Wednesday, 2 September 2026

The dispute. RAKIA sought to enforce a UAE money decree exceeding five hundred crore rupees against promoter Nimmagadda Prasad. It sought to attach affiliated company assets, alleging they formed an alter-ego web shielding diverted funds. The High Court dismissed contempt and refused interlocutory veil-piercing, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Foreign decrees command comity, but contempt requires breach of an unambiguous undertaking rather than a clarificatory statement. Piercing the corporate veil requires cogent evidence of fraud, an inquiry reserved strictly for executing courts.

The principles of comity of nations demand us to respect the order of RAK Foreign Decree and due weightage has to be given to such order even while passing an interlocutory order.

For your practice. Litigators must secure explicit undertakings to ground contempt, reserving veil-piercing claims for execution with cogent proof.

The order. Rejecting contempt, the Supreme Court ordered additional security of two hundred crore rupees within two weeks and directed execution courts to decide within four months.

Section 44A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Case

RAS AL KHAIMAH INVESTMENT AUTHORITY vs MATRIX PHARMACORP PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-012993-012994 - 2025 · 2026 INSC 932 · 01.09.2026

Bench

Joymalya Bagchi, V. Mohana

The dispute. Customs authorities penalised Saudi Arabian Airlines over seven crore rupees for minor delays in depositing foreign travel tax. Although the carrier purchased drafts before statutory deadlines in most instances, actual treasury deposits were delayed by days. The Bombay High Court dismissed the airline's writ petition challenging the customs revisional order that upheld the penalty under the Finance Act.

The reasoning. The statutory phrase 'fails to pay' denotes outright non-payment rather than mere delay in remittance. Penalties cannot be imposed mechanically without considering statutory discretion to condone reasonable delays and affording a fair personal hearing.

‘Failure to pay’ would not mean and cannot be equated with ‘delay in making payment’.

For your practice. Counsel can shield carriers from heavy penalties by distinguishing delayed deposits from non-payment and proactively seeking statutory condonation under the rules.

The order. The Supreme Court quashed the penalty orders and directed the authorities to refund the deposited amount with nine percent annual interest within three months. The appellant's bank guarantee was ordered to be discharged.

Section 38(3), Finance Act, 1979, as amended by Finance Act, 1994

Case

M/S SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES vs UNION OF INDIA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-001052-001052 - 2013 · 2026 INSC 933 · 01.09.2026

Bench

Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar

The dispute. The petitioner, an Accounting Manager with fourteen years of experience, proceeded on maternity leave after disclosing her pregnancy. She protested the demotion, resigned, and moved the Delhi High Court under Article 226 seeking reinstatement and exemplary compensation.

The reasoning. Section 12 bars adverse service variations, covering substantive demotion and lost managerial authority even if pay is preserved. Statutory maternity duties override private contracts, rendering employers amenable to Article 226 writ relief.

A statute which declares certain conduct unlawful and overrides the terms of a contract of service cannot be bypassed on the ground that the matter falls within the sphere of private employment.

For your practice. Counsel can invoke Article 226 against private employers to challenge post-maternity role dilution, seeking mandatory reinstatement and exemplary damages.

The order. Allowing the petition in part, the Court ordered reinstatement and Rs 10 lakh compensation plus Rs 1.5 lakh costs with 9% interest within eight weeks. The Union was directed to frame pregnancy guidelines within six months.

Section 12, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

Case

RAKHI BISHT vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-14785/2024 · 2026:DHC:7286 · 31.08.2026

Bench

Sachin Datta

The dispute. Revenue authorities issued a show-cause notice in October 2016 demanding service tax on welfare salary deductions under the Assam Rifles Group Insurance Scheme. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand only in March 2025, after an unexplained lapse of eight and a half years. The scheme challenged the Order-in-Original before the Meghalaya High Court, assailing the belated assessment as arbitrary and time-barred.

The reasoning. Statutory timelines for concluding tax assessments are mandatory and cannot be bypassed for administrative convenience. An unexplained eight-year delay in adjudication violates procedural fairness, rendering the resulting assessment order void.

For your practice. Counsel can quash protracted tax assessments on limitation grounds alone, forcing revenue authorities to conclude adjudication strictly within statutory timeframes.

The order. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the belated assessment order dated 12 March 2025. It declared the service tax demand, along with all associated interest and penalties, completely void.

Section 73(4B), Finance Act, 1994

Case

M/s Assam Rifles Group Insurance Scheme (ARGIS) v. 1. Additional Director General (Adjudication) ... 2. Additional Director General (DGCEI) ... 3. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

Citation

Meghalaya High Court · WP(C)/377/2025 · 2026:MLHC:961-DB · 01.09.2026

Bench

H. S. Thangkhiew, B. Bhattacharjee

The dispute. Police arrested two individuals under narcotics legislation and remanded them to judicial custody pending chemical analysis of seized contraband. Following the expiry of the statutory one hundred and eighty days without a charge-sheet, the accused petitioned for default bail. The sessions court dismissed their bail pleas citing an earlier extension of the investigation period, which was granted without notifying them.

The reasoning. Notifying the accused before extending investigation beyond statutory limits is an indispensable safeguard, not an empty formality. An extension granted in breach of this requirement is void and cannot extinguish an accrued right to default bail.

For your practice. Defence counsel must scrutinise investigation extensions, as failure to serve notice invalidates the order and preserves the client's indefeasible right to default bail.

The order. The High Court quashed the invalid extension order and set aside the rejection of default bail. It directed the petitioners to be released on personal and surety bonds, provided they are not required in any other case.

Section 36-A(4), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Case

AKASH vs STATE OF HARYANA

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · CRR/1691/2026 · 31.08.2026

Bench

Manisha Batra

The dispute. During corporate insolvency proceedings against Dolphin Offshore, the provident fund department pursued assessment inquiries despite the statutory moratorium. The corporate debtor filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the assessment order as unlawful and barred by insolvency law.

The reasoning. The Court held that the insolvency moratorium freezes coercive assessment proceedings against a corporate debtor. Moreover, statutory clean-slate rules operate retrospectively to extinguish pre-approval claims omitted from the approved plan.

In view of the statutory freeze under Section 14 IBC, no assessment proceeding can be continued by the EPFO during the moratorium period.

For your practice. Statutory authorities cannot revive unapproved pre-insolvency debts, ensuring that successful resolution applicants take over corporate debtors on a genuine clean slate.

The order. The High Court quashed the assessment order demanding over Rs 1.22 crore in provident fund dues. The Court ruled that the claim was extinguished, leaving only the approved sum of Rs 2,250 payable.

Section 31(6), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (as amended 2026)

Case

DOLPHIN OFFSHORE ENTERPRISES LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA THR MINISTRY OF LABOUR & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · WP/6845/2023 · 2026:BHC-AS:35779 · 01.09.2026

Bench

Sharmila U. Deshmukh

The dispute. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, a registered micro and small enterprise, participated in an electronic reverse-auction tender floated by the Steel Authority of India Limited for scrap handling. His final bid was just 0.5 per cent higher than the lowest offer, well within the statutory price preference band. When SAIL awarded the contract to the lowest bidder without inviting him to match the price, Agarwal petitioned the High Court for mandamus.

The reasoning. The Court held that the 2012 MSE policy creates a binding statutory duty to grant purchase preference. Portal configuration errors or technical omissions cannot defeat this right once an enterprise satisfies the quantitative price band.

For your practice. Procuring authorities cannot rely on portal glitches to bypass statutory MSE quotas, giving excluded small enterprises clear legal standing to seek immediate mandamus relief.

The order. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the work order awarded to the rival bidder. SAIL was directed to invite the petitioner within one week to match the lowest bid of over Rs 155 crore.

Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises Order, 2012

Case

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · WPA/23381/2026 · 2026:CHC-AS:1398 · 01.09.2026

Bench

Krishna Rao

The dispute. Otsuka Chemical engaged Trans Engineers for turnkey plant expansion and paid the agreed lump sum of ₹71 cr. Following project completion, the contractor claimed ₹28 cr. for extra work, which the arbitrator rejected in a nil award. A Single Judge set aside the award under Section 34 for misconstruing drawings, prompting the employer's appeal to the Division Bench.

The reasoning. Judicial review of arbitral awards is strictly confined to patent illegality, barring courts from acting as appellate forums. Courts exceed their statutory powers when re-evaluating evidence or substituting an alternative interpretation of the contract.

The learned Single Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction vested in it under Section 34 of the A&C Act in interfering with the Impugned Award.

For your practice. Litigators must anchor award challenges in manifest illegality rather than contractual re-interpretation, preserving the finality of arbitral outcomes.

The order. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order, and restored the arbitral nil award dated 7 March 2022.

Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case

OTSUKA CHEMICAL (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd. vs TRANS ENGINEERS INDIA Pvt. Ltd.

Citation

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM)-234/2024 · 2026:DHC:7310-DB · 01.09.2026

Bench

Navin Chawla, Madhu Jain

The dispute. An indigent appellant facing conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act suffered total asset auction in 2021 and survived selling street food from a hand-cart. When he appealed, he sought complete exemption from the mandatory twenty percent pre-deposit citing acute impoverishment. The sessions court rejected his plea for failing to produce a certified copy of the auction order, directing twenty percent deposit.

The reasoning. Although statutory pre-deposit is the general rule, appellate courts retain discretion to reduce the burden in exceptional circumstances.

For your practice. Counsel can seek reduced appellate deposits in cheque dishonour cases by placing concrete documentary proof of severe financial hardship and impoverishment on record.

The order. The High Court modified the order, directing the revisionist to deposit ten thousand rupees within one week. The sessions court was ordered to hear the appeal on the merits without demanding further deposit.

Section 148, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Case

Alok Jain and Another - Revisionist s Versus State Of Uttarakhand And Another - Respondents

Citation

Uttarakhand High Court · CRLR/669/2026 · 01.09.2026

Bench

Alok Mahra

The dispute. The respondents' predecessor paid an advance of Rs 2 lakh under a 2004 agreement to purchase a residential house from the petitioners. After the buyer died without the transaction completing, his legal heirs instituted a suit in 2023 seeking recovery of the deposit with interest. The petitioners moved the High Court after the trial judge refused to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

The reasoning. The High Court held that a statutory charge arises only upon completion of sale, not under an uncompleted agreement. Consequently, claims for refund of advance are contractual restitutionary actions governed by the three-year residuary limitation period.

For your practice. Purchasers cannot invoke the twelve-year statutory charge period to recover aborted sale advances, making prompt institution of suits within three years essential to prevent.

The order. The High Court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the impugned order of the subordinate judge. Holding the recovery suit barred by limitation, the Court rejected the plaint for refund of the advance deposit.

Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963

Case

P.Sampath vs B.Vasanthi

Citation

Madras High Court · CRP.1462/2026 · 01.09.2026

Bench

P.B. Balaji

The dispute. The assessee filed her return for assessment year 2025-26 declaring total income under seven lakh rupees, including short-term capital gains. After the first appellate authority upheld the tax demand by relying on the departmental circular, the assessee appealed to the appellate tribunal.

The reasoning. The Tribunal held that the applicable statute contained no express bar against granting rebate on short-term capital gains. Administrative circulars cannot curtail statutory benefits, and prospective amendments cannot be applied retrospectively.

The statutory language, as applicable for the year under consideration, did not contain any express exclusion of income chargeable to tax at the special rate under section 111A.

For your practice. Taxpayers can resist departmental circulars that curtail statutory reliefs, protecting against the unlawful retrospective enforcement of future tax amendments.

The order. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the assessing officer to grant the full rebate of Rs 25,000. The revenue was ordered to delete the disputed tax demand and refund any excess tax paid.

Section 87A, Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Kajol Patel,Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer,Ward-1, Mehsana

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITA No. 1613/AHD/2026 · 01.09.2026

Bench

Narendra Prasad Sinha, Tapas Ram Misra

The dispute. A financial creditor lodged an inflated claim of over eighteen hundred crore rupees in a corporate insolvency process despite courts having previously capped the debt. The adjudicating authority approved the resolution plan while dismissing all stakeholder objections with costs, triggering appeals before the tribunal.

The reasoning. Resolution professionals have a duty to reconcile claims with binding judicial rulings instead of admitting claims mechanically.

We find that the Information Memorandum was fundamentally incorrect as SREI's claim of about ₹1,885 crores was admitted despite earlier judicial determination reducing the recoverable debt.

For your practice. Insolvency practitioners must audit claims against prior rulings to avoid inflated admissions and recognise paying guarantors as secured creditors in resolution plans.

The order. The appellate tribunal quashed the inflated claim, recognised the guarantor as a secured creditor, and annulled the resolution plan. It ordered a fresh insolvency process with a corrected memorandum and vacated director costs.

Section 30(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

Gujarat Industrial Development ... vs Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd & ors.

Citation

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1557 of 2023, 1684 of 2023, 626-628 of 2025 · 31.08.2026

Bench

Arun Baroka