Supreme Court of India Judgements

47250 Judgements hosted as on 17/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Limitation

I B C Limitation

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 7 — Application under — Limitation period — Calculation — Default date — Right to file application under Section 7 of IBC accrues on the date of default, which is when the corporate debtor first fails to discharge its repayment obligations — Limitation begins to run from the date of classification of the account as Non — Performing Asset (NPA) — Application filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, even after considering extensions due to CIRP and Covid — 19 pandemic, is barred by limitation — NCLT and NCLAT orders admitting the application are quashed and set aside.

Apr 30, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 429 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR KHANDELWAL Vs. OMKARA ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…

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

2026 INSC 35 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJI Vs. SAKEENA BEEVI ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). 3894…

C P C Limitation

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 1 — Limitation for filing Written Statement in Commercial Suits — Extension of time due to COVID-19 pandemic — Supreme Court’s suo motu order excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation — Even if statutory period of 120 days expired, if it fell within the excluded period, defendant should be allowed to file Written Statement.

Oct 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1202 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S AROUSH MOTORS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria,…

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.…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — The appellant was penalized for deserting his family and living with another woman — The penalty was challenged due to procedural delays and alleged mistakes by his counsel — Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the penalty imposed was justified — The delay was due to the counsel’s mistake, and the penalty was disproportionate since the complainant (his wife) had withdrawn her complaint — The representations were examined and rejected, and the withdrawal of the O.A. was authorized by the appellant — The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits — The delay was sufficiently explained, and the penalty was disproportionate given the withdrawal of the complaint and lack of evidence — The court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay and the need for substantial justice — The appeals were allowed, and the appellant was granted all consequential benefits.

Aug 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 577 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOOL CHANDRA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

You missed

State Laws

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [

May 17, 2026 sclaw