I B C Archives - Page 7 of 11 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

May 9, 2026 2:26 am

Insolvency process – Limitation – Burden of prima facie proving occurrence of the default and that the application filed under Section 7 of the Code is within the period of limitation, is entirely on the financial creditor

Aug 21, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJENDRA NAROTTAMDAS SHETH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…

I B C

IBC – Application under Section 7 not barred if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years, in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years.

Aug 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. TULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari,…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 7 and 7(5)(b) – An appeal being the continuation of original proceedings, the provision of Section 7(5)(b) of the IBC, of notifying the Financial Creditor before rejection of a claim, would be attracted

Aug 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KEW PRECISION PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari,…

I B C

IBC – when admission is opposed on the ground of existence of an award or a decree in favour of the Corporate Debtor, and the Awarded/decretal amount exceeds the amount of the debt, the Adjudicating Authority would have to exercise its discretion under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC to keep the admission of the application of the Financial Creditor in abeyance

Jul 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH VIDARBHA INDUSTRIES POWER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

I B C

CIRP – Recovery Certificate Holder – Limitation period – the holder of such certificate would be entitled to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), if initiated within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate.

Jun 19, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. A. BALAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna,…

I B C

IBC, 2016 – HELD in the interest of all the stakeholders to permit settlement and withdraw CIRP, the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority cannot sit in an appeal over the commercial wisdom of CoC

Jun 19, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH VALLAL RCK — Appellant Vs. M/S SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

I B C

Recovery Certificate – would be a “financial debt” – the holder of such certificate would be entitled to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), if initiated within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate.

Jun 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. A. BALAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna,…

I B C

Bank could not have continued the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution (CIRP) was initiated and the moratorium was ordered.

May 28, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK — Appellant Vs. M/S RCM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

I B C

NOIDA is not a financial creditor, it would constitute an operational creditor. Appeal dismissed

May 28, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. ANAND SONBHADRA — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph And Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 7 and 12A – Real estate project – the Promoter has filed a specific undertaking specifying therein that the cost of the flat would not be escalated and that he would honour the BBA signed by the previous management – Promoter is permitted to complete the project as per the deliberations.

May 1, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANAND MURTI — Appellant Vs. SONI INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. )…

You missed

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61(d), Section 62, Section 125 — Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2011 — Regulation 6.32, Regulation 4.1 — Capital Cost Recovery — Depreciation — Consumers’ Interest — The Electricity Act mandates that tariff determination must safeguard consumer interests and allow reasonable cost recovery — Depreciation recovery for a power plant cannot extend beyond the period for which electricity was actually supplied to consumers or the approved operational period under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), even if the plant has a longer technical useful life

May 8, 2026 sclaw

Education

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) — Engagement of para-teachers on contract basis — Part of Government of India’s flagship program for universal elementary education — Aimed to address human resource gaps in employing teachers — Jharkhand Education Project Council responsible for implementation in Jharkhand — Para-teachers engaged since 2002 — Primarily vehicle for Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act)

May 8, 2026 sclaw

State Laws

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 — Applicability — Interpretation of delay in initiating proceedings — While delay is generally discouraged, it may not be fatal in cases of beneficial legislation aimed at protecting Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lands, especially when parties to the original transaction are privy to the proceedings.

May 8, 2026 sclaw

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Privity of Contract — Collaborator invoked arbitration clause — High Court rejected petition claiming no privity of contract — Supreme Court granted leave and held Collaborator as veritable party with joint and several liability.

May 8, 2026 sclaw

Category: I B C

You missed