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

Howrah Law Journal (April 2026): 32 Supreme Court Cases

Howrah Law Journal

Howrah Law Journal (March 2026) 18 Supreme Court Cases

4th March 2026

Howrah Law Journal

LEGAL DIGEST (HLJ)

January 2026

1. SUJATA BORA v. COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 590: 2026 INSC 53
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 13, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 120/2026
Nature of Disposal: Disposed off
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the appellant was wrongly denied employment despite qualifying for the interview, on the ground of having “multiple disabilities” when she had applied specifically as a visually handicapped candidate.
- The intersectionality of disability with gender justice in employment.
Headnotes:
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – “Reasonable Accommodation” – Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 21, 41, 142.
- An advertisement was published by Coal India for vacancies. The appellant, a person with visual impairment, applied and was selected in the interview but was denied employment on the ground that she had multiple disabilities.
- Held (by the Bench): The denial of employment was improper. The concept of “reasonable accommodation” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, must be applied in a holistic manner. The State and its instrumentalities have an obligation under Article 41 read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution to ensure that persons with disabilities are not discriminated against. The failure to consider the appellant’s candidature for the post she applied for, based on a vague ground of “multiple disabilities,” was arbitrary. The Court, exercising its power under Article 142, directed the respondents to provide her with appropriate employment.

2. ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) v. M/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 580 : 2026 INSC 51
Coram: Dipankar Datta, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 12, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8465/2024
Nature of Disposal: Dismissed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether persons who were arrayed as respondents in consumer complaints but against whom no notice was issued and proceedings did not continue, could be held liable as directors/promoters of the judgment-debtor company for enforcement of the decree.
Headnotes:
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s. 71 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s. 14(3) – Enforcement of orders.
- The question was whether directors/promoters, who were not actively pursued in the original consumer complaints, could be brought within the enforcement net to satisfy the decree against the company.
- Held (by the Bench): The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the respondents could not be personally held liable for the enforcement of the order in the absence of any specific proceeding or finding against them in their personal capacity during the original complaint. The mere status of being a director or promoter does not automatically render one liable for the decreetal amount without establishing their role in the liability.

3. M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – II, NEW DELHI

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 517: 2026 INSC 46
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 09, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 152/2026
Nature of Disposal: Disposed off
Issue for Consideration:
- Taxability of gains arising on amalgamation where shares of the amalgamating company, held as stock-in-trade, are substituted by shares of the amalgamated company. Whether this substitution itself constitutes a realization event taxable as business income u/s 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Headnotes:
- Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 28 – Business income – Realization on amalgamation.
- The issue was whether the mere substitution of shares in an amalgamation scheme results in a taxable event in the commercial sense, or whether taxation arises only upon the subsequent sale of the new shares.
- Held (by the Bench): The Court examined the conditions under which such an accrual or receipt can be said to arise in a commercial sense. The incidence of taxation on the gains from the original shares held as stock-in-trade does not arise merely upon their substitution with shares of the amalgamated company. The taxable event is deferred until the actual sale of the new shares. The matter was disposed of accordingly.

4. YERRAM VIJAY KUMAR v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 439 : 2026 INSC 42
Coram: J.K. Maheshwari, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 09, 2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 147/2026
Nature of Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether cognizance of offences under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act, 2013, could be taken on a private complaint given the statutory scheme.
- If those charges are quashed, whether proceedings for IPC offences should also be quashed in light of Section 436(2) of the Companies Act.
Headnotes:
- Companies Act, 2013 – ss. 448, 451, 436(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Criminal proceedings – Quashing.
- Proceedings were initiated on a private complaint for alleged offences under the Companies Act and the IPC.
- Held (by the Bench): The Court held that taking cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act on a private complaint was not in consonance with the statutory scheme of the Companies Act. Consequently, the criminal proceedings in respect of those sections were quashed. However, the Court further held that this would not automatically lead to the quashing of the proceedings for the IPC offences. The continuation of criminal proceedings for the IPC offences would not amount to an abuse of process, and they were permitted to continue.

5. X v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 484 : 2026 INSC 44
Coram: B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 09, 2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 164/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused (respondent no. 2) without due consideration of the heinous nature of the alleged gang-rape and sexual assault of a minor.
Headnotes:
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss. 5(l), 6, 9(g), 10 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss. 65(1), 74, 137(2), 352 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Cancellation of bail.
- The appeal challenged the grant of bail to an accused in a case involving the gang-rape of a minor, threatening her with a deadly weapon.
- Held (by the Bench): The High Court erred in granting bail. The heinous nature of the offences under the POCSO Act and the BNS, and the gravity of the allegations against the accused, were not given due consideration. An order granting bail in such serious cases, especially those involving minor victims, must be well-reasoned and reflect an application of mind to the relevant factors. The appeal was allowed, and the bail granted to the respondent-accused was cancelled.

6. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 467 : 2026 INSC 43
Coram: Pankaj Mithal, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 08, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3352/2017
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether Heavy Earth Moving Machinery (like Dumpers, Loaders, Excavators) and other construction equipment vehicles are “motor vehicles” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and consequently liable to be taxed under the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958.
Headnotes:
- Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 – s. 3(1) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 2(28) – Motor Vehicles – Road Tax.
- The primary issue was the classification of specialized construction equipment for the purpose of road tax.
- Held (by the Bench): The Court allowed the appeal, holding that Heavy Earth Moving Machinery or special service vehicles, such as Dumpers, Excavators, and Surface Miners, are indeed “motor vehicles” within the ambit of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Consequently, they are liable to be taxed under the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958.

7. C.S. PRASAD v. C. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 424 : 2026 INSC 39
Coram: Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 08, 2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 140/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings against respondents in a case arising from a family dispute involving allegations of fraud and forgery of settlement deeds.
Headnotes:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings.
- The appellant filed a complaint alleging that the respondents, by abusing the advanced age and medical vulnerability of the executants, caused the execution and registration of fraudulent settlement deeds to gain unlawful proprietary benefits.
- Held (by the Bench): The High Court erred in exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. The allegations in the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, including fraud and forgery. The truth or falsity of these allegations could only be determined during a full trial. The appeal was allowed, and the order quashing the proceedings was set aside.

8. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. v. BHAWANA MISHRA

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 409 : 2026 INSC 38
Coram: Rajesh Bindal, Manmohan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 08, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14250/2025
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether mere admission to a course confers a right to appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse.
Headnotes:
- Service Law – Appointment – Right to appointment.
- An advertisement invited applications for the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse from candidates who had been admitted to and passed out from government institutions between 2015-19. The respondent, though admitted during that period, passed out later and sought appointment. Her representation was rejected by the State.
- Held (by the Bench): Mere admission to a course within a specified timeframe does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The eligibility criteria in the advertisement must be strictly construed. The State’s case was that only 20 seats were available, and the respondent was not within the specified cohort. The High Court’s order directing consideration of her claim was set aside. The appeal by the State was allowed.

9. REGENTA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S HOTEL GRAND CENTRE POINT AND OTHERS

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 206 : 2026 INSC 32
Coram: Dipankar Datta, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 07, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 90/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal allowed, Contempt Petition disposed of
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the appellant had initiated arbitral proceedings after the expiry of the 90-day period under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leading to automatic vacation of the interim order under Rule 9(4) of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001.
Headnotes:
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 9(2), 21 – Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001 – r. 9 – “Commencement of arbitral proceedings.”
- The core issue was the interpretation of “commencement of arbitral proceedings” in the context of the timeline for filing a substantive claim after obtaining interim relief.
- Held (by the Bench): The High Court’s interpretation was incorrect. The Court clarified the meaning of “commencement of arbitral proceedings” under Section 21 of the Act. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order, and the connected contempt petition was disposed of.

10. MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJI v. SAKEENA BEEVI

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 395 : 2026 INSC 35
Coram: Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 07, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3894/2022
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the trial court and the High Court, leading to an unjust rejection of the suit for specific performance.
- Whether the finding on the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was perverse.
Headnotes:
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Readiness and willingness.
- The appeal challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court dismissing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell.
- Held (by the Bench): Both courts below erred in their appreciation of the facts and the law. The finding on the issue of limitation was incorrect. Furthermore, the conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract was perverse and not based on a proper assessment of the evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the suit for specific performance was decreed.

11. THE PROPERTY COMPANY (P) LTD. v. ROHINTEN DADDY MAZDA

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 227 : 2026 INSC 33
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 07, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 92/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the Company Law Board (CLB), a quasi-judicial body, has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
- Whether the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be applied to such proceedings.
Headnotes:
- Companies Act, 2013 – ss. 58(3), 433 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 5 – Condonation of delay – Powers of the Company Law Board (CLB).
- The question was whether the CLB could entertain an appeal filed beyond the statutory period.
- Held (by the Bench): Even if Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, did not strictly apply to proceedings before the CLB, the principles underlying it could be made applicable to an appeal under Section 58(3) of the 2013 Act. A quasi-judicial body must have the inherent power to consider the condonation of delay to do substantial justice. The Court further noted that Section 433 of the 2013 Act, which empowers NCLT and NCLAT to apply the Limitation Act, reinforces this principle. The appeal was allowed.

12. THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI v. KHIMJI BHAI JADEJA

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 167 : 2026 INSC 25
Coram: Sanjay Kumar, J.
Date of Decision: January 06, 2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 74/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the consolidation of multiple FIRs was proper and whether the offences against 1,852 complainants were part of the ‘same transaction’.
Headnotes:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 218-223 – Consolidation of FIRs – Same transaction.
- The respondent and his accomplices were alleged to have induced a large number of people (1,852 victims) to invest money by falsely promising to triple it, cheating them of approximately ₹46.40 crores.
- Held (by the Bench): The High Court’s order on consolidation was set aside. The appeals were allowed, holding that the offences, though committed against multiple individuals, were part of a single, large-scale conspiracy and thus constituted the ‘same transaction’ for the purpose of trial.

13. DALSUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI SATASIA & OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 332 : 2026 INSC 21
Coram: B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 06, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6130/2016
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing writ petitions by not applying Section 4 of the Repealing Act (the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999) and thereby denying relief to the appellants.
Headnotes:
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – s. 4 – Abatement of proceedings.
- The issue was whether the delivery of a notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act to the appellants (as possessors) was a mandatory step, the non-fulfilment of which would render the proceedings abated under Section 4 of the Repealing Act. Also, whether mere recording of land in the State’s name, without taking actual possession, would render the abatement provision ineffective.
- Held (by the Bench): The High Court erred. If actual possession was not taken by the State pursuant to the proceedings under the ULC Act before its repeal, the proceedings would abate in terms of Section 4 of the Repealing Act. The mere vesting of title in the State does not amount to taking possession. The appeals were allowed.

14. ARVIND DHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 119 : 2026 INSC 12
Coram: Sanjay Kumar, J.
Date of Decision: January 06, 2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 47/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the appellant, a promoter and non-executive Chairman of a group entity, was entitled to bail in a money laundering case given a long period of incarceration and the trial not having commenced.
Headnotes:
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Bail – Long period of incarceration.
- The appellant was accused in an alleged bank fraud running into several hundred crores. FIRs were registered by public sector banks alleging fraud. He had been in custody for a considerable period, and the trial had not yet begun.
- Held (by the Bench): Considering the long period of incarceration already undergone and the fact that the trial was yet to commence, the appellant was entitled to be released on bail. The Court allowed the appeal and granted bail, subject to suitable conditions.

15. UNION OF INDIA v. G. KIRAN & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 141 : 2026 INSC 15
Coram: J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Date of Decision: January 06, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 51/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether a reserved category candidate, who availed of relaxation to qualify the Preliminary Examination but secured more marks than the general category cut-off in the Main Examination and Interview, is entitled to be considered for cadre allocation against an unreserved vacancy.
Headnotes:
- Service Law – Indian Forest Service (IFS) – Exam Rules, 2013 – rr. 1, 13, 14(ii), 17(1) – Reservation – Allocation of vacancies.
- The respondent, a reserved category candidate, benefited from relaxed standards to qualify the Preliminary Examination. Although she subsequently performed well in the later stages, her initial entry into the examination process was through a relaxed standard.
- Held (by the Bench): The appeal by the Union of India was allowed. A candidate who avails of the benefit of relaxation at any stage of the examination process remains a reserved category candidate for the purpose of allocation. They cannot be considered for an unreserved vacancy as that would defeat the very purpose of reservation and the rules of the examination.

16. DIVJOT SEKHON v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 372 : 2026 INSC 26
Coram: Sanjay Kumar, J.
Date of Decision: January 06, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 67/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether it is permissible to change the admission policy mid-stream regarding the zone of consideration for MBBS/BDS admissions under the sports quota, after the prospectus has been issued and applications have been submitted.
Headnotes:
- Service/Education Law – Admission to MBBS/BDS courses – Sports quota – Change in policy midstream – Impermissibility.
- The prospectus for admission to undergraduate medical courses in Punjab for the 2024 session was issued. After candidates had applied with their sports achievements, the state changed the policy regarding the zone of consideration for the sports quota.
- Held (by the Bench): The State cannot change the rules of the game after the game has been played. Altering the eligibility or selection criteria midstream, after the prospectus has been issued and applications invited, is arbitrary and impermissible. The appeal was allowed, and the change in policy was struck down.

17. S. NAGESH v. SHOBHA S. ARADHYA

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 183 : 2026 INSC 27
Coram: Sanjay Kumar, J.
Date of Decision: January 06, 2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 75/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- The correctness of an order passed by a Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, even before the delay in its presentation was condoned.
Headnotes:
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s. 138 – Cognizance of offence – Condonation of delay.
- The respondent’s complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed with a delay of two days. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint without first passing an order condoning the delay.
- Held (by the Bench): The Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the complaint before the delay in its presentation was formally condoned. The power to condone delay must be exercised before the court can proceed with the complaint on merits. The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed with liberty to file a fresh complaint with a proper application for condonation of delay.

18. UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 130 : 2026 INSC 14
Coram: Sanjay Kumar, J.
Date of Decision: January 06, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 9701/2024
Nature of Disposal: Dismissed
Issue for Consideration:
- Interpretation of Clause 2.2 of a Deed of Undertaking executed between the original creditor, the borrower (ESL), and the obligor (ECL). Whether this clause constitutes a contract of guarantee within the meaning of Section 126 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Headnotes:
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Contract Act, 1872 – s. 126 – Contract of guarantee.
- The dispute pertained to a Deed of Undertaking. The appellant, an asset reconstruction company, argued that Clause 2.2 made ECL a guarantor for the financial facilities availed by ESL from the original creditor.
- Held (by the Bench): The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Clause 2.2 of the Deed of Undertaking did not constitute a contract of guarantee as defined under Section 126 of the Contract Act, 1872. The clause did not create the necessary tripartite relationship or the obligation of a surety to answer for the default of another.

19. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOT v. CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 191 : 2026 INSC 31
Coram: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 06, 2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 77/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed solely on the ground that the delinquent employee was exonerated in a parallel departmental enquiry.
Headnotes:
- Criminal Procedure – Disciplinary enquiry vis-à-vis criminal proceedings – Quashing on exoneration in departmental enquiry.
- The respondent, an Executive Engineer, was alleged to have demanded a bribe. He was exonerated in the departmental enquiry and sought to have the criminal proceedings quashed on that basis.
- Held (by the Bench): Criminal proceedings and disciplinary enquiries operate on different standards of proof and principles. Exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings, especially where there is a specific complaint of a criminal offence like demand of bribe. The appeal by the Lokayuktha was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order that had quashed the criminal proceedings.

20. DHARMENDRA SHARMA v. M. ARUNMOZHI & ANR.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 24 : 2026 INSC 10
Coram: Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 05, 2026
Case No.: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 703/2025
Nature of Disposal: Disposed off
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the respondent willfully failed to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court to refund the cost of non-judicial stamp papers to the petitioner.
Headnotes:
- Contempt of Court – Willful disobedience.
- The petitioner filed contempt petitions alleging that the respondent had willfully failed to comply with the Court’s direction in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development to refund an amount of Rs. 3,99,100/-, the cost of non-judicial stamp papers purchased by the petitioner.
- Held (by the Bench): The Court disposed of the contempt petitions after considering the response of the respondent. (The specific outcome regarding compliance would be detailed in the full judgment).

21. BHADRA INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 30 : 2026 INSC 6
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 05, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 37/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the sole arbitrator became “ineligible to be appointed” under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Whether the parties waived such ineligibility by their conduct.
- Whether the objection to the appointment could be raised for the first time in an application under Section 34 of the Act.
Headnotes:
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 12(5) – Ineligibility of arbitrator – Waiver.
- The challenge was to the appointment of a sole arbitrator on the grounds of ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule of the Act.
- Held (by the Bench): The appeal was allowed. The Court examined whether the parties had waived the ineligibility by their conduct. It was held that an objection to the appointment of an arbitrator on the grounds of de jure inability could be raised at the stage of challenging the award under Section 34, depending on the facts. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on this aspect.

22. NAK ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD. v. TARUN KESHRICHAND SHAH AND ORS.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 504 : 2026 INSC 8
Coram: Pankaj Mithal, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 05, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 46/2026
Nature of Disposal: Dismissed
Issue for Consideration:
- Challenge to the High Court’s order setting aside the trial court’s decision to permit the impleadment of the appellant as a defendant in a suit for recovery of service charges.
Headnotes:
- Civil Procedure – Impleadment of parties – Suit for recovery.
- The original suit was filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 against respondent no. 3 for recovery of service charges. The sole defendant did not appear, and the suit proceeded ex-parte. The appellant later filed an application to be impleaded as a defendant.
- Held (by the Bench): The High Court was correct in setting aside the impleadment order. The appellant had no locus standi to be impleaded in a suit for recovery of service charges between the original parties, especially at a belated stage. The appeal was dismissed.

23. M/S BHAGHEERATHA ENGINEERING LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 303 : 2026 INSC 4
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 05, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 39/2026
Nature of Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed only to adjudicate one specific dispute.
- Whether non-issuance of a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, barred the appellant’s claim.
Headnotes:
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 21 – Commencement of arbitration – Notice.
- The appellant was awarded road maintenance contracts. Disputes arose, and the appellant quantified the amounts due. The State filed an application for appointment of an arbitrator.
- Held (by the Bench): The High Court’s interpretation was incorrect. The non-issuance of a formal notice under Section 21 was not a bar to the claim proceeding before the Arbitrator, especially given the correspondence between the parties that clearly indicated the existence of a dispute. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.

24. MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED v. SANTOSH CORDEIRO AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 1 : 2026 INSC 5
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 05, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 36/2026
Nature of Disposal: Dismissed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the High Court rightly allowed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Headnotes:
- Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 11(6A) – Appointment of arbitrator – Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – s. 41.
- The respondent filed an application seeking the appointment of an arbitrator under the arbitration clause of a Leave and License Agreement. The appellant objected, citing the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.
- Held (by the Bench): The High Court was correct in appointing the arbitrator. The existence of an alternative remedy or jurisdiction does not oust the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide the matter in the first instance, given the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The appeal was dismissed.

25. NIRBHAY SINGH SULIYA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 91 : 2026 INSC 7
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Date of Decision: January 05, 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 40/2026
Nature of Disposal: Case Allowed
Issue for Consideration:
- Whether the authorities were justified in removing a Judicial Officer from service based on four judicial orders granting bail, without any other evidence of extraneous considerations.
Headnotes:
- Judiciary – District Judiciary – Departmental proceedings – Grant of bail – Wrong exercise of judicial discretion.
- The appellant, a Judicial Officer, was removed from service on the allegation that extraneous considerations motivated his orders granting bail.
- Held (by the Bench): A mere wrong order or an incorrect exercise of discretion in granting bail, by itself and without anything more, is not a ground to initiate departmental proceedings against a Judicial Officer. Judicial decisions, even if erroneous, are subject to appellate remedies, not disciplinary action. To initiate departmental proceedings, there must be clear evidence of extraneous considerations or mala fides. The appeal was allowed, and the removal was set aside.

Legal Eagle

USA Supreme Court Orders

Essay and Lecture

Sarvarthapedia Legal Knowledge Web

Service Jurisprudence

Union of India v. G. Kiran
See also: Reservation policy; Equality of opportunity; Examination standards; Relaxation of criteria
Cross-links: Administrative fairness; Merit vs affirmative action
State of U.P. v. Bhawana Mishra
See also: Right to appointment; Legitimate expectation; Public employment
Cross-links: Recruitment processes; Conditional rights
Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh
See also: Judicial independence; Disciplinary control; Bail jurisprudence
Cross-links: Separation of powers; Accountability vs independence
Sujata Bora v. Coal India Ltd.
See also: Reasonable accommodation; Disability rights; Workplace equality
Cross-links: Substantive equality; Inclusive employment

Criminal Law

X v. State of Uttar Pradesh
See also: Bail cancellation; POCSO Act; Heinous offences
Cross-links: Victim protection; Gravity of offence
Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate
See also: Prolonged incarceration; Right to liberty; Bail principles
Cross-links: Speedy trial; Article 21
State (Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai
See also: Same transaction doctrine; Procedural efficiency; Multiple FIRs
Cross-links: Criminal procedure; Judicial economy
Karnataka Lokayuktha v. Chandrashekar
See also: Parallel proceedings; Departmental exoneration; Criminal liability
Cross-links: Standard of proof; Administrative law
C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar
See also: Fraud; Quashing of proceedings; Family disputes
Cross-links: Abuse of process; Criminal intent
Yerram Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana
See also: Corporate offences; IPC offences; Partial quashing
Cross-links: Economic offences; Statutory overlap

Arbitration Law

Regenta Hotels v. Hotel Grand Central
See also: Section 21 of the Arbitration Act; Commencement of arbitration; Notice requirements
Cross-links: Procedural compliance; Arbitration timeline
Bhadra International v. Airports Authority of India
See also: Section 34 challenge; Arbitrator neutrality; Eligibility objections
Cross-links: Natural justice; Bias in adjudication
Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala
See also: Mandatory vs directory requirements; Section 21 notice
Cross-links: Flexibility in procedure; Substantive justice
Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. v. Santosh Cordeiro
See also: Arbitral tribunal jurisdiction; Kompetenz-kompetenz
Cross-links: Minimal judicial interference; Party autonomy

Tax and Regulatory Law

Jindal Equipment Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT
See also: Amalgamation; Capital gains; Tax neutrality
Cross-links: Corporate restructuring; Tax avoidance vs planning
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. State of Gujarat
See also: Motor vehicle definition; Tax classification; Regulatory interpretation
Cross-links: Statutory interpretation; Functional test; Network Insight
Dalsukhbhai Satasia v. State of Gujarat
See also: Land ceiling laws; Abatement; Possession requirement
Cross-links: Property rights; Legislative repeal

Commercial and Property Law

Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. v. Flat Buyers Association
See also: Corporate personality; Director liability; Execution of decrees
Cross-links: Lifting the corporate veil; Company law principles
Muslimveetil Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi
See also: Specific performance; Limitation; Readiness and willingness
Cross-links: Contract enforcement; Equity principles
The Property Company v. Rohinten Mazda
See also: Limitation law; Condonation of delay; Tribunal powers
Cross-links: Procedural justice; Discretion
UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Electrosteel Castings Ltd.
See also: Contract of guarantee; Deed of undertaking; Financial liability
Cross-links: Banking law; Security enforcement
Nak Engineering Co. v. Tarun Shah
See also: Impleadment; Necessary parties; Civil procedure
Cross-links: Fair hearing; Litigation strategy

Education Law

Divjot Singh Sekhon v. State of Punjab
See also: Admission policy; Legitimate expectation; Midstream changes
Cross-links: Fairness in education; Administrative arbitrariness
S. Nagesh v. Shobha Aradhya
See also: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Cognizance; Delay condonation
Cross-links: Procedural compliance; Criminal complaints

Contempt and Procedural Law

Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi
See also: Contempt jurisdiction; Compliance with court orders; Judicial authority
Cross-links: Rule of law; Enforcement of judgments

Cross-Domain Conceptual Bridges

Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Principles

Article 14 (Equality) → Links: Reservation (G. Kiran), Disability rights (Sujata Bora)
Article 21 (Life and Liberty) → Links: Bail (Arvind Dham), Speedy trial