Supreme Court of India Judgements

46980 Judgements hosted as on 13/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 12, 19 — Criminal Contempt — Power to Punish and Forgive — The power to punish for contempt carries the concomitant power to forgive when the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance, making the extension of mercy an integral part of judicial conscience — Contempt jurisdiction is neither a personal armour for Judges nor a sword to silence criticism — Court must treat the acknowledgment of contrition as a virtue and extend forgiveness where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges the lapse and seeks to atone for it. (Para 1) 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) 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) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 29A(1), 29A(4), 29A(6), 23(4) — Time limit for arbitral award — Termination of mandate — Substitution of Arbitrator — Section 29A aims for time-bound disposal of arbitration proceedings — An award in non-international commercial arbitration must be made within twelve months from completion of pleadings (Section 23(4)) — If the award is not made within the initial twelve months or the extended six months (by consent), the arbitrator’s mandate terminates unless the Court extends the period (Section 29A(4)). (Paras 9, 10, 11) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) — Section 18A — PC Act read with Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 102 — Seizure vs. Attachment/Confiscation of Property — Whether power of police officer to freeze accounts under Section 102 CrPC is co-existent or mutually exclusive with the machinery for attachment under Section 18A PC Act — Held, the powers are separate, distinct, and co-existent, not mutually exclusive. (Paras 2, 8, 11)
Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 12, 19 — Criminal Contempt — Power to Punish and Forgive — The power to punish for contempt carries the concomitant power to forgive when the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance, making the extension of mercy an integral part of judicial conscience — Contempt jurisdiction is neither a personal armour for Judges nor a sword to silence criticism — Court must treat the acknowledgment of contrition as a virtue and extend forgiveness where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges the lapse and seeks to atone for it. (Para 1)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw
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
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 12, 19 — Criminal Contempt — Power to Punish and Forgive — The power to punish for contempt carries the concomitant power to forgive when the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance, making the extension of mercy an integral part of judicial conscience — Contempt jurisdiction is neither a personal armour for Judges nor a sword to silence criticism — Court must treat the acknowledgment of contrition as a virtue and extend forgiveness where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges the lapse and seeks to atone for it. (Para 1)
Contempt
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 12, 19 — Criminal Contempt — Power to Punish and Forgive — The power to punish for contempt carries the concomitant power to forgive when the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance, making the extension of mercy an integral part of judicial conscience — Contempt jurisdiction is neither a personal armour for Judges nor a sword to silence criticism — Court must treat the acknowledgment of contrition as a virtue and extend forgiveness where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges the lapse and seeks to atone for it. (Para 1)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 29A(1), 29A(4), 29A(6), 23(4) — Time limit for arbitral award — Termination of mandate — Substitution of Arbitrator — Section 29A aims for time-bound disposal of arbitration proceedings — An award in non-international commercial arbitration must be made within twelve months from completion of pleadings (Section 23(4)) — If the award is not made within the initial twelve months or the extended six months (by consent), the arbitrator’s mandate terminates unless the Court extends the period (Section 29A(4)). (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Arbitration
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 29A(1), 29A(4), 29A(6), 23(4) — Time limit for arbitral award — Termination of mandate — Substitution of Arbitrator — Section 29A aims for time-bound disposal of arbitration proceedings — An award in non-international commercial arbitration must be made within twelve months from completion of pleadings (Section 23(4)) — If the award is not made within the initial twelve months or the extended six months (by consent), the arbitrator’s mandate terminates unless the Court extends the period (Section 29A(4)). (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Will & Succession

Family Settlement—Gift deed—A reversioner who consents to an alienation by a widow or other limited right heir made without legal necessity or to an invalid surrender and transferees from him are precluded from disputing the validity of the alienation though he may have received no consideration for his consent.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2789 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1614 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal No.…

Consumer

Medical Negligence—Post surgery ailments—Patient was not able to prove that the ailments which she suffered after she returned from the hospital were result of faulty surgery (removal of Gall Bladder) by the doctor and such aliments were not normal post surgery effect-Complaint dismissed.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2772 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1611 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran Civil Appeal No.3971…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4 and S.3(c)–Issuance of Notification-­Delegation of authority—State is empowered to appoint any officer other than a Collector or Deputy Commissioner to act as Collector—Such officer is empowered to extent of purpose mentioned in notification designating him as Collector—But relying upon same notification the designated officer cannot act as Collector in respect of other acquisition proceedings-Impugned notification u/s 4 issued by designated officer without being empowered for that is set aside.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2767 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1610 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before           Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta Civil Appeal…

Bail Granted

In present case, investigation was not conducted by rank of police officer as directed by High Court-On this ground charge  sheet was returned—Since, on 90th day there was no charge sheet before Magistrate to assess the situation and subsequent filing of charge sheet even after two days would be of no consequence-­Accused held entitled to default bail—Bail granted.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2758 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1609 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre                            Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Criminal Appeal…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque–Vicarious liability–Offences by companies–Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company– Responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable . Dishonour of cheque–Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred.

Dec 14, 2018 sclaw

2010(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 737 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Criminal Appeal Nos. 320-336 of 2010…

You missed

Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 12, 19 — Criminal Contempt — Power to Punish and Forgive — The power to punish for contempt carries the concomitant power to forgive when the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance, making the extension of mercy an integral part of judicial conscience — Contempt jurisdiction is neither a personal armour for Judges nor a sword to silence criticism — Court must treat the acknowledgment of contrition as a virtue and extend forgiveness where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges the lapse and seeks to atone for it. (Para 1)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw
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
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
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 29A(1), 29A(4), 29A(6), 23(4) — Time limit for arbitral award — Termination of mandate — Substitution of Arbitrator — Section 29A aims for time-bound disposal of arbitration proceedings — An award in non-international commercial arbitration must be made within twelve months from completion of pleadings (Section 23(4)) — If the award is not made within the initial twelve months or the extended six months (by consent), the arbitrator’s mandate terminates unless the Court extends the period (Section 29A(4)). (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw