Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I B C

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…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13(2) – In absence of averments or pleading, after initiation of insolvency proceeding, any promise made to pay the debt cannot be treated to have cured the fault of limitation in a preexisting action – In the event a financial creditor wants to pursue a recovery certificate as a deemed decree, he would get twelve years’ time.

Oct 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TOTTEMPUDI SALALITH — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

I B C

IBC 2016 – HELD inclined to give chance to the respondent No.1 in the given facts of the case but would not like the proceedings to drag on under the pretext of the OTS given by the respondent No.1., as it would be the objective of the Court to have a quick resolution with the aspect of insolvency or revival. if the OTS is not accepted, the appellant will be free to declare the results of the e-voting qua all the proposals.

Sep 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. RAGHAVENDRAN — Appellant Vs. C. RAJA JOHN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil…

I B C

IBC, 2016 – S 5(24) – ‘related party’ – ‘related party’ regarding an individual includes someone who is a relative of the individual or a relative of the individual’s spouse – Additionally, if an individual is a director of a private or public company and, along with relatives, holds more than two percent of the company’s share capital or paid-up share capital, that company is considered a ‘related party.’ – The explanation also specifies that both maternal and paternal uncles fall under the definition of ‘related party.’

Sep 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw