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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of CIRP — Adjudicating Authority’s power and duty — Legal position is well-settled that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a financial debt exists and a default has occurred, it must admit the application — Inquiry under Section 7(5)(a) is confined strictly to determination of debt and default, leaving no scope for equitable or discretionary considerations — Reliance on Vidarbha Industries is misconceived; it is a narrow exception confined to its peculiar facts — Admission under Section 7 remains mandatory once debt and default are established — Any alleged non-cooperation by the financial creditor occurred subsequent to the default and cannot absolve the corporate debtor of its admitted failure to comply with its payment obligations. (Paras 12.3, 12.6, 12.9, 12.10)

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 58 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELEGNA CO-OP. HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL SOCIETY LTD. Vs. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 9 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Application by Operational Creditor — Pre-existing Dispute — Adjudicating authority must determine if operational debt exists, if non-payment has occurred, and if a dispute existed prior to the demand notice (Section 8) — Dispute must be genuine, substantial, and not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory (mere ‘moonshine’ or ‘bluster’) — Court is not required to examine the merits of the dispute or satisfy itself that the defence is likely to succeed. (Paras 15, 16, 19)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1410 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SARASWATI WIRE AND CABLE INDUSTRIES Vs. MOHAMMAD MOINUDDIN KHAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 62 — Liquidation Process — Sale of Assets — Appeals against NCLAT majority decision confirming forfeiture of amount paid by bidder — Private sale requiring Adjudicating Authority’s prior approval — Regulation 33(2)(d) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 — Where liquidator seeks NCLT approval for private sale after failed auctions and decision to sell at scrap value, the sale falls under Regulation 33(2)(d) and not Regulation 33(2)(c) (sale at price higher than reserve price of failed auction) — Contention that sale was purely a contract governed by Indian Contract Act, 1872, rejected. (Paras 12, 16, 19)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1411 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SHRI KARSHNI ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN SADASIVAN ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 7 — Application by Financial Creditor — Rejection for technical defects — Affidavit Verification — Whether an application under Section 7 of the IBC, verified later than the date of the supporting affidavit, is liable to be rejected at the threshold — Mere filing of a ‘defective’ affidavit (e.g., dated before application verification) does not render the Section 7 application non est and liable to be rejected; such a defect is curable and not fundamental. (Paras 1, 17)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1349 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIVEIN AQUA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 14 — Moratorium — Applicability to terminated Development Agreements — Development Agreement constitutes ‘asset’ or ‘property’ of Corporate Debtor only if it creates subsisting proprietary, possessory or legally enforceable right — Termination of Development Agreement based on Corporate Debtor’s persistent and prolonged non-performance, occurring prior to initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), is valid and lawful — Moratorium under Section 14 does not revive contracts validly terminated before insolvency or protect mere inchoate or forfeited contractual rights — Where developer never obtained possession and failed to perform core obligations, its development rights do not constitute ‘assets’ or ‘property’ of the Corporate Debtor, and the moratorium does not apply. (Paras 15.5, 15.6, 16.4, 16.7, 16.12, 20, 21(i), 21(ii))

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1366 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL HARSHAD SHAMKANT DESHPANDE AND ANOTHER Vs. KHER NAGAR SUKHSADAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY…

Constitution I B C

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ Petition (Criminal) — Seeking registration of FIR and investigation into attempt to influence judicial outcome — Relief for criminal investigation based on disclosure in a judicial order of NCLAT, Chennai Bench — Issues raised are of vital public importance but deemed capable of administrative resolution by Chief Justice of India — Writ Petition treated as a representation to bring material information for consideration of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, allowing law to take its course — Petition disposed of on administrative treatment of investigation request.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S A.S. MET CORP PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).440/2025…

I B C

. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 62 — Appeal to Supreme Court — Limited to questions of law — Concurrent findings of fact by NCLT and NCLAT ordinarily not to be interfered with — Unless view taken in ignorance of statutory provisions, based on extraneous consideration or ex-facie arbitrary/illegal.

Sep 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1165 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KALYANI TRANSCO Vs. M/S BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Satish Chandra Sharma and…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 62; Section 14(1)(d) — Appeal against NCLAT order setting aside NCLT order directing return of property — NCLT had directed return of property based on CoC decision that property not required by corporate debtor — NCLAT set aside NCLT order invoking Section 14(1)(d) barring recovery of property during CIRP — Supreme Court held that Section 14(1)(d) not applicable as CoC and Resolution Professional initiated the process for returning property due to financial burden of rentals, and not a simple recovery by owner — Commercial wisdom of CoC regarding non-retention of property given primacy — NCLAT order set aside, NCLT order restored.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 931 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SINCERE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. CHANDRAKANT KHEMKA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…

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