I B C Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

July 8, 2026 6:30 am

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 7 and 14 — Corporate guarantee — Effect of demerger/amalgamation of corporate debtor — NCLT admission order under S. 7 relying on six judicial precedents to reject corporate guarantor’s plea that liability stood extinguished on demerger/amalgamation — NCLAT dismissing appeal and reproducing the same precedents — On independent verification by Supreme Court, found that of the six citations, one carried a wrong citation of an existing but different judgment together with a non-existent paragraph, three were altogether non-existent citations, and two, though correctly cited, contained paragraphs not traceable to the actual reported judgments — Held, the citations relied upon by NCLT were fake, non-existent or hallucinated, apparently AI-generated, and NCLAT failed to detect the fabrication — Orders of NCLT dated 28.08.2024 and NCLAT dated 11.09.2025 set aside — Section 7 application restored to its original number for fresh disposal strictly on merits, without expression of any opinion by the Supreme Court — NCLT directed to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, with parties to maintain status quo in the interregnum.

Jul 2, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 668 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH POOJA RAMESH SINGH Vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

Cheque Dishonour I B C

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138 & 141 — Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Part III (Personal Insolvency) — Moratorium Provisions — Criminal Proceedings vs. Civil Liability — Dishonour of cheque is a criminal offence due to specific deeming fiction in Section 138, not merely a civil wrong for debt recovery, even though it arises from a debt — Held, moratorium under IBC Part III does not stay criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 579 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESHCHAND SURANA Vs. UCO BANK ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2026 (Arising…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Letter of Intent (LoI) — Appellant’s claim that LoIs were conditional due to clauses concerning pending judicial orders and staff/employee litigation rejected — NCLT and NCLAT found appellant was aware of these issues and discussions in CoC meetings — Appellant’s arguments of conditional LoI were considered an “after-thought” and an attempt to renege from the plan.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 580 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY DAVE Vs. ANDHRA BANK LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : K. V. Viswanathan and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 61 — Appeal against NCLT order — Requirement of certified copy of impugned order — Rules for filing appeal before NCLAT — Presentation of appeals under Rule 22 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 — Appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of impugned order — Applying for certified copy before expiry of limitation period is crucial for excluding time taken to procure it — Failure to file certified copy or obtain exemption renders appeal incompetent — NCLAT wrongly condoned delay in filing and refiling appeal without ensuring compliance with essential requirements.

May 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 479 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANGELWOODS APARTMENT ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION Vs. M LALITHA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…

I B C

Corporate Veil — Lifting of — May be lifted where associated companies are inextricably connected, forming part of one concern, or to prevent evasion of obligations or protect public interest. In this case, subsidiary companies were found to be mere fronts for the holding company’s development activities, justifying lifting the corporate veil.

May 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 449 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GNIDA) AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 5(8) — Financial Debt — Corporate Guarantees — A liability arising from corporate guarantee for money borrowed against interest qualifies as financial debt — The execution of corporate guarantees, even if challenged on grounds of timing or non-disclosure, are considered valid and enforceable if their execution is admitted or demonstrably proven, making the appellants entitled to recognition as financial creditors.

Apr 30, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 423 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. DOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,…

I B C Limitation

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 7 — Application under — Limitation period — Calculation — Default date — Right to file application under Section 7 of IBC accrues on the date of default, which is when the corporate debtor first fails to discharge its repayment obligations — Limitation begins to run from the date of classification of the account as Non — Performing Asset (NPA) — Application filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, even after considering extensions due to CIRP and Covid — 19 pandemic, is barred by limitation — NCLT and NCLAT orders admitting the application are quashed and set aside.

Apr 30, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 429 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR KHANDELWAL Vs. OMKARA ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Sections 7, 3(10), 5(7), 5(8) — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of petition — Appeal against NCLAT order setting aside NCLT order and directing admission of Section 7 petition — Held, IBC is not a debt recovery legislation but for reorganisation and insolvency resolution — Initiation of CIRP as a substitute for execution of a civil court decree is an abuse of process.

Apr 27, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 410 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LTD. Vs. SHUBH GAUTAM ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 8247…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 9 — Application for corporate insolvency resolution process — Existence of a pre-existing dispute — Adjudicating authority must reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute — The dispute must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the “existence” of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending — The authority needs to see if there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence — It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster — However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed — The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above — So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 344 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GLS FILMS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 275 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S.LAMBA EXPORTS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S.DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

You missed

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second appeal — Scope of interference with concurrent findings on genuineness of a Will — Whether suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will exist, and stand explained, is essentially a question of fact; a second appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interference is permissible only where the finding is perverse, based on circumstances that are mere “figments of a doubting mind,” or is vitiated by an erroneous placement of onus — High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under S. 100 CPC in reversing well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court discarding the Will.

Jul 7, 2026 sclaw

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Category: I B C

You missed