Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - 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.…

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.…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A(4) — Application for extension of time to make arbitral award — Where an arbitral tribunal is constituted by the High Court under Section 11(6), any application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) would lie with the High Court. Where an arbitral tribunal is constituted by the parties themselves under Section 11(2), the application under Section 29A(4) would lie before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, which also includes the High Court in its ordinary original jurisdiction.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Advocates Act Corporate

Advocates Act, 1961 — Section 38 — Appeal against Bar Council of India judgment — Professional misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence and absence from Court hearing leading to dismissal of quashing petition — High Court ordered quashing of FIR subject to deposit of costs — Costs not deposited in time, FIR quashing order recalled and petition dismissed — Application to recall dismissal order allowed, quashing restored subject to enhanced costs — Compromise reached between advocate and complainant, misunderstanding about costs resolved — High Court waived enhanced costs — FIR quashed — Complainant filed affidavit withdrawing complaint due to misunderstanding about costs and expressing satisfaction with advocate’s services — Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India held advocate guilty of professional misconduct despite withdrawal affidavit — Supreme Court held that disciplinary committee ignored vital aspect of withdrawal affidavit and satisfaction of complainant — Substratum of complaint ceased to exist once dispute was resolved and withdrawn — Finding of professional misconduct unsustainable.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 114A, Rules 17, 27, 28 of West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 — Competency of Gram Panchayat to grant building permission — Not competent if area governed by Act of 1979 and development plan exists — Panchayat Samiti is the competent authority.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Service

University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 — Clause 3(c) defining “Caste-based Discrimination” — Incorporation argued as restrictive and exclusionary — Claim that it renders individuals from non-reserved/general classes remediless against caste-based discrimination or institutional bias — Allegation that regulations proceed on unfounded presumption that caste-based discrimination only affects reserved categories.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw