Insights
In a recent significant reaffirmation of landlord rights under Indian rent control jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord which property should be used to satisfy the landlord’s bona fide requirement. The Court clarified that it is the landlord’s prerogative to decide the suitability of premises for starting a business and that tenants cannot compel landlords to shift their plans to alternative properties suggested by them. This ruling assumes importance in the context of long-standing tenancies, especially in metropolitan cities, where disputes often arise over claims of bona fide requirement for commercial premises.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 Inapplicable in Nagaland Prior To 2021 Adoption: Supreme Court Dismisses Secured Creditor’s Appeal. In a significant ruling on Tuesday, December 16th - clarifying the territorial applicability of central financial recovery legislation and the essential requirements for enforcement of security interests, the Supreme Court of India held that proceedings initiated under the “Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002” (“SARFAESI Act”) in Nagaland prior to its formal adoption in 2021 were without jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has cast doubt on its recent judgment in SHRI SENDHUR AGRO & OIL INDUSTRIES VS. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD which held that - "mere convenience or inconvenience of the parties may not by itself be sufficient enough to pray for transfer" of a criminal case from one state to another as per Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant(as he was then) and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in the order passed on November 18 (but uploaded today), referred the Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries case to a larger bench for an authoritative and binding clarification.
Reaffirming the limited and exceptional nature of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973, the Supreme Court of India on 4th December has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that had refused to summon a deceased woman’s in-laws as additional accused in a murder trial.
India’s judicial system stands on the brink of what Justice Manmohan of the Supreme Court of India calls the “fourth industrial revolution.” Speaking at two recent high-level events in Delhi including a conference on Transforming Justice Delivery with AI & Technology and the International Legal Conference 2025. Justice Manmohan highlighted both the transformative opportunities and urgent challenges that emerging technologies present for the judiciary. Far from replacing judges with machines, he stressed, the purpose of integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) is to augment human decision making, accelerate justice delivery, and strengthen constitutional values not weaken them.
In a landmark pronouncement on Wednesday, the Supreme Court aimed at strengthening the financial and constitutional rights of Muslim women, held that a divorced Muslim woman is legally entitled to recover all properties including cash, gold ornaments, and other articles given to her or even given to her husband at the time of marriage. This decision, delivered in ROUSANARA BEGUM V. S.K. SALAHUDDIN, marks a crucial reaffirmation of the protective framework under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (“1986 Act”), and further underscores the obligation of courts to interpret personal laws in a manner consistent with constitutional values of equality, dignity, and autonomy.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) against an order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) that upheld a ₹30 lakh penalty imposed on two of its compliance officers for failing to make timely disclosures related to the Facebook-Reliance Jio deal. (RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. SEBI) A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, "The issue dealt with by SEBI and SAT are substantially a question of fact, giving rise to no substantial question of law to be considered by court."
In a significant reaffirmation of settled principles governing attachment before judgment, the Supreme Court on 28th November, 2025 has held that a property validly transferred through a registered sale deed prior to the institution of a suit cannot be subjected to attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
