New Insights

The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment delivered on May 6, 2026, clarified the legal consequences of a decree-holder’s failure to comply with conditions imposed in a decree for specific performance under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In HABBBAN SHAH v. SHERUDDIN, the Court held that when a buyer fails to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated by the decree, the decree becomes inexecutable and the contract stands rescinded. Importantly, the Court further clarified that a separate application by the judgment-debtor seeking rescission is not mandatory. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti.

In a significant development for insolvency jurisprudence and real estate regulation, the Supreme Court of India, in ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED V. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, reaffirmed the doctrine that the corporate veil can be lifted in insolvency proceedings where group companies function as a single economic unit. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, addresses a long-standing tension between corporate separateness and economic reality, particularly in complex real estate insolvencies involving layered corporate structures.

In a significant development addressing the persistent menace of acid attacks in India, the Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over the inadequacy of existing punishments under criminal law. The Court, while hearing a petition filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik, emphasized the urgent need for stronger deterrent measures, stricter regulation of acid sale, and broader victim protection mechanisms. A bench comprising Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi highlighted systemic gaps that continue to enable such brutal crimes despite legislative interventions.

In a significant reaffirmation of procedural safeguards in preventive detention jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India set aside a detention order passed under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The Court emphasized that a detenu’s representation must be considered at the earliest possible opportunity, failing which the detention becomes unconstitutional. This judgment strengthens the constitutional protections available under Articles 21 and 22, ensuring that executive power under preventive detention laws is exercised with strict adherence to due process.

In a significant development reinforcing reproductive rights in India, the Supreme Court in S (Mother of N) v. Punya Salila Srivastava has taken a firm stance against non-compliance of its order permitting the termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old minor. The Court’s strong warning threatening contempt proceedings against senior officials of the Union Government and All India Institute of Medical Sciences highlights not only the urgency of the matter but also underscores a larger constitutional principle: the primacy of a woman’s bodily autonomy, even in complex late-stage pregnancy cases.

The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment in a significant case that could redefine the boundaries between banking regulation and professional autonomy of lawyers. In AJAY VIJH V. INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION, the Court is examining whether the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) can effectively “blacklist” advocates by placing their names on caution lists circulated among banks. At stake is not just the career of one lawyer, but the broader question: “Can financial institutions indirectly regulate legal professionals, or does that authority rest exclusively with statutory bodies like the Bar Council?”

The sensational murder of advocate Umesh Pal in February 2023 sent shockwaves across the state of Uttar Pradesh and reignited national attention on organized crime and political violence. The case, already complex due to its connection with the earlier killing of BSP MLA Raju Pal, has now reached a critical juncture before the Supreme Court of India. In the latest development, the Supreme Court has issued notice on a bail plea filed by Kaish Ahmad, who is alleged to have been associated with the conspiracy behind the murder. This blog examines the facts, legal arguments, procedural history, and broader implications of this case.

In a significant ruling reinforcing the wide amplitude of appellate powers in criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India clarified that an appellate court is not constrained by the absence of an appeal from the accused when it comes to examining the correctness of a conviction. The judgment in State of Assam v. Moinul Haque @ Monu underscores a crucial principle: the pursuit of justice outweighs procedural technicalities, and appellate courts retain the authority to correct errors even if the accused has not challenged the conviction.

In a significant and humane ruling, the Supreme Court of India in PRAHLAD SAHAI V HARYANA ROADWAYS has reaffirmed that compensation in motor accident cases must go beyond mere survival needsit must restore the dignity, mobility, and quality of life of the victim. This judgment marks a progressive step in personal injury jurisprudence by explicitly recognizing prosthetic limbs and their ongoing maintenance as essentialnot optionalcomponents of “just compensation.”

In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of natural justice and fair trial, the Supreme Court in MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH V. GOYAL MG GASES PRIVATE LIMITED held that a foreign judgment delivered in summary proceedings without granting a meaningful opportunity to defend is not enforceable in India.