1) Letters patent bench can interfere with writ-court decision only for glaring, demonstrable error
The Court held that a Letters Patent Bench cannot interfere with an otherwise just and reasonable decision of a writ court merely because it identifies some error of fact or law or takes a different view of the matter.
The Court set aside a Madras High Court Division Bench judgment which had restored the removal from service of a Periyar University Deputy Registrar. It restored the Single Judge’s order after finding that the disciplinary charges rested on conjectures rather than evidence.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment passed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court. The Division Bench had reappreciated the disciplinary material and reversed the Single Judge’s decision interfering with the punishment.
Cause Title- R. Saravanan v. Periyar University Represented By Its Registrar and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1136)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
2) Administrator cannot assume RBI’s regulatory role & write down AT-1 bonds after reconstruction scheme omitted write-down clause: Supreme Court in YES Bank case
The Court held that an Administrator appointed under Section 36ACA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 cannot assume the regulatory role of the Reserve Bank of India and write down Additional Tier 1 bonds. The Court observed that the Administrator must act squarely within the four corners of the powers conferred on him, and that any act beyond them is illegal and void.
It upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision setting aside the write-down of YES BANK’s AT-1 Bonds. The Court clarified that the word “before” in Clause 2.15 of Annex 16 of the RBI Master Circular can only mean before the Reconstruction Scheme takes effect. It held that a general savings provision does not, by itself, confer the specific authority to write down the Bonds, since a power not specifically conferred cannot be implicitly vested through an omnibus clause.
Cause Title- R. YES Bank Limited & Anr. v. Axis Trustee Services Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1132)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
3) Arraying officer or department without state as juristic entity renders writ petition involving financial liability defective
While observing that an officer or a department of the State cannot be equated with the State itself for the purposes of fastening sovereign or financial liability, the Court held that the impleadment of an officer or a department, without formally arraying the State as a juristic entity under Article 300 of the Constitution, renders the petition fundamentally defective.
The Apex Court was considering the civil appeals directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court allowing a writ petition of the first respondent as well as a subsequent order dismissing a review application of the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur.
Cause Title- State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir S/O Motiramji Hiwarkar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1118)
Date of Judgment- October 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
4) Arrest order & material to be forwarded to adjudicating authority u/s. 19 PMLA "immediately", meaning "expeditiously & simultaneously"
While granting bail to a money laundering accused, the Supreme Court has observed that there is no timeline mentioned in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) under Section 19 to forward the arrest order and the material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority, but the same has to be done "immediately".
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the Appellant/Accused challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court whereby the Appellant’s prayer for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was rejected.
Cause Title- Sanjay Sureka @Sanjay Kumar Sureka v. Directorate Of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1124)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
5) Residential zoning can’t extinguish state’s legitimate rights over water bodies: Supreme Court affirms demolition of flats after alternative allotment
The Court held that classifying land as mixed-residential under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 cannot extinguish the State’s rights over water bodies protected by Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, while affirming the demolition of 20 flats after the owners are allotted a vacant, commensurate alternative site.
The Court was hearing civil appeals challenging Madras High Court orders which upheld the Commissioner of Land Administration’s decision cancelling the patta and directing restoration of the land as a water body.
Cause Title- S. Gururaj v. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1146)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
6) Challenging arrest & parallelly seeking bail without adequate disclosure amounts to abuse of process
The Court deprecated the practice of pursuing parallel remedies, while keeping all judicial authorities in the dark and held that it may be a right of the accused to challenge his arrest or to approach a court seeking bail; however, such conduct of pursuing remedies parallelly without adequate disclosure amounts to abuse of the process of law.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Service Tax Intelligence, challenging the judgment of a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court granting bail to Mohammed Kamran.
Cause Title- Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1140]
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
7) Rejection of highest bid needs material showing current inadequacy, not mere comparison with bidder’s earlier bid
The Court held that a public authority rejecting the highest bid in an auction must have material showing that the bid is presently inadequate, and cannot rest the rejection on a comparison with the bidder’s own earlier bid alone. Setting aside the cancellation of two sand mining auctions in Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that a previous bid is not, by itself, a continuing adjudication of market value, and that the State must show that the current bids were materially lower than the value it could reasonably expect to obtain from the market.
The Court clarified that a highest bidder acquires no vested right and that the State may reject even an above-reserve offer, but a clause reserving the power to reject does not place its exercise beyond judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A reliable valuation, evidence of collusion or artificially depressed bidding, absence of effective competition, or a genuine supervening policy decision may justify rejection. Public interest, however, must emerge from the material on which the decision is taken, the Bench said.
Cause Title- M/s Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1125)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
9) Students must know professional course fee before admission; mid-course hike only in exceptional circumstances
The Court held that a student entering a four or five-year professional programme should ordinarily know, at the very threshold, the financial liability that the student or the family is undertaking. Reading the AICTE Regulations, 1994, the National Education Policy, 2020 and the principle of certainty together, the Court directed that the authorities must notify the fee payable for the entire course before a student takes admission.
The Court clarified that the fee structure need not remain incapable of adjustment in every circumstance, and that variation during the course is permissible only in exceptional instances, such as an unforeseen increase in expenditure. Such an adjustment, it held, must remain an exception and cannot become a substitute for timely assessment and proper institutional planning. It also held that fee fixation committees perform an important public function and are subject to judicial review by High Courts.
Cause Title- Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1120)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
10) Suit for possession simpliciter not maintainable where serious dispute casts a cloud over plaintiff’s title
The Court held that a plaintiff whose title is clouded by a registered sale deed in the defendant’s favour cannot rely on a bare prayer for possession. Where the defendant raises a serious and concrete challenge to title, the plaintiff must seek a substantive declaration, such as cancellation of the deed or specific performance.
The Court also reiterated that an agreement to sell creates no interest in immovable property, and that only a registered sale deed conveys title. It held that an allottee who, by his own letter, admitted inability to perform a mandatory construction covenant and asked for the plot to be transferred to another cannot later resile from that stand. His heirs are equally estopped.
Cause Title- Rano Singh and Others v. Gurbax Singh (D) Th LRs and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1137)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
11) “Or otherwise” clause operates as absolute bar on pre-award interest; arbitrator cannot act contrary to contract
The Court held that the words “or otherwise” at the end of a contractual clause barring interest are residuary words of extension and cannot be read down by the preceding expressions. The Court observed that an arbitrator, being a creature of the contract, acts beyond jurisdiction in awarding pre-reference and pendente lite interest in contravention of such a clause.
The Court explained that the power to award pre-award interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is expressly subject to the words “unless otherwise agreed by the parties”. Post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) is not subject to party autonomy. Ejusdem generis applies only where general words follow a specific class forming a genus, and phrases joined disjunctively by “or” must be examined independently.
Cause Title- MS Sharma Enterprises v. National Building Construction Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1135)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
12) Claimant Requiring Lifelong Attendant Can Be Treated As 100% Functionally Disabled Under Motor Vehicles Act
The Court held that, while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an accident victim who remains dependent on another person and requires an attendant throughout life can be treated as suffering from 100% functional disability when the injuries completely destroy his capacity to work.
Applying this principle, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to a 43-year-old accident victim from ₹36.22 lakh to ₹77.84 lakh. It assessed his loss of earning capacity on the basis of 100% functional disability, despite his medically certified disability being 75.5%.
The Court was hearing appeals seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Kerala High Court in two motor-accident claims arising from the same collision. The first appellant, represented by his wife after becoming totally disabled, challenged the High Court’s reliance upon his medical-disability percentage without considering the functional effect of his injuries.
Cause Title- Sunil Kumar (Totally Disabled, Represented By Wife) v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1145)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
13) State cannot unilaterally usurp property of religious & charitable institutions
The Court held that the State, which the law makes custodian of religious and charitable properties, cannot take such property for itself or allow its officers to do so. A transaction offending this principle, whatever its label or public purpose, is liable to be struck down.
The Court declared void a gift of temple inam land made by a temporary trustee to the Tamil Nadu Government. Under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, a gift of inam property cannot be validated by any sanction. The Court did not undo the Taluk Office built on the land, but directed that the Temple receive enhanced rent and costs.
Cause Title- K. Ramalingam and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1144)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
14) Gift of inam property dedicated to support of a deity is void ab initio under Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act
The Court held that a gift of inam property dedicated to a deity’s support is void from the start under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Because the Act permits no sanction for such a gift, none could have validated it.
The Court ruled that the State is a custodian and regulator of temple property, not its owner, and cannot usurp the property it is charged to protect. It declared the gift to the Government void but left the Taluk Office standing, retaining the lease at Rs. 31,000 per month, and directed the State to pay Rs. 1,00,000 in costs.
Cause Title- K. Ramalingam and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1144)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
15) Private complaint alleging offence u/s.125-A of Representation of People Act maintainable; rigor of 195 CrPC won’t apply
The Court held that a private complaint alleging an offence committed under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act is maintainable and the same need not pass muster of the rigours of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Apex Court was considering a special leave granted challenging a judgment of the Karnataka High Court allowing a writ petition presented by the respondent and quashing a complaint lodged by the appellant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Cause Title- Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldal (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1138)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
16) Order VI Rule 17 CPC| Amendment application needn’t be rejected at threshold where question of limitation is arguable & depends upon disputed facts
While observing that Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) confers a discretionary power upon the Court to permit amendments which are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, the Court held that where the question of limitation is itself arguable and depends upon disputed facts, including the date or manner in which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the relevant document or transaction, the amendment need not necessarily be rejected at the threshold.
The Apex Court was considering a Civil Appeal preferred against the order of the Orissa High Court refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
Cause Title- Haramani Sahoo and Others v. Lalita Nayak and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1112)
Date of Judgment- October 12, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
17) Homebuyer cannot claim both interest on full refund and rent for builder’s same delay
The Court held that a homebuyer cannot claim both interest on the full refund and reimbursement of rent for the same delay by a builder, as this would amount to double compensation for the same default.
The Court directed the refund of ₹1,27,34,726 paid by the homebuyer, with 12% simple interest from the respective dates of payment. It separately awarded ₹15 lakh in full and final satisfaction of his claims towards rent, mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
The Court was hearing appeals arising from a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order directing Lodha Healthy Constructions and Developer Private Limited to refund the amount deposited towards an apartment in its “Lodha Bellezza” project in Hyderabad. The homebuyer challenged, among other things, the Commission’s failure to decide his claims for rent and compensation.
Cause Title- Madhu Kudapa (Formerly Known as K. Madhusudhan Rao) v. M/s Lodha Healthy Constructions and Developer Private Limited (LHCPL) and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1131)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
18) Deceased’s substance-abuse history made accident theory probable: Supreme Court acquits man of murder
The Court acquitted a man convicted of murder after holding that the deceased’s substance-abuse history made the defence theory of a motorcycle accident probable and created doubt about the prosecution’s case. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant to the death.
It set aside his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and directed his immediate release unless required in another case.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a Chhattisgarh High Court judgment affirming the Trial Court’s conviction of the appellant for murder and causing disappearance of evidence. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including WhatsApp messages, alleged recoveries and unexplained injuries on the appellant.
Cause Title- Kusumlal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1148)
Date of Judgment- October 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
19) Non-compliance with RBI guidelines can’t trigger criminal prosecution against bank officers merely because borrowers belong to SC/ST communities
The Court held that a bank’s non-compliance with RBI guidelines and circulars cannot trigger criminal prosecution against bank officers merely because the borrowing company’s directors belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities, particularly in the absence of any specific allegation that the bank officers denigrated them on the basis of caste.
The Court consequently quashed the FIR against the officers. The Court was hearing an appeal by bank officers against the High Court’s refusal to interfere with criminal proceedings arising from an FIR lodged by a company whose loan accounts had been classified as non-performing assets.
Cause Title- Chavan Dharmendar and Others v. State of Telangana and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1133)
Date of Judgment- October 12, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
20) Demanding bribe is pure criminal act; no protective umbrella u/s.17A PC Act as it is not connected with official functions of public servant
While upholding an order framing charge under the Prevention Of Corruption Act, the Court held that the act of demanding a bribe is purely a criminal act, not connected with official functions, and such an act does not fall within the protective umbrella of Section 17A.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal by special leave filed by the appellant, who was booked under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenging the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court dismissing a Criminal Revision.
Cause Title-Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1147)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
21) Conversion alone doesn't confer membership in backward class muslim communities: Apex Court upholds HC striking down order on reservation benefits for religious converts
The Court affirmed a Madras High Court judgment invalidating a Tamil Nadu Government Order that allowed individuals converting from backward classes, most backward classes, denotified communities, and scheduled castes to Islam to be issued community certificates as backward class Muslims. It was held that a pre-conversion caste or community status cannot automatically be transposed upon conversion, and that such an executive order creates an artificial route for reservation benefits without establishing the necessary social and legal links.
The Court had reserved its order at the admission stage on a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, challenging the Madras High Court judgment, which held that converts to Islam cannot claim Backwards Class Status for reservations.
Cause Title- The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu v. Sameer Ahmed and Ors. [SLP(C) No. 25507/2026]
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
22) Digital safety & sex education are two sides of the same coin, must form part of school curriculum: Supreme Court issues guidelines for child safety
The Court held that awareness of digital safety and sex education must be treated as a single subject. It observed that the safeguards it has proposed against child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) would be of limited use if the children they are meant to protect do not know about them. Pertinently, in its 2024 judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, the Court had urged the Union, through the Ministry of Women and Child Development, to implement comprehensive sex education programmes covering consent, the impact of exploitation and the legal ramifications of child pornography.
The Court directed that digital safety and age-appropriate sex education be part of the core curriculum, to be taught from the primary stage. It listed sixteen measures to be undertaken by the Union and State Governments, child rights commissions, educational institutions and intermediaries. These cover consent, healthy relationships, safe internet use, reporting channels, teacher training, parental awareness, helplines in schools, and counselling for victims. The Court also asked the Union what it has done in the years since similar suggestions were made.
Cause Title- Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1149)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
23) All individuals including children have fundamental right to access internet: Supreme Court disapproves blanket restrictions
The Court held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It said children enjoy the same right irrespective of age, and that denying it altogether would be as absurd as saying children below a certain age have no conscience worth protecting or freedom of speech worth expressing. The Court observed that the safety of children and their freedom are not at odds, and that children are entitled to both.
While declining to endorse a blanket restriction on children’s access to social media, the Court laid out a wide framework for the detection, reporting and removal of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM). It proposed a national Hash and URL List Database with multi-tier human verification and set reporting timelines for intermediaries. It also proposed dedicated CSEAM grievance officers and a uniform, easily accessible reporting category, and asked the Union to consider exemplary fines and disgorgement of paywall revenue. It clarified that, for the IT Act and Rules, CSEAM is not confined to visual depictions.
Cause Title- Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1149)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
24) Rigid adherence to letter of tender document can't be countenanced when there is impossibility in compliance
While setting aside an order of the Patna High Court affirming a bid rejection, the Court has held that the rigid adherence to the letter of a tender document cannot be countenanced, especially when there is a clear impossibility in complying with the same.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against an order of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court that affirmed the rejection of the appellant’s bid for a project.
Cause Title- Hardev Construction Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1110)
Date of Judgment- October 12, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
25) Order XXI Rule 97 CPC| Executing court must conduct full-fledged enquiry into all questions
The Court held that an Executing Court considering a title objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC must conduct a full inquiry under Rule 101 into all questions concerning the parties’ right, title or interest, while remanding a Waqf Trust’s claim resisting the execution of a possession decree.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a Telangana High Court judgment affirming the rejection of the Waqf’s application resisting execution. The lower courts had found that its application under Order XXI Rule 58 was not maintainable because the execution petition sought possession rather than attachment and had also rejected its claim on merits.
Cause Title- Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf v. Mohammed Saleem Alias Mohd. Wajid Ali and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1122)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
26) Limitation period for appeal u/s 62 IBC commences on date NCLAT pronounces order
The Court held that the limitation period for an Appeal commences on the date the NCLAT pronounces the Order under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Court further explained that under the Explanation to Section 12 of the Limitation Act, any period of inaction before filing the Application for a certified copy must be deducted from the statutory limitation period.
The Apex Court was considering the appeals filed against the final Judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, in a Company Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Cause Title- Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf v. Mohammed Saleem Alias Mohd. Wajid Ali and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1122)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
27) Public authority's act of revisiting auction process for price maximization justified as long as enforceable contract isn’t entered into
While asking the Chandigarh Administration to hold a fresh e-auction, the Court held that the action of a public authority to recall or revisit the auction process is justified if the decision is intended to maximise the price for the sale/lease of public property. The Apex Court clarified that this is permissible as long as the enforceable contract has not been entered into.
The Apex Court was considering the Civil Appeals arising out of the final judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by M/s Bedi Hospital challenging the letters of cancellation of the bid contract and the Agreement to Sell on the ground that the bid amount offered by M/s Bedi Hospital was not reflective of the market trends.
Cause Title- Satinder Pal Singh & Ors. v. Bedi Hospital & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1142)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
28) Compilation replete with AI-generated non-existing judgments: Supreme Court drops imposing of proposed costs noticing death of litigant
The Court described as “undesirable” an incident in which a compilation of judgments filed on behalf of appellants was alleged to contain several AI-generated, non-existent decisions.
Although the Court proposed exemplary costs for the conduct, it ultimately made no order as to costs after being informed that the first appellant had died.
The Court was hearing two statutory appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against an NCLAT judgment affirming orders by which the NCLT had admitted Section 7 applications and commenced the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against two corporate debtors.
Cause Title- Deepak Raheja and Another v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1134)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
29) Section 7 IBC requires proof of default on preponderance of probabilities, not forensic reconciliation of accounts
The Court held that proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 involve a summary determination of default on a preponderance of probabilities. The Court clarified that the NCLT is required to ascertain whether debt and default exist, not undertake a forensic reconciliation of accounts or conclusively quantify every amount outstanding.
The Court was hearing statutory appeals against an NCLAT judgment affirming NCLT orders admitting Section 7 applications and commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against GSTAAD Hotels Private Limited and Neo Capricorn Plaza Private Limited.
Cause Title- Deepak Raheja and Another v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1134)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
30) Can Article 226 jurisdiction be divided into civil and criminal to bar intra-court appeals? Supreme Court refers question to larger bench
The Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether Article 226 jurisdiction can be classified as civil or criminal based on the subject matter of a writ petition, thereby excluding an intra-court appeal under the applicable Letters Patent. The Court was hearing an appeal by an alleged contemnor against an interim order of the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench.
The High Court had rejected his compliance affidavit in a civil contempt proceeding and directed his personal appearance if its earlier writ order remained unimplemented.
Cause Title- Sanjay Prasad v. Madhusudan Dwivedi & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1128)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
31) Venue won’t automatically be seat of arbitration; it must be ascertained by reading agreement in its entirety
The Court held that the venue for arbitral proceedings would not automatically be the seat of arbitration and the juridical seat would have to be ascertained by reading the Agreement in its entirety to decipher the true intention of the parties.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court whereby, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the High Court appointed an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties arising out of a “Franchise Agreement”.
Cause Title- ARCIS Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1109)
Date of Judgment- October 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi