Supreme Court of India Judgements

January 19, 2026 12:54 pm

Top Tags

Latest Post

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65) Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) — Section 12 — Constitutional Mandate — Free and Compulsory Education — Admission of children from weaker and disadvantaged sections — Obligation of “neighbourhood school” to admit twenty-five percent of class strength from weaker and disadvantaged sections (Section 12(1)(c)) is transformative, securing the preambular objective of ‘equality of status’ and the constitutional right under Article 21A, requiring effective implementation. (Para 1)

Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Constitution

Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Education

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) — Section 12 — Constitutional Mandate — Free and Compulsory Education — Admission of children from weaker and disadvantaged sections — Obligation of “neighbourhood school” to admit twenty-five percent of class strength from weaker and disadvantaged sections (Section 12(1)(c)) is transformative, securing the preambular objective of ‘equality of status’ and the constitutional right under Article 21A, requiring effective implementation. (Para 1)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Constitution

Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.

Service

Army Rules, 1954 – Rule 13(3)(III)(v) – Discharge from service – Offences for which the red ink entries are awarded, cannot be said to be such gross misconduct which would make the appellant indiscipline and liable to be discharged from service and that too, after a period of long service rendered by him – Order of discharge is wholly unjustified and not sustainable at law – Appeal allowed.

Acquittal

(IPC) – Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent -‘criminal breach of trust’ is defined under Section 405 IPC which provides, inter alia, that whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over a property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property contrary to law, or in violation of any law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or contravenes any legal contract, express or implied, etc. shall be held to have committed criminal breach of trust

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(d)(ii) – Deficiency in service – Any loss arising out of inaction and negligence on the part of the Bank, such deficiency is compensable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Service

Termination–Reservation–In advertisement, authorities failed to mention in regard to reservation for handicapped person at the outset–Appellants who were handicapped person were appointed–On Contempt petition State cancelled the selection and terminated the service–Service restored with backwages.

Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Constitution

Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.

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

2026 INSC 34 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAN DE NUL DREDGING INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. TUTICORIN PORT TRUST ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, 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…

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

2026 INSC 32 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REGENTA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S HOTEL GRAND CENTRE POINT AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…

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

2026 INSC 43 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

Preventive Detention

Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders etc. Act, 1986 — Section 3(2) — Preventive Detention — Grounds for Detention — Requirement of finding ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ — Detenu, a ‘drug offender’, was detained based on three criminal cases involving Ganja, with an apprehension that if released on bail, she would engage in similar activities — Held, mere apprehension that the detenu, if released on bail, would be likely to indulge in similar crimes would not be a sufficient ground for ordering preventive detention — Order of detention failed to indicate how the detenu’s activities were prejudicial to ‘public order’ as opposed to ‘law and order’ and was therefore unsustainable. (Paras 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 41 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROSHINI DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 2(s) and 2(o) — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 — Sections 2(f), 100, 101, 102 — Quashing of FIRs — Jurisdiction of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station post-bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh — High Court quashed Anti-Corruption Bureau FIRs on hyper-technical ground of lack of specific notification under Section 2(s) CrPC for the relocated ACB office (Vijayawada) after the State Reorganisation — Held: The High Court’s approach leads to a travesty of justice by nipping investigations in the bud on hyper-technical grounds — Pre-bifurcation Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 268 dated 12.09.2003) declaring ACB offices as Police Stations, coupled with the express provisions of the 2014 Act (Sections 100 and 102), ensures continuity of “law” (which includes notifications/orders) in the successor State of Andhra Pradesh without requiring fresh adoption or notification — Section 102 of the 2014 Act facilitates courts/authorities to construe the existing law to apply to the new State, even absent specific adoption — Subsequent clarificatory G.O.Ms. No. 137 (14.09.2022) merely restates the position and its non-retroactive application reasoning by High Court is untenable — Hyper-technical reasoning, ignoring the spirit of the law and the continuity mandated by the Reorganisation Act, cannot be sustained. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE JOINT DIRECTOR (RAYALASEEMA), ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P. AND ANOTHER ETC. Vs. DAYAM PEDA RANGA RAO ETC. ( Before : M. M.…

Service

Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 38 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. BHAWANA MISHRA ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings — Principles governing exercise of power — High Court must exercise power sparingly, cautiously, and avoid usurping function of trial court or conducting mini-trial — Only requirement is to examine whether uncontroverted allegations in FIR, taken at face value, disclose commission of any cognizable offence — Reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of evidence is not for summary determination under Section 482 CrPC; it is a matter for trial court — Where factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited — Reference to Bhajan Lal case delineating categories for quashing (Paras 20-24, 30, 31).

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 39 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C.S. PRASAD Vs. C. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Separate Causes of Action — Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Where multiple cheques are issued in relation to the same underlying liability, but are distinct instruments (drawn on different accounts, presented on different dates, and dishonoured separately), each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act — The fact that two complaints relate to the same transaction does not bar parallel prosecution, especially where the statutory requirements of presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are fulfilled separately for each instrument — High Court erred in quashing one complaint on the ground that two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying liability amounted to an abuse of process of law, as this violated the principle of separate cause of action for distinct cheque instruments. (Paras 33, 35, 45(a))

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 40 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMIT BANSAL Vs. M/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…

Companies Act Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 212(6) Second Proviso and Sections 447, 448, 451 — Cognizance of Offence — Bar on Special Court — Private Complaint — Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) mandates liability under Section 447; thus, the offence under Section 448 is an “offence covered under Section 447” specified in Section 212(6) — The second proviso to Section 212(6) prohibits the Special Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a written complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer — Cognizance cannot be taken upon a private complaint for offences under Section 448 or Section 451 (Punishment for repeated default) as they are inextricably linked to Section 447 — Taking cognizance under Section 448 without invoking the punishment section (Section 447) to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 26, 27, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 59, 60.I)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 42 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YERRAM VIJAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )…

You missed

Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Constitution

Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw