The Supreme Court refused specific performance after holding that the purchaser failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. It ruled that financial capacity and consistent conduct throughout the contract period are essential for equitable relief.
The Supreme Court held that under the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower’s statutory right of redemption ends upon publication of the auction notice. It set aside the High Court’s order quashing the auction sale certificate.
The SC declined to interfere with the High Court ruling that Rule 86A cannot be used to create a negative Electronic Credit Ledger. The judgment clarifies that authorities may recover dues through other statutory remedies.
The Supreme Court held that applications to extend an arbitral tribunals mandate under Section 29A must be filed before the Court defined in Section 2(1)(e), not the High Court that appointed the arbitrator. The ruling resolves conflicting judicial views on jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court ruled that requiring employers to purchase shares from the market instead of issuing ESOP shares ignores commercial realities. Finding no substantial question of law, it dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Supreme Court held that Mediclaim reimbursements cannot be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act because the two arise from different legal sources. The ruling clarifies that contractual insurance benefits earned through premium payments do not reduce statutory compensation payable for motor accident claims.
The Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments quashing reassessment notices after noting that the Finance Act, 2026 introduced clarificatory amendments affecting the competence of Assessing Officers. The matters were remanded for fresh consideration, leaving all legal issues open.
The SC declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court ruling after the Revenue acknowledged dismissal of similar SLPs. The High Court held that Section 153C proceedings cannot continue where the jurisdictional AO fails to identify year-specific incriminating material.
The Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration of nearly five years without conclusion of trial justified grant of bail despite the seriousness of the UAPA allegations. It emphasized that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be ignored.
The SC held that the accused was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours after the ED assumed custody, rendering the arrest illegal. It ruled that such constitutional violations justified bail despite the PMLA provisions.
