Supreme Court of India Judgements

47280 Judgements hosted as on 09/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: I B C

I B C

As per Section 61(2) of the IB Code, the appeal was required to be preferred within a period of thirty days – Therefore, the limitation period prescribed to prefer an appeal was 30 days. However, as per the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code, the Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal, but such period shall not exceed 15 days. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to condone the delay exceeding 15 days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of the IB Code.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MR. ANIL KOHLI, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR DUNAR FOODS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 31(1) and 60(5) – Submitted Resolution Plan – Modification or withdrawal of – Existing insolvency framework in India provides no scope for effecting further modifications or withdrawals of CoC-approved Resolution Plans, at the behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, once the plan has been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

I B C

IBC – Dispute Section 9 – It is important to separate the grain from the chaff – so long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has no other option but to reject the application – the Court is not required to be satisfied as to whether the defence is likely to succeed or not – Court also cannot go into the merits of the dispute

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

I B C

IBC – There is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. These authorities can not enter into the commercial wisdom underlying the approval granted by the CoC to the resolution plan.

Aug 10, 2021 sclaw

There is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. These authorities can…

I B C

IBC – Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by a Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the IBC is the occurrence of a default by the Corporate Debtor – Definition of ‘Financial Debt’ in Section 5(8) of IBC does not expressly exclude an interest free loan – ‘Financial Debt’ would have to be construed to include interest free loans advanced to finance the business operations of a corporate body

Aug 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ORATOR MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S SAMTEX DESINZ PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

I B C

A judgment and/or decree for money in favour of the Financial Creditor, passed by the DRT, or any other Tribunal or Court, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in favour of the Financial Creditor, would give rise to a fresh cause of action for the Financial Creditor, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC

Aug 6, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) — Appellant Vs. C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR. — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian,…

I B C

IBC – Approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal guarantor (of a corporate debtor) of her or his liabilities under the contract of guarantee – Release or discharge of a principal borrower from the debt owed by it to its creditor, by an involuntary process, i.e. by operation of law, or due to liquidation or insolvency proceeding, does not absolve the surety/guarantor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent contract.

Jun 5, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LALIT KUMAR JAIN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent(S) ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

I B C

IBC, 2016 – Where the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, considers the supply of goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium,

Apr 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP KHAITAN, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR NATIONAL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. JSVM PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Maintainability — Inclusion of advocate’s name in IBA “Caution List” — High Court dismissing writ petition on ground that Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) is not “State” under Art. 12 — Held, focus of maintainability has shifted from formal character of respondent body to nature of function performed and effect of impugned action on legally protected rights — Caution List operates as sector-wide adverse accreditation mechanism with public law element, having direct bearing on advocate’s right to practise profession under Art. 19(1)(g) — Writ petition against IBA held maintainable notwithstanding IBA not being “State” — Kishor S. Bhat v. Indian Banks’ Association, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2857, distinguished — Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691; Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649; S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, relied on.

Jul 9, 2026 sclaw
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