Friday, 2 October 2026

The dispute. Homebuyers and a landowner challenged insolvency proceedings admitted against a residential developer on an operational creditor's petition. They alleged the underlying debt was fabricated in collusion with directors to impose a moratorium and stall regulatory relief. The appellate tribunal set aside the insolvency admission upon finding fraud, prompting appeals before the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Tribunals can recall admission orders obtained through fraud on jurisdictional facts. Because admission converts insolvency into an in rem process, the tribunal may continue resolution to protect broader stakeholder interests.

For your practice. Creditors opposing closure of collusive petitions must show resolution viability and asset preservation to persuade the authority to continue proceedings.

The order. Restoring the insolvency proceedings, the Supreme Court directed the tribunal to decide on continuation expeditiously after hearing the resolution professional, committee of creditors, and affected homebuyers.

Section 9, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

GREENOPOLIS WELFARE CONFEDERATION vs RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-006792-006796 - 2023 · 2026 INSC 1070 · 30.09.2026

Bench

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe

The dispute. The borrower mortgaged its Ooty resort to lenders to secure term loans, defaulting before clearing one lender under settlement. The remaining lender issued an auction notice, but the appellate tribunal stayed further enforcement upon deposit of one crore rupees. The High Court upheld the subsequent sale to an unlisted nominee entity, which the borrower challenged before the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Enforcement steps taken during an operative judicial restraint lack legal effect and cannot be validated retrospectively. Truncating the thirty-day notice window impairs the borrower's statutory redemption right under Section 13(8), voiding the sale.

For your practice. Lenders must exclude judicial stay periods from the thirty-day redemption window and cannot issue sale certificates to post-auction nominee entities.

The order. The High Court judgment was set aside, the sale certificate dated 16.09.2011 was declared invalid, and the borrower's appeals were allowed without costs.

Section 13(8), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Case

STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LIMITED vs M/S P.M.ASSOCIATES

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-010077-010078 - 2014 · 2026 INSC 1071 · 30.09.2026

Bench

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe

The dispute. A road contractor executing rural infrastructure packages suffered unilateral deductions from running bills for alleged overpayments under separate earlier works. The State withheld over eighty-four lakh rupees without an audit hearing or requisite departmental sanction. The High Court dismissed the contractor's writ petition for involving disputed facts, prompting this appeal before the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Unadjudicated overpayment claims remain disputed damages rather than ascertained debts presently due. The State cannot deduct sums across distinct contracts absent express contractual authorisation and strict adherence to natural justice.

For your practice. Contractors facing cross-contract deductions can secure writ relief where authorities bypass audit hearings or treat unadjudicated claims as ascertained debts.

The order. Quashing the recovery order, the Supreme Court directed the State to refund Rs. 84,17,003 with 6% annual interest from 27 September 2025, leaving underlying liability to separate adjudication.

Section 146, Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959

Case

M/S. AWADHESH SINGH GAUTAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation

Supreme Court of India · SLP(C) No.-010464 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 1072 · 30.09.2026

Bench

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe

The dispute. A mother-in-law sought eviction of her daughter-in-law under Delhi Senior Citizens Rules to ensure peaceful possession of her home. The daughter-in-law resisted eviction, asserting a statutory right to reside in the shared household under the Domestic Violence Act. When the appellate authority ordered eviction, the daughter-in-law filed a writ petition challenging the eviction rules as ultra vires the parent statute.

The reasoning. Eviction rules are intra vires because statutory jurisdiction implies all incidental powers necessary to secure parental protection.

For your practice. Litigants defending senior citizen eviction actions cannot rely solely on DV Act residence rights when the occupant has independent income and alternative housing.

The order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirmed the eviction rules intra vires, and directed the petitioner to hand over peaceful possession to respondent no.2.

Section 22, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Case

P. v. D.C.G.O.D. & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-11683/2022 · 2026:DHC:8543-DB · 30.09.2026

Bench

Tejas Karia

The dispute. The State Pollution Control Board launched criminal proceedings under the Air Act against an erstwhile steel manufacturer and its officers. The petitioner acquired the debtor under an approved resolution plan that completely transferred corporate control to new management. Following a trial court cognizance order, the successor company petitioned the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the prosecution.

The reasoning. Section 32A IBC extinguishes corporate criminal liability once an approved resolution plan transfers control to unrelated management. Continuing prosecution against the successor is an abuse of process, though former officers remain liable for past offences.

For your practice. Resolution applicants must establish a complete change of management and plan approval to quash legacy criminal complaints against the acquired entity.

The order. The High Court quashed the cognizance order dated 21.11.2023 and criminal proceedings against Tata Steel Limited, leaving proceedings against former company officials unaffected.

Section 32-A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

M/s. Tata Steel Limited v. State Pollution Control Board, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Citation

Orissa High Court · CRLMC/2406/2022 · 30.09.2026

Bench

Sibo Sankar Mishra

The dispute. A woman applied for an Indian passport, submitting an official birth certificate establishing her birth in Himachal Pradesh in May 1972. The passport authority rejected her application based on an adverse police verification report that recorded her as a Nepali national. The applicant moved a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash the adverse report and enforce her statutory citizenship.

The reasoning. Birth in India between January 1950 and July 1987 confers automatic statutory citizenship by birth under Section 3. A valid birth certificate constitutes paramount proof of nationality that authorities cannot displace using contradictory police reports.

For your practice. Applicants with birth certificates within the statutory window can overcome adverse police reports without furnishing additional proof of nationality.

The order. The High Court quashed the adverse verification report and directed the State to issue a fresh report within two weeks. The passport authority was directed to process her application in accordance with Section 3.

Section 3, Citizenship Act, 1955

Case

Shitla Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.

Citation

Himachal Pradesh High Court · CWP/15664/2025 · 2026:HHC:42783 · 01.10.2026

Bench

Sandeep Sharma

The dispute. An illiterate father executed a sale deed conveying his Delhi house worth sixty lakh rupees to a co-residing daughter for merely one lakh. The father and four other daughters sued to cancel the deed, alleging she fraudulently procured it by misrepresenting it as a will. The trial court decreed the suit for cancellation and the first appellate court affirmed, prompting the daughter to prefer a second appeal.

The reasoning. A transferee in active confidence over an infirm grantor bears the burden to prove good faith where consideration is grossly inadequate. The presumption of a registered deed fails when the beneficiary cannot prove payment or informed consent.

For your practice. Showing active confidence and nominal consideration rebuts a registered deed, forcing the transferee to prove good faith and source of payment.

The order. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming cancellation of the 2006 sale deed for Rs 1 lakh against property valued over Rs 60 lakh. The appellant was directed to deliver peaceful, vacant possession to the legal heirs.

Section 101, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Case

SMT.RANI vs SH. RAM SARUP (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. SMT. KUSMA & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · RSA-69/2022 · 2026:DHC:8614 · 01.10.2026

Bench

Neena Bansal Krishna

The dispute. An applicant submitted an LIC proposal for Rs 5 lakh with premium on 31 January 2007 following a medical check. Diagnosed with cardiomyopathy five days later, he died in 2008, prompting LIC to repudiate the nominee's claim alleging fraudulent suppression. The District Forum allowed the nominee's complaint and Delhi SCDRC affirmed the award, which LIC challenged in revision before the NCDRC.

The reasoning. The duty of utmost good faith is fixed when the proposal and premium are submitted to an authorised agent. A subsequent medical diagnosis cannot establish deliberate suppression without proof that the insured possessed prior knowledge.

For your practice. Claimants can defeat non-disclosure repudiations where medical diagnoses arose after proposal submission, requiring insurers to prove deliberate prior concealment.

The order. The NCDRC dismissed LIC's revision petition, upholding the award of Rs 5,00,000 sum assured with 9% interest, Rs 1,00,000 compensation, and Rs 50,000 costs. Non-payment within six weeks attracts enhanced 12% interest.

Section 58(1)(b), Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Case

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs PRAKASH SADHWANI

Citation

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · NC/RP/1154/2021 · 01.10.2026

Bench

J. Rajendra, Saroj Yadav