Friday, 9 October 2026

The dispute. An employer terminated a Rs 133 crore construction contract with a contractor facing corporate insolvency. The employer lodged claims exceeding Rs 12 crore, but received only a nominal sum under the approved resolution plan. When the resolution applicant initiated arbitration for contract dues, the High Court directed reference, prompting the employer to appeal.

The reasoning. Approval of a resolution plan extinguishes debts owed by a corporate debtor but leaves its own claims intact. Equity permits an extinguished creditor to raise its full claim as a defensive set-off, without seeking affirmative recovery.

For your practice. Creditors facing arbitration by resolution applicants can set off extinguished claims against incoming demands without violating the clean-slate doctrine.

The order. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, permitting the employer to raise a set-off defence up to Rs 12,26,30,840 without any affirmative recovery.

Section 31, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

MODERN ASSET vs KNK CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-013536-013536 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 1103 · 08.10.2026

Bench

J.b. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran

The dispute. A wife obtained Rs 18,000 monthly maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act. She then secured an ex parte Domestic Violence Act order directing her husband to pay Rs 24,000 monthly for herself and two minor daughters without adjusting the earlier award. Facing an arrest warrant in execution, the husband petitioned under Section 482 CrPC to quash the domestic violence order.

The reasoning. Overlapping maintenance awards do not warrant quashing welfare proceedings instituted for minor children. Courts must instead enforce strict adjustment and set-off to prevent duplicate recovery.

The executing court cannot be permitted to execute duplicate or double claims for identical months where payments have already been tendered under the prior matrimonial proceeding.

For your practice. Counsel must disclose all pre-existing maintenance awards and seek express set-off mechanisms to prevent duplicate recovery during execution.

The order. Dismissing the petitions, the Court directed that the Rs 24,000 order be set off against the Rs 18,000 award. The executing court must recalculate arrears, and the modification plea must be decided within eight weeks.

Section 29, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Case

A.M. v. B.S.N.M.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · CRR/5059/2025 · 08.10.2026

Bench

Uday Kumar

The dispute. An expelled partner in two registered firms alleged fund diversion and unauthorised cheques exceeding one crore rupees against his co-partners. He first instituted a commercial civil suit before a district court over intertwined investments involving an affiliated non-partner entity. He subsequently petitioned the High Court under Section 11 seeking an arbitrator, which the respondents opposed citing the pending suit.

The reasoning. Election of remedies bars a party from seeking arbitration after submitting identical financial claims to a civil court. Where transactions involve a non-signatory entity, split proceedings invite conflicting verdicts and procedural confusion.

For your practice. Parties must choose their forum at the threshold, as filing a civil suit covering partnership accounting will extinguish subsequent recourse to Section 11.

The order. The High Court dismissed the Section 11 petition without costs, holding it non-maintainable due to the prior pending commercial suit. No monetary relief was granted.

Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case

Manikandan vs Antony Franklin

Citation

Madras High Court · ARB O.P(COM.DIV.).817/2025 · 2026:MHC:4140 · 08.10.2026

Bench

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

The dispute. An allottee defaulted on instalments for a commercial plot, leading the development authority to cancel the allotment and forfeit deposited funds. After multiple remands, the authority rejected the restoration plea and directed a fresh auction of the plot. The allottee challenged the rejection in revision but withdrew it as not pressed before filing a writ petition under Article 226.

The reasoning. The rule of public policy under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC applies equally to statutory revisions and writ proceedings. Withdrawing a revision as not pressed amounts to abandonment of the remedy, barring a subsequent writ petition on the same cause of action.

For your practice. Litigants invoking a statutory revision must prosecute it to conclusion, as withdrawing it as not pressed forfeits recourse to writ jurisdiction.

The order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable without costs, leaving the petitioner to pursue appropriate statutory remedies in accordance with law.

Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Case

M/S Raj Hans Towers Private Limited vs State Of U.P. & ors.

Citation

Allahabad High Court · WRIT - C No. - 37986 of 2026 · 08.10.2026

Bench

Siddhartha Varma, Kunal Ravi Singh

The dispute. A senior citizen lost ₹42.92 lakh through unauthorised withdrawals after bank officials modified her registered mobile number without written consent. The bank contended the customer was bound by automated SMS transaction alerts dispatched to the altered number. The District Commission found the bank deficient and directed a refund with compensation, which SBI challenged before the State Commission.

The reasoning. Banks bear the burden of proving customer authority before altering registered mobile credentials. Automated transaction alerts do not prove an authorised mandate or exonerate the bank from deficiency under Section 2(11) of the CPA.

Receipt of transaction alerts does not, by itself, establish that the change of the registered mobile number was authorised.

For your practice. Litigators can defeat bank defences resting on SMS alerts; banks must produce contemporaneous written records proving the customer directly authorized credential alterations.

The order. Appeal dismissed. SBI directed to refund ₹42,92,450/- with 7% interest per annum and pay ₹1,00,000/- compensation within three months, escalating to 9% on default.

Section 2(11), Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Case

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs SHAKUNTALA MEHTANI

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/7/FA/601/2025 · 08.10.2026

Bench

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal; Bimla Kumari

The dispute. Under a development agreement, a landowner was entitled to two flats totalling 1,000 sq. ft. super built-up area. An expert inspection revealed a 246 sq. ft. deficit across both units, and the developer delivered an unsigned possession letter without obtaining a completion certificate. The landowner filed a consumer complaint for area compensation; his legal heirs were substituted as complainants upon his death before the State Commission.

The reasoning. Delivering flats with area shortfalls is a deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g) CPA. Compensation must be computed on prevailing certified market value rather than historical agreement rates, alongside valid statutory completion certificates.

The opposite party’s failure to deliver the agreed area amounted to a deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

For your practice. Flat buyers facing area deficits can claim compensation at certified market rates rather than historical costs, while holding builders strictly liable for completion certificates.

The order. Complaint allowed in part. Developer ordered to pay ₹11,73,420/- deficit compensation, ₹25,000/- costs, issue a valid possession letter, and obtain completion certificate within 45 days, with 9% interest on default.

Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Case

Sri Saibal Kumar Bose vs Sri Tapas Ghosh

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/19/CC/314/2017 · 07.10.2026

Bench

Samiksha Bhattacharya; Ananda Kumar Tiwari