Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I B C

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.…

I B C

Set-off is not permitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) -NCLAT reasoned that the debts between Airtel and Aircel arose from separate transactions and were not connected in a way that would justify set-off – The NCLAT ultimately rejected Airtel’s claim for set-off, finding that it was not permitted under the IBC in the context of Aircel’s corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. This decision reflects the importance of protecting the fairness and efficiency of the insolvency resolution process under the IBC.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. VIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

I B C

The NCLAT upheld the CoC’s decision to distribute the proceeds on a pro-rata basis and dismissed the appellant’s appeal – Overall, the NCLAT’s decision balanced the interests of the dissenting financial creditor (DBS Bank) with the need for a fair and equitable distribution of proceeds under the resolution plan.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DBS BANK LIMITED SINGAPORE — Appellant Vs. RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

I B C

IBC, 2016 – Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction only under Section 31(2) of the Code, which gives power not to approve only when the Resolution Plan does not meet the requirement laid down under Section 31(1) of the Code, for which a reasoned order is required to be passed – NCLT’s jurisdiction and powers as the Adjudicating Authority under the Code, flow only from the Code and the Regulations thereunder.

Nov 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF ACIL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin…

Contempt I B C

HELD The affidavit further states that following the practice of the NCLAT, the deponent did not entertain any attempt at mentioning by the counsel and that the order of this Court dated 13 October 2023 was not on the record before the Bench presided by the deponent on 13 October 2023. What the affidavit does not state is that a conscious effort was made by the Bench to prevent the order of this Court being placed on the record despite the fact that the court was apprised of the passing of the order by this Court in the morning session. We censure the conduct of the Member

Nov 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw