax — Where goods are purchased from dealers who are exempt from payment of sales tax by virtue of notifications or exemptions under the Kerala Act or Tamil Nadu Act, such a purchase is considered a purchase of “goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax” within the meaning of Section 5A of the Kerala Act or Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu Act

May 13, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) a— Illegal gratification — Demand and Acceptance — Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Where prosecution case regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant (Revenue Inspector) suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies in evidence of complainant (PW1) and other prosecution witnesses (PW7) Minor discrepancies may not be fatal, but serious contradictions going to root of matter, rendering evidence untrustworthy, are grounds for acquittal.

May 13, 2025 sclaw
Service

Under Rule 17, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, prior contractual service counts towards pension upon subsequent regularisation, subject to the employee opting to refund/forgo specified monetary benefits.

May 6, 2025 sclaw