Supreme Court of India Judgements

47030 Judgements hosted as on 11/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I B C

I B C

IBC – Word “such creditor” in Section 29A(h) has to be interpreted to mean similarly placed creditors after the application for insolvency application is admitted by the adjudicating authority. As a result, what is required to earn a disqualification under the said provision is a mere existence of a personal guarantee that stands invoked by a single creditor, notwithstanding the application being filed by any other creditor seeking initiation of insolvency resolution process.

Jan 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANK OF BARODA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh,…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 30(2) and 61(3) – Dominant purpose of the IBC is revival of the Corporate Debtor and making it an on­going concern – ‘commercial wisdom’ of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention, for ensuring completion of the processes within the timelines prescribed by the IBC –

Jan 2, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NGAITLANG DHAR — Appellant Vs. PANNA PRAGATI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

I B C

Dominant purpose of the IBC is revival of the Corporate Debtor and making it an on­going concern – Opinion expressed by the CoC after due deliberations in the meetings through voting, as per voting shares, is the collective business decision and that the decision of the CoC’s ‘commercial wisdom’ is non­ justiciable, except on limited grounds as are available for challenge under Section 30(2) or Section 61(3) of the IBC – Under Section 61(3)(ii) of the IBC, an appeal would be tenable if there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the RP during the corporate insolvency resolution period – Scope of the words ‘material irregularity’, as are found in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NGAITLANG DHAR — Appellant Vs. PANNA PRAGATI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 7 – Insolvency Resolution – A requirement only needs to be assessed at the threshold while admitting the petition. Hence, if subsequent to the admission, withdrawal applications are preferred and the 10 per cent threshold is reduced, it shall not affect the maintainability of the original petition.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH E S KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S BHARATH HI TECH BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 12 – the insolvency resolution process shall mandatorily be completed within a period of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date, including any extension of the period of corporate insolvency resolution process granted under Section 12 of the IBC and the time taken in legal proceedings in relation to such resolution process of the Corporate Debtor. has not been completed within a period stated hereinabove, i.e., within a period of 330 days, such resolution process shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the IBC amendment Act, 2019, i.e., 16.08.2019.

Dec 5, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LIMITED THROUGH CORPORATION BANK — Appellant Vs. DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 60(5)(c) – Residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT cannot be invoked if the termination of a contract is based on grounds unrelated to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor – NCLT does not have any residuary jurisdiction to entertain the present contractual dispute which has arisen dehors the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.

Nov 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VISHAL GHISULAL JAIN, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL, SK WHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

I B C

Once the “Operational Creditor” has filed an application which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of IBC, if a notice has been received by “Operational Creditor” or if there is a record of dispute in the information utility

Sep 27, 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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 12A – Withdrawal of application admitted under section 7, 9 or 10 – Adjudicating Authority is entitled to withdraw the application admitted under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of 90% voting share of the CoC.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K.N. RAJAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. V. NAGARAJAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

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…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Corporate

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw