Search Judgments

(IBC - Priority of Government Dues and Secured Creditors)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), specifically Sections 3(30), 3(31), 53, 238, and Regulation 12. It also refers to Section 42 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and Section 2 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2025 (assented on 06.04.2026) - The appeal challenges a Single Judge's order affirming attachment on property bought in an IBC liquidation auction. The corporate debtor, RLS Alloys Pvt. Ltd., was liquidated.

(Maintainability of Writ Petition against MSMED Act Council Order for Alleged Non-Adherence to Conciliation)

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) Sections 17, 18, 18(2), 18(5), 19 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) Sections 16, 34 - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 14 - This writ petition challenged an order dated 15.07.2025 by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. The MSEFC had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,58,400/- plus compound interest for unpaid goods.

The petitioner contended that the mandatory conciliation procedure under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act was not followed by the Council, rendering the impugned order arbitrary and illegal. The respondent argued that conciliation was adhered to, and only after its failure was the dispute referred to arbitration.

(Eviction Petition – Maintainability and Bona Fide Requirement)

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 Sections 10(3)(b) (Eviction for own use and occupation) and 10(3)(c) (Eviction where landlord occupies a part) - The tenant, challenging concurrent eviction orders from the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, raised three primary contentions before the High Court. Firstly, it was argued that the lease was a "composite lease" (building plus machinery), therefore falling outside the purview of the Rent Control Act. Secondly, the tenant alleged that the landlord lacked bona fides in seeking eviction for own use under Section 10(3)(b), as other vacant portions were available and not utilized. Thirdly, it was contended that if the landlord was already occupying a portion, the petition should have been filed under Section 10(3)(c).

(Premature Release of Life Convict)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Sections 432(7) and 435 of  (akin to Sections 473, 477 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - BNSS); Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, convicted under Sections 120B/302 IPC and serving a life sentence for over 22 years, challenged the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA) rejection of his premature release plea. The trial was initially transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand by the Supreme Court. The State of Uttarakhand had recommended his premature release.

Initially, the Supreme Court directed Uttar Pradesh to consider the remission plea, relying on Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah.

(Anticipatory Bail in Cheating Case)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 406, 420, and The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 24 - The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - This appeal challenges the Madras High Court's grant of anticipatory bail to a son and daughter-in-law accused of cheating a 75-year-old mother. The mother alleged they fraudulently transferred her properties, sold land at an undervalued price, misappropriated over Rs. 9.65 crores from her account, and drove her out after transferring her house.

Both the District Court and High Court initially dismissed their anticipatory bail pleas, noting the serious allegations and need for custodial interrogation.

(Motor Accident Claim - Enhancement of Compensation)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - This appeal was filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for severe injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on August 7, 2016. The claimant, a Workshop Engineer, suffered multiple spinal fractures and other injuries, which ultimately led to a permanent vegetative state. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had initially awarded a compensation of Rs. 26,47,155.90.

(Recovery of Arrears of Rent)

This Second Appeal involves a landlord-tenant dispute concerning arrears of rent for vacant land between the Plaintiff (Devasthanam) and the Defendant.

Monthly rent was previously fixed at Rs.375/- from March 15, 1999, by an appellate court (A.S. No.16 of 2000), a rate the Defendant had agreed to. The Defendant filed S.A.

(Estoppel by Conduct and Arbitrability of Trust Disputes)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VII Rule 11, Sections 92, 96; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 9, 37 - The Supreme Court addressed whether a party could challenge the validity of an arbitral award and subsequent consent decree after having actively participated in and benefited from the process. The dispute originated between trustees of a charitable trust, with the respondents filing a suit for injunction, which was initially rejected by the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, citing Section 92 CPC (non-arbitrability of trust matters).

On appeal, the parties mutually agreed to arbitration, leading to an arbitral award for managing the Trust's affairs. Both parties then filed a joint application, accepting the award and securing a consent decree from the District Court, which remained unchallenged.

(Income Tax – Non-compete Fee & Interest on Borrowed Funds)

The Income Tax Act, 1961: Sections 32(1)(ii), 36(1)(iii), and 37(1).

Issue 1: Non-compete Fee: The Court examined whether non-compete fee is a revenue or capital expenditure. Analyzing precedents, it noted that the "enduring benefit" test is not always conclusive. Expenditure merely facilitating business operations more efficiently/profitably, without creating new assets or adding to fixed capital, is revenue expenditure.

The Court held that non-compete fees protect/enhance business profitability by insulating against competition, rather than creating new capital assets or a monopoly.

(Interpretation of "Proceedings" and "Subject Matter" under CGST Act, 2017)

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - Sections 6(1), 6(2)(a), 6(2)(b), 59, 67(2), 70, 73, 74, 75(7), 76 - The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of "initiation of any proceedings" and "same subject matter" under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, addressing concerns about parallel investigations by Central and State GST authorities. The petitioner challenged summons issued by Central GST (Respondent No. 1) for issues already subject to a show cause notice (SCN) by State GST (Respondent No. 2).