The Court held that prosecution cannot continue when no recovery is made and the only material is statements of co-accused. It ruled that such statements alone cannot justify a trial under Sections 489B and 489C.
The Supreme Court canceled anticipatory bail granted to accused who concealed the setting aside of an ex parte injunction while attempting to dispossess lawful property. The ruling emphasizes careful judicial scrutiny in serious offences.
Supreme Court held that development right of a defaulting developer do not constitute ‘asset’ or ‘property’ of corporate debtor. Further, since the said development agreement stood terminated prior to initiation of CIRP no subsisting or enforceable right survived in favour of corporate debtor.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly quashed the FIR by evaluating defence evidence and deciding intention prematurely. It ruled that the complaint disclosed a prima facie offence, requiring trial.
The court ruled that requiring an Assistant Registrar’s recommendation for stamp duty exemption under Section 9A is unnecessary. The statutory registration certificate itself suffices, making the Memo issued by the Principal Secretary illegal.
The Court ruled that failing to repay a loan does not amount to cheating without proof of fraudulent intent at inception, quashing the FIR and reaffirming that civil disputes cannot be criminalized.
The Court held that loan transactions create only a debtor–creditor relationship, not entrustment, and thus no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out, quashing the criminal proceedings.
The Court held that leasing a residential building used as a hostel for students and professionals falls within “renting of residential dwelling for use as residence.” It ruled that GST exemption applies even if the lessee does not personally reside there.
The Supreme Court permits Flipkart and others to revive GST appeals previously rejected for non-payment from cash ledger, clarifying interim relief and procedural guidelines.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after noting the importer had a valid licence during adjudication. The Court left open the unresolved question of whether Customs can confiscate goods after they exit the port.
