Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: April 6 – April 10, 2026
1) No convincing evidence: Supreme Court acquits Ex-IRB constable convicted for superior’s murder; grants liberty to seek reinstatement
The Supreme Court ordered acquittal of a former Indian Reserve Battalion Constable after he served almost 12 years in prison for the murder of his superior.
Finding no convincing evidence and noting that the informant had identified the accused only from his voice and not by clear visual recognition, the Bench allowed the appeal and granted him the liberty to seek reinstatement.
Cause Title- Jay Prakash Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 317)
Date of Judgment- April 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
2) Disturbing pattern of administrative apathy & regulatory inaction: Supreme Court issues stringent directions to ensure strict compliance to save Jojari river
The Court according its imprimatur to the recommendations of the High-Level Committee which it constituted to restore the Jojari, Bandi, and Luni river systems has issued a series of stringent interim directions for the industrial units and municipal bodies.
Cause Title- In Re: 2 Million Lives at Risk, Contamination in Jojari River, Rajasthan [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 316]
Date of Judgment- March 18, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Courts may invoke inherent powers to prevent injustice where unimpeachable evidence displaces prosecution’s case
The Court has quashed a Calcutta High Court order that had declined to quash criminal proceedings against three individuals, holding that the High Court failed to adequately consider unimpeachable electronic evidence.
The Bench noted that in the absence of a clear rationale justifying differential treatment, the approach adopted by the High Court was legally and factually unsustainable.
Cause Title-Sajal Bose v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 322]
Date of Judgment- April 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
4) Failure to commence industrial operations within time bars equitable relief: Supreme Court upholds cancellation of 33-Acre Noida industrial plot
The Court has held that the failure of an allottee to utilise an industrial plot for its sanctioned purpose within the stipulated timeframe constitutes a fundamental breach of lease conditions, undermining the state's objectives of fostering economic development and employment generation.
Cause Title- M/s. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 321]
Date of Judgment- April 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
5) Operating surgeon is the best judge: Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against surgeon over alleged lack of specific consent for orchidectomy
The Supreme Court while quashing criminal proceedings against a Surgeon, has held that the High Court erred in maintaining the proceedings, as the "Orchidectomy" mentioned in the consent form was a standard medical response to the cystic and dysplastic nature of the patient’s undescended testis, which posed a future risk of malignancy.
It noted that the operating surgeon is the "best judge" of which procedure to adopt once a surgery has commenced and the internal medical condition is visible.
Cause Title- Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 319]
Date of Judgment- April 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidigantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
6) Words like "bastard" commonly used in modern era during heated conversations; not sufficient to arouse prurient interest: Supreme Court sets aside conviction u/s 294(B) IPC
The Supreme Court has held that the mere utterance of the word "bastard" during a heated physical altercation between relatives does not meet the legal threshold for "obscenity".
Furthermore, it noted that commonly used abusive words, even in heated conversations, do not amount to obscenity, and therefore set aside the conviction of two accused under Section 294 IPC.
Cause Title- Sivakumar v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 318)
Date of Judgment- April 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
7) Termination proceedings shouldn’t be conflated with blacklisting proceedings; blacklisting must comport with principles of natural justice
The Court has held that blacklisting cannot be imposed mechanically but must comport with principles of natural justice and reasonableness. The Apex Court also stated that the proceedings for termination should not be conflated with proceedings for blacklisting.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal of a contractor working with the Water and Sanitation Department, aggrieved by a termination cum blacklisting order.
Cause Title: M/S A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 312)
Date of Judgment: April 02, 2026
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
8) Banks must furnish full forensic audit report but need not grant personal hearings for fraud classification of account
The Court has clarified that the principles of natural justice in the context of classifying a loan account as 'fraud' do not inherently include a right to a personal or oral hearing.
The Court further held that the requirement of audi alteram partem is sufficiently met through a detailed show cause notice, the opportunity to file a written representation, and the passing of a reasoned order.
Cause Title- State Bank of India v. Amit Iron Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 323)
Date of Judgment- April 07, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
9) No direct allegation: Supreme Court quashes summoning order in cheque bounce case against director booked on ground of signing board resolution
The Supreme Court has quashed a summoning order passed against a director of a company in a case registered under the Negotiable Instruments Act after noting that she was booked merely on the ground that she had signed a Board Resolution.
The Apex Court took note of the fact that there was no direct allegation against the appellant in the complaint made, which is the sine qua non for Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be attracted.
Cause Title- Saroj Pandey v. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 324)
Date of Judgment- April 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
10) SC/ST/OBC PwD candidates equally entitled to compete for unreserved PwD posts; meritorious reserved candidates preferred
The Supreme Court has held that all candidates belonging to the SC, ST, or OBC categories who also qualify under a horizontal reservation, such as Persons with Disabilities (PWD), are equally entitled to compete for such posts falling under the "Unreserved" or "Open" category”.
The Court clarified that an unreserved post is an open field meant for the world at large and is not a communal or social compartment reserved for those who do not belong to SC, ST, or OBC categories.
Cause Title- The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dipendu Biswas & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 330)
Judgment- April 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
11) Bar on payment of gratuity as per Rule 69(1)(C) Of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules operates as long as either departmental or judicial proceedings are pending
While dismissing the appeal of a former employee of the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation who was allegedly involved in a CPMT paper leak, the Court has held that the bar on payment of gratuity as per Rule 69(1)(c) operates as long as either departmental or judicial proceedings are pending.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, whereby an intra-court appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the Single Judge was disposed of.
Cause Title- Bikram Chand Rana v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 326)
Judgment- April 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
12) Voluntary retirement notice effective by operation of law if not refused within stipulated period
The Court has affirmed that a notice for voluntary retirement becomes effective by operation of law upon the expiry of the notice period unless the appointing authority expressly refuses permission within that timeframe.
On the legal fiction of "deemed acceptance", the Court held that once an employee's service is legally severed, subsequent administrative actions, including the issuance of a chargesheet or an order of dismissal, lack legal sanctity.
Cause Title- UCO Bank & Ors. v. SK Shrivastava [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 328]
Judgment- April 07, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
13) Presumption U/S 139 N.I. act can’t be rebutted at pre-trial stage; defence of no enforceable debt to be tested during trial
The Court held that once the foundational ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act are satisfied, the statutory presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque operates, and can be rebutted only during trial, not at the stage of issuance of process.
Cause Title- Renuka v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 327)
Judgment- April 07, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
14) Fleeing with minor is offence but subsequent marriage would outweigh need for criminal prosecution
While quashing a POCSO case against a man who was booked for running away with a minor girl whom he married later, the Court has held that fleeing with a minor girl is an offence under law, however, the subsequent development of marriage between the two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would outweigh the need to take the alleged offence or the criminal proceedings to their logical end.
Cause Title- Ayyub Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 331)
Judgment- March 19, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice N.V. Anjaria
15) Motive alone cannot sustain conviction in absence of complete chain of circumstantial evidence: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court has held that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive by itself cannot form the basis of a conviction and can only serve as a supporting factor where the chain of circumstances is otherwise complete and conclusive.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, where the prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Cause Title- Gautam Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 325)
Judgment- April 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
16) Separate sentences u/s 25 & 29 NDPS Act permissible as they constitute independent offences
The Court has held that offences under Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are independent and distinct offences, and once established, would attract separate punishment and sentence, even though the punishment is by reference to the principal offence.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, wherein the appellant’s conviction under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act was upheld, with modification of sentence.
Cause Title- Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 332)
Judgment- April 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
17) Essential conditions under pension fund rules not satisfied: Supreme Court upholds denial of pension to bank clerk who voluntarily abandoned job
The Court has dismissed an appeal of a bank clerk who voluntarily abandoned his job and held that he was not eligible for pension under the Pension Fund Rules, considering that he had not completed 20 years of service nor had attained the age of 50 years.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court, whereby the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court.
Cause Title- K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India And Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 333)
Judgment- April 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
18) Person directly affected by interim order in writ proceedings cannot be denied hearing merely for not being original party
The Court has held that in writ proceedings, a person who is directly and demonstrably affected by an interim order cannot be denied participation merely on the ground that such a person was not an original party to the principal challenge.
The Court was hearing civil appeals arising out of the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order declining impleadment of the appellant and refusing clarification of an interim order passed in a writ petition challenging the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025.
Cause Title- M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 335)
Judgment- April 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
19) Matrimonial Mahabharata: Supreme Court dissolves "dead marriage"; directs husband to pay 5Cr to wife
The Court has invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a decade-long matrimonial dispute, awarding a consolidated sum of 5 Crores as permanent alimony. The Court ordered the closure of over 80 legal proceedings, including those initiated by the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife’s advocates and family members.
Previously, through an order dated February 25, 2026, the Court noted that the husband, a practicing advocate, was exploiting his knowledge to intimidate wife’s counsel, and had consequently stayed all such pending proceedings across forums and courts.
Cause Title- XXX v. YYY [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 334]
Judgment- April 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
20) Computing point of limitation U/S 468 CrPC is date of filing complaint or lodging of FIR
The Court has held that for computing limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings, and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had quashed an FIR on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.
Cause Title- Roma Ahuja v. State And Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 336)
Judgment- April 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
21) High Court cannot usurp discretionary powers of governor even before it is exercised in awarding extraordinary pension
The Court has observed that the High Courts, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, of the Constitution of India should not substitute their own decisions for those of statutory authorities (Governor) in matters where administrative discretion is yet to be exercised.
The Court clarified that when specific statutory rules, such as the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981, mandate the prior sanction of the Governor for an award, the judiciary cannot issue a writ of mandamus to bypass this procedural and substantive requirement.
Cause Title- The State of Uttarakhand v. Sarita Singh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 337)
Judgment- April 09, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
22) Letter Of Intent is a precursor and not concluded contract to justify requirement u/s 7 Arbitration Act
The Court while setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment, has held that a Letter of Intent (LOI) which is contingent upon the future issuance of a work order and execution of a formal agreement does not constitute a concluded contract, thereby precluding the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement.
The Bench said that on a mere prima facie view of the matter, there is no existence of arbitration agreement, and accordingly, it set aside the appointment of the arbitrator.
Cause Title- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) & Ors. v. R Z (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 342)
Judgment- April 09, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
23) Executing court can’t assume role of trial court; jurisdiction is limited to giving effect to decree
The Court has reiterated that the jurisdiction of the Executing Court is limited to give effect to the decree as passed and not to assume the role of a trial court to substitute its own view in place of that expressed under the decree.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal relating to the execution of a compromise decree passed in a Civil Suit.
Cause Title- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) & Ors. v. R Z (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 342)
Judgment- April 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
24) Adverse presumption for non-appearance in witness box is rebuttable and not fatal if case is otherwise proved
The Court observed that an adverse inference drawn against a plaintiff for not entering the witness box is not conclusive in nature and can be displaced by other credible evidence establishing the case.
It held that where such presumption stands rebutted through reliable testimony and supporting material, the non-appearance of the plaintiff would not be fatal to the claim.
Cause Title- Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 339)
Judgment- April 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
25) Omission to seek consequential reliefs in initial suit triggers bar under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC against subsequent suit seeking them
The Court has reiterated that a plaintiff must claim all reliefs arising from a single cause of action in one proceeding and that the failure to do so can attract the bar under Order II Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
The Court clarified that when a plaintiff is aware of a cloud over their title but chooses to file a suit for mere injunction without seeking a declaration of ownership, they are effectively barred from instituting a second suit for that omitted relief at a later stage.
Cause Title- Channappa (D) Thr. LRS. v. Parvatewwa (D) Thr. LRS. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 343)
Judgment- April 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
26) Expression “same line of business” u/s 64(D) MSCS Act must be construed with reference to bye-laws; sameness in core activities required
The Court held that the expression “same line of business” under Section 64(d) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 must be interpreted with reference to the objects and functions contained in the bye-laws of the society, and requires a determination of substantial or predominant sameness in core business activities, rather than a broad or incidental overlap.
The Court was hearing a statutory appeal arising from insolvency proceedings, wherein the appellant-cooperative society was declared ineligible to submit a resolution plan on the ground that the proposed investment did not satisfy the requirement under Section 64(d) of the 2002 Act.
Cause Title- M/s Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Ravi Sethia & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 338)
Judgment- April 09, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
27) Adjudicating authority has to satisfy itself of existence of plausible pre-existing dispute while considering application u/s 9 IBC
While holding that the NCLAT was not justified in reversing the decision of the NCLT, the Court has held that all that is required for the adjudicating authority is to satisfy itself as to the existence of a plausible pre-existing dispute, which was not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, while considering an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the corporate debtor after the adjudicating authority denied the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process, but the appellate authority reversed that decision.
Cause Title- GLS Films Industries Private Limited v. Chemical Suppliers India Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 344)
Judgment- April 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan
28) Appellate court cannot dilute liability of convict U/S 34 IPC at interlocutory stage due to absence of overt act
The Court has held that when a conviction is based on constructive liability, an appellate court cannot suspend a life sentence by attributing a lesser role to a convict, as all participants remain equally liable for acts done in furtherance of a common intention.
By setting aside the suspension of sentence, the Court asserted that ‘palpable infirmity’ in the conviction must be apparent on the face of the record to warrant such relief, and a mere long period of incarceration or a perceived "limited role" is insufficient to override a finding of murder.
Cause Title- Dhan Jee Pandey v. The State of Bihar & Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 349)
Judgment- April 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan
29) State regulation does not render co-operative societies "state" under Article 12 of Constitution: Supreme Court upholds election eligibility bye-laws
The Court has held that regulatory supervision by the State does not, by itself, render co-operative societies “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, while upholding the validity of bye-laws prescribing eligibility conditions for contesting elections to co-operative bodies.
Setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment, the Court affirmed that such bye-laws, when framed within the statutory scheme, are legally sustainable and cannot be invalidated as impermissible disqualifications.
Cause Title- Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors. v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 347)
Judgment- April 10, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
30) Denial of relaxation in qualification despite granting it to similarly situated employees, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 Constitution
The Court held that where similarly situated employees are granted relaxation in educational qualifications for promotion, denial of the same benefit to another employee placed in identical circumstances is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasised that such discriminatory treatment cannot be sustained when the governing rules themselves permit relaxation.
Cause Title- Kamal Prasad Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 353)
Judgment- April 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
31) Once landlord proves absence of original tenant & third-party possession, onus to rebut presumption of unlawful sub-letting shifts to tenant
The Court held that in eviction proceedings based on unlawful subletting, once the landlord discharges the initial burden by proving that the premises are in exclusive possession of a third party and that the original tenant is no longer in possession, a presumption of subletting arises, and the onus shifts to the tenant to establish that such possession is lawful and not like subtenancy.
The Court was hearing a civil appeal arising from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had set aside an eviction order passed by the trial court under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Cause Title- M.V. Ramachandrasa (Since Deceased) v. M/s Mahendra Watch Company & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 348)
Judgment- April 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan
32) EWS reservation strictly contingent on valid financial-year certificate by cut-off date: Supreme Court upholds rejection of candidature
The Court has reiterated that eligibility for reservation under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category is strictly contingent upon possession of a valid income and asset certificate pertaining to the prescribed financial year as on the cut-off date, holding that defects in such certificates go to the root of eligibility and are not curable post facto.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s judgment and denied relief to the appellants. Furthermore, the Court held that where an advertisement mandates submission of certificates in a prescribed format and for a specific financial year, non-compliance renders the candidature invalid.
Cause Title- Poonam Dwivedi & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 351]
Judgment- April 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
33) Differential DA/DR rates for serving & retired employees without rational nexus to inflationary objective violate Article 14
The Court has held that once the State decides to grant dearness allowance (DA) to serving employees and dearness relief (DR) to pensioners to offset inflation, it cannot prescribe differential rates of enhancement, as such classification lacks a rational nexus with the common objective and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Bench upheld the Kerala High Court judgment which had struck down differential enhancement rates of DA and DR granted to employees and pensioners of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC).
Cause Title- The State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 352)
Judgment- April 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
34) No challenge to unproduced & unregistered sale deed not fatal; declaratory decree itself amounts to repudiation of voidable transaction
The Court held that where a sale deed is neither produced nor part of the public record, failure to seek its cancellation is inconsequential, and a decree asserting title itself constitutes valid repudiation of such a transaction.
It was hearing a civil appeal arising out of proceedings under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, wherein the High Court had affirmed the remand of a long-concluded suit after condoning a delay of over three decades.
Cause Title- Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 350)
Judgment- April 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
35) Benefit u/s 4 Probation Of Offenders Act available even if sentence imposed is only fine
The Court has held that the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is available even in cases where the sentence imposed is only a fine, and not imprisonment.
Rejecting a narrow construction, the Court clarified that the concept of “release” cannot be restricted to release from custody alone, but must be understood in the broader context of relieving the offender from the consequences of sentencing.
Cause Title- Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 355)
Judgment- April 10, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Read it further…36) Appeal filed by suspended director in name of corporate debtor after admission of CIRP contrary to IBC’s mandate
The Court has held that an appeal cannot be filed in the name of the corporate debtor by a suspended director claiming to be its authorised representative, once the corporate insolvency resolution process has been admitted and the interim resolution professional is named.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by a suspended director of Ambro Asia Private Limited (corporate debtor), Nitendra Kumar Tomer, under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, aggrieved by the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
Cause Title- Nitendra Kumar Tomer, Suspended Director v. Unox S.P.A. and another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 356)
Judgment- April 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran