(1)
PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Vs.
KETULBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL .....Respondent D.D
03/02/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Insolvency Law – Financial Creditor Status – Appellant claimed to be a financial creditor under IBC based on a pledge agreement and deed of undertaking – Pledge of shares does not amount to a guarantee or financial debt – Definition of "financial creditor" requires disbursement against the consideration for the time value of money – Supreme Court held that t...
(2)
STATE OF GUJARAT .....Appellant Vs.
BHALCHANDRA LAXMISHANKAR DAVE .....Respondent D.D
02/02/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Corruption Law – Illegal Gratification – Acquittal – Appeal – High Court acquitted respondent without detailed reappreciation of evidence – Supreme Court held that High Court must reappreciate entire evidence independently in appeals against convictions – High Court's approach found to be erroneous and patently illegal leading to miscarriage of justice &ndas...
(3)
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant Vs.
K.A. NAJEEB .....Respondent D.D
01/02/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Bail – Constitutional Courts' Authority – Respondent accused of serious offenses under UAPA – High Court granted bail citing long period of incarceration and unlikelihood of trial completion soon – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s order, noting that constitutional courts can grant bail if trial is excessively delayed, ...
(4)
PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Vs.
SPADE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
01/02/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Insolvency Law – Financial Creditors – Related Parties – Interpretation – Section 21(2) IBC mandates that the CoC shall comprise all financial creditors of the corporate debtor – First proviso to Section 21(2) excludes related party financial creditors from CoC – Supreme Court held exclusion applies not only to present related parties but also to those who were ...
(5)
NATIONAL HIGH SPEED RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED ....Appellant Vs.
MONTECARLO LIMITED AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
31/01/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tender Process – Judicial Review – Appeal challenging the High Court's decision to allow the writ petition against the rejection of a bid – Supreme Court emphasizes the principles of judicial restraint in administrative actions, especially in foreign-funded projects – Upholds the rejection of Montecarlo Limited's bid by the National High Speed Rail Corporation ...
(6)
AJAY KUMAR @ BITTU AND ANOTHER .....Appellants Vs.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER .....Respondents D.D
29/01/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning Order – Discretionary Power – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence exists against the person from the evidence before the court. It is not to be exercised merely because the judge believes someone else may be guilty. The High Court erred in not conside...
(7)
POORAN CHAND .....Appellant Vs.
CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS .....Respondents D.D
29/01/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturers – Time-Barred Challenges – Under Section 53 of the Uttar Pradesh Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University Act, 2002, any challenge to the appointment must be made within three months. The respondent's challenge to the appellant’s appointment as Assistant Professor, made after more than three years, was time-barred and no...
(8)
MANJIT AND OTHERS .....Appellants Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents D.D
29/01/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Larsgess Scheme – Termination and Constitutional Compliance – The Larsgess Scheme, allowing certain wards of serving railway employees entry into service without competitive selection, was found inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Union of India justifiably terminated the scheme. Claims under the terminated scheme do not warrant relief, as they would result in...
(9)
A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHER .....Appellants Vs.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT .....Respondent D.D
29/01/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Recording of Evidence – Separate Trials – Appellate Court's scope – Appeals challenge convictions where separate trials for the same offence were conducted – The Supreme Court emphasizes the distinctiveness of evidence recorded in the presence of the accused or their pleader – Evidence from separate trials cannot be cross-utilized to establish culpability unless s...