Insights
In a significant ruling under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Supreme Court in CENTRAL TRANSMISSION UTILITY OF INDIA LIMITED V. SUMIT BINANI & ORS. has reaffirmed the sanctity of the moratorium imposed under Section 14. The Court categorically held that a creditor cannot appropriate pre-CIRP dues from a security deposit after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
In a significant step towards strengthening the rights of persons with disabilities (PwDs), the Supreme Court of India recently emphasized the urgent need for making cab services accessible and inclusive. The observation came while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in SHIVJEET SINGH RAGHAW V. UNION OF INDIA & ANR., which raises critical concerns about mobility barriers faced by PwDs in India.
In a significant ruling that balances environmental concerns with urban development, the Supreme Court in NAVEEN SOLANKI & ANR. V. RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. has clarified that the mere growth of trees or vegetation on land earmarked for development does not automatically render it a “deemed forest.” The judgment reinforces the primacy of statutory planning frameworks such as Master Plans and limits the expansive interpretation of forest land under environmental jurisprudence.
In a significant ruling in V. GANESAN V. STATE, the Supreme Court of India has drawn a crucial distinction between civil liability arising from commercial transactions and criminal liability for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In a significant ruling reinforcing the fiduciary responsibility of banks, the Supreme Court in CANARA BANK OVERSEAS BRANCH V. ARCHEAN INDUSTRIES PVT LTD held that banks are strictly bound by customer instructions and cannot unilaterally divert funds. The Court upheld the liability of Canara Bank for wrongly remitting USD 100,000 to a third party, emphasizing accountability in banking operations and adherence to mandate.
In a significant constitutional law development, the Supreme Court of India in RAVI KHOKHAR & ORS V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS has held that the Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS) qualifies as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This ruling expands the scope of judicial review and reinforces accountability of bodies performing public functions.
In a significant ruling concerning recovery proceedings and auction sales, the Supreme Court of India held that confirmation of an auction sale does not completely shield the process from judicial scrutiny when questions arise regarding the adequacy of valuation or fixation of the reserve price.
In a significant procedural development concerning environmental litigation in India, the Supreme Court of India recently closed the decades-old public interest litigation (PIL) MC MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA, which had remained pending since 1985. The Court simultaneously initiated a suo motu proceeding titled “Re: Issues of Air Pollution in NCR” to continue monitoring and addressing the persistent air quality crisis in the National Capital Region (NCR).
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying the circumstances in which life-sustaining medical treatment may be withdrawn in the best interests of a patient. In Harish Rana v. Union of India, the Court permitted the withdrawal of life support of a 32-year-old man who had been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for over 13 years, thereby allowing passive euthanasia in the case.
In a significant ruling concerning corporate restructuring under the Companies Act, 2013, the Supreme Court of India clarified that a valuation report is not a statutory requirement for the reduction of share capital under Section 66.
In a significant ruling addressing the misuse and over-broad application of dowry harassment laws, the Supreme Court of India held that a mere quarrel between a daughter-in-law and her in-laws does not automatically constitute the offence of cruelty or dowry harassment. The judgment came in Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., where the Court quashed criminal proceedings against the parents-in-law after finding that the allegations against them were vague, general, and lacking specific details.
