Thursday, 10 September 2026

The dispute. A partnership firm at will owning valuable real estate in Begumpet was dissolved by notice in 1983. The legal heir of a deceased partner claimed a twenty-five percent share in the firm's land during final decree proceedings. The trial court limited the share to the 1983 valuation, but the High Court ordered a public auction of the land to distribute current proceeds.

The reasoning. Although partnership profits and losses are fixed at dissolution, asset valuation occurs at actual liquidation. Continuing partners cannot retain firm assets without paying outgoing partners their share of the realised market value.

For your practice. Partnership dissolution claims must seek asset liquidation rather than historical book values to capture intervening real estate appreciation.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed an Advocate Commissioner to auction the land, with twenty-five percent of net proceeds payable to the respondent.

Section 43, Section 46, Section 48, Indian Partnership Act, 1932

Case

V. SUMITRA REDDY vs K. RANGANADHA REDDY .

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-008167 - 2017 · 2026:INSC:979 · 09.09.2026

Bench

Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar

The dispute. Vedanta Limited announced a public buyback of 17.09 crore shares for Rs 5,725 crore but purchased only 3.67 crore shares during the offer period. The company sought the release of its Rs 143.12 crore escrow deposit after failing to achieve the minimum statutory threshold. SEBI penalised the company for fraud, but the appellate tribunal set aside the penalties on the ground that escrow release negated fraudulent intent.

The reasoning. Escrow release and fraud inquiries operate in distinct fields, so fund clearance does not negate fraudulent intent. Without evidence of investor inducement, proving fraud requires conduct admitting of no explanation other than fraud.

For your practice. Parties facing unfulfilled buyback targets cannot rely on escrow discharge to shield themselves from market manipulation investigations.

The order. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the tribunal to resolve trading data discrepancies and re-adjudicate fraud within six months.

Regulation 15B(8), SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations, 1998

Case

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA vs VEDANTA LIMITED

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-000025-000026 - 2024 · 2026:INSC:978 · 09.09.2026

Bench

J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran

The dispute. Following a marriage against parental wishes, a woman alleged that her relatives retained her gold jewellery and identity documents entrusted for safekeeping. The police filed a charge-sheet roping in extended family members without attributing any specific overt criminal acts to them. The implicated relatives approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them under Section 482 of the Code.

The reasoning. Offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist on identical facts. Vague domestic dispute allegations lacking specific overt acts or intentional provocation cannot sustain criminal prosecution.

As far as Section 406 and 420 of IPC are concerned, in view of the judgment in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. And Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in 2024(10)SCC 690 these sections cannot co-exist and as such no allegations qua these sections are attracted or found from the papers of chargesheet.

For your practice. Lawyers must now challenge dual invocation of Sections 406 and 420 on identical facts as legally impermissible. Section 504 requires proof of intentional insult calculated to provoke public disorder, not mere domestic abuse. At the Section 482 stage, courts will quash where charge-sheets lack specific overt acts against named accused, even without mini-trial.

The order. Petition allowed qua Petitioners 3 and 4 only. FIR No. I-21/2014 at B Division Police Station Bharuch and all consequential proceedings quashed and set aside.

Sections 406, 420, 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Case

Madinaben Abdulbhai Patel & ors. Versus State of Gujarat & ors.

Citation

Gujarat High Court · R/CR.MA/6820/2014 · 2026:GUJHC:57092 · 08.09.2026

Bench

P. M. Raval

The dispute. In a homicide case charge-sheeted as culpable homicide, the victim's brother sought further investigation into mobile phones allegedly capturing the incident. Police had omitted submitting the seized phones for forensic examination. The sessions court dismissed the application holding only police could seek post-cognizance probes, prompting this challenge.

The reasoning. Complainants may seek further investigation before charges are framed to cure grave lapses. Prior rulings barring victim applications stand overruled by precedents establishing that fair investigation is an integral facet of a fair trial.

For your practice. Complainants can directly petition trial courts for supplementary investigation before charge framing whenever police omit crucial forensic examination.

The order. The High Court set aside the dismissal and directed the investigating officer to complete forensic investigation of the mobile phones within ninety days.

Section 193(9), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Case

Arshad Ali v. State of H.P. & ors.

Citation

Himachal Pradesh High Court · CRMMO/713/2026 · 2026:HHC:38340 · 09.09.2026

Bench

Sandeep Sharma

The dispute. Claimants sought compensation after a fatal 1999 jeep accident. The tribunal awarded eight lakh sixty-eight thousand rupees, holding the driver and the vehicle's superdar jointly and severally liable. The superdar appealed, contending that an unregistered custodian cannot be held liable for compensation.

The reasoning. A superdar cannot replace the registered owner for full compensation. However, holding custody subject to the claimants' lien obliges the superdar to surrender the vehicle or pay its secured value.

For your practice. Claimants can enforce superdari bonds against custodians retaining vehicles while proceeding against registered owners for full compensation.

The order. Appeal partly allowed. The driver and owner remain jointly liable for eight lakh sixty-eight thousand rupees, while the superdar's liability is capped at the vehicle value or superdari bond.

Section 149, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Case

RAM NIWAS vs DESH RAJ

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · FAO/4884/2002 · 08.09.2026

Bench

Parmod Goyal

The dispute. The appellants purchased a corporate debtor as a going concern in liquidation proceedings and obtained a sale certificate in August 2023. They subsequently sought statutory protection under Section 32A for liabilities and offences arising before the sale. The National Company Law Tribunal permitted the settlement of claims but declined to grant immunity from past actions and regulatory investigations.

The reasoning. The clean slate doctrine applies equally to going concern sales under liquidation as it does to resolution plans. Statutory immunity operates as a legal consequence of the sale and cannot be overridden by restrictive auction terms.

For your practice. Bidders acquiring companies in liquidation can enforce full immunity against past company offences, provided new management has no ties to previous promoters.

The order. The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order denying immunity, and extended Section 32A protections to the appellants without costs.

Section 32A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

Mr. Amitkumar Rishi Kumar Bhabhda & ors. vs Amit Chandrashekhar Poddar & ors.

Citation

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 221 of 2026 · 09.09.2026

Bench

N. Seshasayee, Arun Baroka

The dispute. While a corporate debtor's insolvency was pending before the Chandigarh bench, a creditor initiated proceedings against its personal guarantor in New Delhi. The guarantor sought transfer of the New Delhi proceedings to consolidate both matters before the same forum. The Principal Bench dismissed the transfer application on territorial grounds, prompting the personal guarantor to prefer this statutory appeal.

The reasoning. Insolvency applications against a personal guarantor must be filed before the bench hearing the corporate debtor's resolution process. The tribunal president may transfer proceedings across territorial boundaries to enforce this statutory consolidation.

Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in clear and mandatory terms, provides that where a CIRP or liquidation proceeding of a Corporate Debtor is pending before a particular Bench of the NCLT, any application relating to the insolvency resolution or bankruptcy of the Personal Guarantor of such Corporate Debtor shall be filed before the same Bench.

For your practice. Lawyers must now verify corporate debtor's CIRP forum before filing Section 95 against guarantors. Filing in wrong bench renders proceedings void ab initio. Rule 16(d) enables inter-territorial transfers to enforce Section 60(2) - administrative precedents like Arcelor Mittal don't govern statutory jurisdictional defects.

The order. NCLAT allowed appeal. Set aside Impugned Order dated 05.12.2025 in TA(IBC)-50(PB)/2024. Quashed all proceedings in CP(IB) No. 419/ND/2023 (admitted 28.05.2024, debt ₹1,14,27,112). Respondents granted liberty to file Section 95 proceedings before NCLT Chandigarh Bench-II where corporate debtor's CIRP (CP (IB) No. 107/Chd/Hry/2023, admitted 17.05.2023) is pending. No costs awarded.

Section 60(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

Kamlesh Rani Singla vs Praveen Kumar Garg Proprietor M/S. Gsv ...

Citation

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 275 of 2026 · 09.09.2026

Bench

Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka