Howrah Law Journal (January 2026) 25 Supreme Court Cases

Volume 1 | Issue 1
January 2026

Howrah Law Journal (HLJ)

हावड़ा लॉ जर्नल (जनवरी 2026)

হাওড়া ল’ জার্নাল (জানুয়ারী ২০২৬)

Consolidated Summary of 25 Supreme Court Cases (January 2026)

HLJ: In a series of significant rulings, the Supreme Court delivered 25 judgments in January 2026, addressing diverse areas of law.

In service jurisprudence, the Court in Union of India v. G. Kiran held that a reserved category candidate who availed of relaxation in a preliminary exam cannot later be adjusted against a general category vacancy. In State of U.P. v. Bhawana Mishra, it ruled that mere admission to a course does not confer a right to appointment. The Court also protected the independence of the judiciary in Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. M.P., holding that a wrong bail order alone is not grounds for disciplinary action against a judicial officer. In a significant ruling for persons with disabilities, Sujata Bora v. Coal India directed the employer to provide “reasonable accommodation” and employment.

In criminal law, the Court cancelled bail in a heinous POCSO case in X v. U.P. but granted it due to prolonged incarceration in Arvind Dham v. ED. In Delhi v. Khimji Bhai, it allowed the consolidation of 1,852 cheating complaints as part of the “same transaction.” The Court in Karnataka Lokayuktha v. Chandrashekar refused to quash criminal proceedings despite a departmental exoneration. In C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar, it set aside the quashing of criminal proceedings in a family dispute involving fraud, and in Yerram Vijay Kumar v. Telangana, it partly allowed an appeal by quashing charges under the Companies Act but permitting IPC offences to proceed.

In arbitration law, the Court in Regenta Hotels v. Hotel Grand clarified the meaning of “commencement of arbitral proceedings” under Section 21 of the Act. In Bhadra International v. AAI, it held that objections to an arbitrator’s eligibility could be raised at the Section 34 stage. In M/S Bhagheeratha Engineering v. Kerala, it ruled that non-issuance of a formal Section 21 notice is not an absolute bar. Conversely, in Motilal Oswal v. Santosh Cordeiro, it dismissed an appeal challenging the appointment of an arbitrator, upholding the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.

In tax and regulatory law, Jindal Equipment v. CIT held that the mere substitution of shares in an amalgamation is not a taxable event. Ultratech Cement v. Gujarat declared that heavy earth-moving machinery qualifies as “motor vehicles” for road tax. In Dalsukhbhai Satasia v. Gujarat, the Court ruled that land ceiling proceedings abate if actual possession was not taken by the state before the Act’s repeal.

In commercial and property law, Ansal Crown v. Flat Buyers affirmed that directors are not automatically liable for a company’s decree. In Muslimveetil Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi, the Court decreed a suit for specific performance, overturning concurrent findings on limitation and readiness. In The Property Company v. Rohinten Mazda, it held that the Company Law Board could apply principles of limitation to condone delay. In UV Asset Reconstruction v. Electrosteel, it dismissed an appeal, ruling that a “deed of undertaking” did not constitute a contract of guarantee. In Nak Engineering v. Tarun Shah, the Court dismissed a challenge to the High Court’s order setting aside the impleadment of a party in a recovery suit.

In education law, Divjot Sekhon v. Punjab held that changing the admission policy for the sports quota mid-stream is impermissible. In S. Nagesh v. Shobha Aradhya, the Court quashed proceedings under the NI Act because the Magistrate took cognizance before condoning the delay.

Finally, in contempt and other matters, Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi was disposed of after considering the respondent’s response in a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a court direction.

Howrah Law Journal (March 2026) 18 Supreme Court Cases

Howrah Law Journal (February 2026) 34 Supreme Court Cases

4th March 2026