Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Companies Act, 1956

615 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1–200.

ALL INDIA ITDC WORKERS UNION AND ORS.versusITDC & ORS.

2006 INSC 75231 October 2006Disposed off

The petitioners, employees of ITDC's Hotel Agra Ashok, challenged the Government of India's decision to disinvest the hotel by selling it to a private party, alleging the sale price was too low, the transfer of their services without consent violated Articles 14, 21 and 311, and that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VR

SANDEEP KUMAR AND ORS.versusMASTER RITESH AND ORS.

2006 INSC 76031 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, shareholders of Dev Papers Ltd., filed a suit against several defendants. An arbitration agreement existed between the appellants and some, but not all, of the defendants. The appellants amended the plaint to delete the names of those defendants who were parties to the arbitration agreement and proceede

M/S. RISHYASHRINGA JEWELLERY LTD. AND ANR.versusTHE STOCK EXCHANGE, BOMBAY AND ORS.

1995 INSC 65231 October 1995Dismissed

The appellant, Rishyashringa Jewellery Ltd., issued a prospectus stating that it had applied for listing its shares on the Coimbatore, Bombay and Madras Stock Exchanges. While Coimbatore granted permission within the ten‑week period prescribed under Section 73(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956, the Bombay Exchange rejecte

NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL & ORS.versusM/S. NUPUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

2019 INSC 84131 July 2019Dismissed

The plaintiff, a private limited company, purchased a parcel of agricultural land in 1998 and later discovered that the seller had fraudulently executed four sale deeds in 2006 in favour of other parties. The plaintiff filed a suit in the civil court seeking cancellation of the 2006 deed and an injunction, which the ci

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPURversusTIIE ELGIN MILLS LTD., KANPUR

1986 INSC 15331 July 1986

Elgin Mills Ltd., a textile manufacturer, claimed that its investment reserve, rehabilitation reserve and forfeited dividend reserve should be treated as reserves for computing capital under the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1964-65. The Income‑Tax Officer excluded all three amounts, lead

DALCO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD.versusSHREE SATISH PRABHAKAR PADHYE AND ORS.

2010 INSC 18331 March 2010

The case concerned two writ petitions challenging the termination of a disabled employee by a private limited company and the termination of a contract with a public trust. Both petitioners sought relief under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)

DR. MRS. RENUKA DATLAversusSOLVAY PHARMACEUTICAL B.V. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 58330 October 2003Disposed off

The petitioners, shareholders of two pharmaceutical companies, filed three suits seeking to restrain the transfer of their 4.91% shareholdings and obtained interim injunctions, which were later vacated by the trial and High Courts. The parties subsequently entered into a written settlement whereby the respondents would

CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM (I) PVT. LTD.versusHALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 72930 September 2011Dismissed

The Chatterjee Group filed a Company Petition under Sections 397, 398, 399, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging oppression by Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. (HPL) for failing to register 155 million shares transferred to them and for allotting 150 million shares to Indian Oil Corporation, which they claime

ICICI BANK LIMITEDversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF APS STAR INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 66330 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

ICICI Bank assigned a portfolio of non‑performing assets (NPAs) worth Rs 52.45 crore to Kotak Mahindra Bank under a deed of assignment. One of the borrowers, APS Star Industries Ltd., entered liquidation and Kotak sought to be substituted as the secured creditor in the winding‑up proceedings. The Company Court and the

BHAGWANT P. SULAKHEversusDIGAMBAR GOPAL SULAKHE AND ORS.

1985 INSC 21430 September 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a long‑standing dispute among members of the Sulakhe joint family concerning whether various incomes and assets derived from a partnership firm (Sulakhe & Co.) and a public limited company (Lokmanya Mills Ltd.) belonged to the joint family or to individual members. The Court held that remuner

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATIONversusMAC LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.

1985 INSC 21830 September 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The American Home Products Corporation (the appellant) applied in 1958 to register the trademark ‘Dristan’ in India, claiming it would be used by the appellant. In fact, the appellant intended the mark to be used in India by its Indian associate, Geoffrey Manners & Co., which would become a registered user under a tech

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusRAJKUMAR NAGPAL & ORS

2022 INSC 88530 August 2022Case Partly allowed

Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd (RCFL) issued non‑convertible debentures and defaulted in March 2019. The RBI issued a prudential framework requiring lenders to enter into an inter‑creditor agreement (ICA) before a resolution plan, and SEBI later issued a circular on 13 Oct 2020 standardising the procedure for debentur

SYNDICATE BANKversusESTATE OFFICER & MANAGER, A.P.I.I.C. LTD. & ORS.

2007 INSC 88530 August 2007Matter referred to larger bench

Syndicate Bank advanced a loan to United Auto Tractor Ltd. secured by a mortgage on 51 acres of land allotted by the Andhra Pradesh Government, relying on an allotment letter and a consent letter from the Director of Industries. The land was later partially cancelled and the allotment rescinded by AP ILC, and the bank

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusA. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR.

2022 INSC 63030 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank (the appellant) sought initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Prasad Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. (the corporate debtor) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The corporate debtor had stood as guarantor for loans to three borrower

M/S GOA SHIPYARD LTD.versusBABU THOMAS

2007 INSC 67030 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the amendment to Goa Shipyard Officers' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979—made by a circular board resolution—was valid despite lacking an explicit effective date, and whether the Board could retrospectively ratify the amendment to validate the dismissal of Babu Thomas. The r

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ETC.versusESCORTS LTD. & OTHERS, ETC .

1984 INSC 9630 April 1984Disposed off

The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) requisitioned the removal of certain directors of Escorts Ltd. under Sections 166 and 284 of the Companies Act, 1956, and gave notice for an extraordinary general meeting. The Bombay High Court, on a writ petition, stayed the notice, prohibiting any action on the requisitio

PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD. AND ANRversusRESERVE BANK OF INDIA

1992 INSC 3230 January 1992Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Reserve Bank of India's 1987 directions regulating Residuary Non‑Banking Companies (RNBCs) under Sections 45J, 45K(3) and 45L of the RBI Act. The petitioners, a group of finance companies including Peerless, argued that the directions were ultra vires, unrea

PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION P. LTD.versusM/S. HARYANACONCAST LIMITED &ANR.

2015 INSC 94729 December 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a Company Court or an Official Liquidator can control the sale of secured assets by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act when the borrower is a company under winding up. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Ltd, the secured creditor, sought to enforce its security over the land of Harya

TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITEDversusM/S RAIN CALCINING LIMITED & OTHERS

2019 INSC 130029 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined three sets of appeals filed by Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APTRANSCO) against orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) fixing wheeling charges, grid support charges, and the continuation of incentives for non‑conventional energy. The Court he

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION AND ANR.versusM/S. MAHALCHAND M. MOTHARI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 62629 October 2004Dismissed

M/s Mahalchand M. Mothari filed two suits in 1982 seeking damages for non‑supply of sugar that it had ordered from the statutory receiver managing Maheshwari Khetan Sugar Mill. The receiver, appointed by the Collector under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, entered into the contracts in

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.versusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

2006 INSC 67829 September 2006Dismissed

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., a government company, advanced a loan to Mis Concert Capital Ltd. and its sister concern, which defaulted. The appellant initiated recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, resulting in attachment of the debtor's assets. While the debtor was undergoing vo

M/S. NGEF LTD.versusM/S. CHANDRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 45929 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

NGEF Ltd., a joint‑venture sick industrial company, was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). BIFR recommended winding up and observed that any sale of the company's assets should be sought from the High Court.

RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.versusARVINDBHAI RAMBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

2006 INSC 56329 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademark "Ramdev", sued its former family partners who were operating under the name "Ramdev Masala" for infringing its mark by manufacturing and selling spices under that name. The parties had earlier entered into a user agreement and a Memorandum of Un

RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OR$. ETC

2015 INSC 53229 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, landowners in five villages of Raipur district, challenged the Kamal Vihar Township Development Scheme (KVTDS) prepared by the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. They alleged that the scheme was formulated without the required zonal plan

NATIONAL RAYON CORPORATION LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

1997 INSC 58129 July 1997Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered whether Rs. 79 lakh set aside by National Rayon Corporation Ltd. as a Debenture Redemption Reserve for the assessment year 1967‑68 should be treated as a provision or a reserve for the purpose of computing the company's capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The company arg

M/S. MADURA COATS LIMITEDversusM/S. MODI RUBBER LTD. & ANR.

2016 INSC 44229 June 2016Dismissed

Madura Coats Ltd sought to enforce a winding‑up order against Modi Rubber Ltd. The Company Court ordered winding up, but Modi Rubber filed a reference to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). The High Court stayed the windi

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAYversusRASIKLAL MANEKLAL (H.U.F.) & ORS.

1989 INSC 10629 March 1989Dismissed

The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, owned 90 shares of Shorrock Co. which was amalgamated into New Shorrock Co. under a court‑sanctioned scheme that allotted the assessee 45 shares of the new company for every two shares held in the old company. The Commissioner of Income Tax treated the receipt of the 45 shares as

ROOP CHANDversusGOPI CHAND THALIA

1989 INSC 10729 March 1989Dismissed

The appellant, Roop Chand, leased a building from Gopi Chand Thalia with a covenant not to sublet. He allowed the Lokpriya Social Club to occupy part of the premises for recreational activities, claiming he retained exclusive possession and received no rent. The landlord sued for eviction on the ground of subletting an

SWARAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.versusKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

2019 INSC 10829 January 2019Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered whether a secured creditor, Kotak Mahindra Bank, could file a winding‑up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 after obtaining a decree and recovery certificate from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners argued that Sections 17, 18 and 34 of the Recovery of Debts Act barred the wind

M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANRversusBIFR& ORS.

2016 INSC 10729 January 2016Dismissed

Madras Petrochem Ltd. and another filed appeals challenging a Delhi High Court order that stayed the winding‑up of the company before the BIFR. The core dispute was whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) overrides the Sick Industri

U. P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV.CORPN. LTD.versusMONSANTO MANUFACTURES (P) LTD. & ANR.

2015 INSC 7329 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) leased industrial plots to several companies under licence agreements and lease deeds that contained clauses prohibiting any transfer, assignment or alteration of the lessee's interest without the lessor's written consent. The lessees later changed the

DEEPAK BHANDARIversusHIMACHAL PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

2014 INSC 6529 January 2014Dismissed

Deepak Bhandari, a director and guarantor of a defaulting industrial company, challenged a suit filed by Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. for recovery of a loan balance. The corporation had taken possession of the company's mortgaged assets under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporati

SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATANA (K.V.) MUMBAIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2007 INSC 119928 November 2007

Century Industries Textiles Ltd., after offering a Voluntary Retirement Scheme that left only 275 workers, filed an application under s.25‑0(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission to close its mill. The company later withdrew this application to pursue an amicable settlement after a meeting was call

V. B. RANGARAJversusV. B. GOPALAKRISHNAN AND ORS.

1991 INSC 31728 November 1991Appeal(s) allowed

In a private limited company with 50 shares, two brothers each held 25 shares and orally agreed that any sale of shares would first be offered to members of the same family branch. The agreement was never incorporated into the Articles of Association. After the brothers' deaths, a son of one brother sold his shares to

DARIUS RUTION KAVASMANECKversusGHARDA CHEMICALS LIMITED & OTHERS

2014 INSC 74528 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned a minority shareholder of Gharda Chemicals Ltd., a company that started as a private firm but became a public (hybrid) company under Section 43A of the Companies Act, 1956. The Articles of Association contained Article 57, a pre‑emption clause restricting share transfers, which the appellant claime

MANOJ I NAIK &ASSOCIATESversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

2014 INSC 74128 October 2014Hearing Adjourned

The petition concerned the sale of 291 plots belonging to Vitta Mazda Ltd, a company under liquidation. The Official Liquidator, following orders of the Company Court, attempted to auction the plots at prices far below market value, prompting the petitioners to challenge the price fixation and the liquidation process.

M/S. RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITEDversusK.P. JAYARAM & ANR.

2020 INSC 51828 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, K.P. Jayaram and another, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) claiming they were financial creditors of M/s. Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. for a loan of Rs.2.10 crore advanced between 2002 and 2005, alleging that part of the loan was converted into share

EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.versusDUGAL KUMAR

2008 INSC 87028 July 2008Case Partly allowed

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. purchased 1.26 acres of land from Dugal Kumar and, under its policy, offered 1008 metric tons (MT) of coal, which the petitioner accepted and was released. After a ten‑year delay, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking an additional 1008 MT of coal; the Calcutta High Court, on the basis of

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusM/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR.

2023 INSC 44628 April 2023Disposed off

The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the High Court's declaration that section 16‑B of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 was ultra‑vires the Constitution and the Banking Companies Act. The High Court had made this declaration while hearing writ petitions that later became infructuous because the bank

STATE OF PUNJABversusNIRMAL KAUR

2009 INSC 63128 April 2009Dismissed

Nirmal Kaur, who operated a coaching centre, was charged under several IPC offences and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court framed charges under the Act, but the High Court quashed them, holding that she was not a public servant. The State appealed,

ICICI BANK LTD.versusSIDCO LEATHERS LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 26828 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

ICICI Bank and two other banks (first charge holders) and Punjab National Bank (second charge holder) had secured loans to Sidco Leathers Ltd., which was wound up and an Official Liquidator appointed. The first charge holders filed a suit in the Debt Recovery Tribunal and lodged a claim with the Official Liquidator, wh

MOHD. HADI RAJA ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

1998 INSC 20328 April 1998Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether officers of public sector undertakings and government companies, which may be deemed "State" under Article 12 because of deep governmental control, fall within the definition of "public servant" for the purposes of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The petitioners arg

M/S. S.F. ENGINEERversusMETAL BOX INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

2014 INSC 22328 March 2014Dismissed

The landlord (Mis. S.F. Engineer) sought eviction of its tenant Metal Box India Ltd. and the tenant's former employee under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act, alleging unlawful sub‑letting. The trial and appellate courts held that the tenant had not part‑ed with legal possession nor received any monetary consider

VIJAY KUMAR KARWAversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, ROHTAS INDS. LTD.

2008 INSC 26928 February 2008Disposed off

The appellant, representing the Bangar Group, sought to revive Rohtas Industries Ltd, a sick company, by offering to purchase its assets for Rs.65.51 crore and invest Rs.650 crore for revival. The Patna High Court initially directed a sale notice for the assets and disposed of the appellant's interim application withou

KESHAVLAL KHEMCHANDAND SONS PVT. LTD. & OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2015 INSC 7228 January 2015

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the amendment to Section 2(1)(o) of the SARFAESI Act, which altered the definition of a non‑performing asset (NPA) to allow different regulators to prescribe classification guidelines for their respective creditors. The petitioners argued that this amounted to c

M. JANARDHANA RAOversusJOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2005 INSC 5228 January 2005Disposed off

The appellants, former partners of a dissolved firm, challenged the taxability of proceeds from the sale of the firm's assets, arguing that the transaction did not constitute a slump sale and that no capital‑gain tax could be levied before the 1999 amendment. They filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,

MARSHALL SONS AND CO. (INDIA) LTD.versusINCOME TAX OFFICER

1996 INSC 139127 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Marshall Sons and Co. (India) Ltd. (the holding company) and Marshall Sons and Manufacturing Ltd. (the subsidiary) entered into a scheme of amalgamation that specified a transfer date of 1 January 1982, but the scheme was only sanctioned by the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in late 1983 and early 1984. The Income Tax

KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD.versusM/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. & ORS.

2014 INSC 73827 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

KSL & Industries Ltd. appealed against a Delhi High Court order that set aside a Debt Recovery Tribunal decision allowing the appellant to recover Rs. 25.26 crore from M/s. Arihant Threads Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) – specifically Section 22,

M/S. NEW VICTORIA MILLS & ORS.versusSHRIKANT ARYA

2021 INSC 55227 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a supervisor at New Victoria Mills, applied for the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (MVRS) by submitting a resignation on 12 July 2002. He later requested that his resignation be kept suspended until his provident fund dues were cleared, but the employer accepted his resignation on 28 May 2003, sim

M/S NEW HORIZON SUGAR MILLS LTD.versusGOVT. OF PONDICHERRY TH. ADDL. SEC. & ANR.

2012 INSC 43027 September 2012Dismissed

New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd and its directors, who had guaranteed a bank loan, defaulted and faced attachment of their properties under the Pondicherry Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004. They challenged the validity of that Act and a government order attaching properties, arguin

GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS.versusCOURT LIQUIDATORS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

1999 INSC 36227 August 1999Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the claim of Company Paid Staff employed in the offices of the Official Liquidator and Court Liquidator across several High Courts, who had served for 10‑25 years on low pay without permanent status or retirement benefits. They filed writ petitions seeking to be regularised as Central Governm

SHAILENDRA SWARUPversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

2020 INSC 46527 July 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Modi Xerox Ltd. made foreign exchange remittances in 1985 and was served a show‑cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) against the company and its directors. One of the directors, Shailendra Swarup, contended that he was a part‑time, non‑executive director and had no responsibility for the

INDOWIND ENERGY LTD.versusWESCARE (I) LTD. AND ANR.

2010 INSC 24627 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Wescare (I) Ltd. entered into a sale agreement on 24‑Feb‑2006 with Subuthi Finance Ltd., which contained an arbitration clause. Indowind Energy Ltd., promoted by Subuthi, was not a signatory to the agreement and its board had not approved it. Wescare filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliat

ARUNIMA BARUAHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 49027 April 2007Dismissed

The appellant, a confirmed employee of the Indian Council for Child Welfare, challenged her termination by filing a suit in the District Court and seeking an interim injunction. She subsequently filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without disclosing the pending suit, later withdrawing the suit.

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.versusDAN BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 49227 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, a union of daily‑rated gardeners employed by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., a government company, sought regularisation, continuance of service and equal pay, alleging that they had worked more than 240 days a year for several years and that artificial breaks were created to deny them permanence. The Alla

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusELMOT ENGINEERING COMPANY AND ORS.

1994 INSC 17627 April 1994

The Central Bank of India (appellant) had two suits in the Subordinate Court of Rangareddy, Andhra Pradesh, to enforce an equitable mortgage and recover expenses against Elmot Engineering Company (a limited company) and its directors. While the winding‑up petition against the company was pending, the Bombay High Court,

MACKINTOSH BURN LIMITEDversusSARKAR AND CHOWDHURY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED

2018 INSC 26927 March 2018Disposed off

Mackintosh Burn Ltd, a public company with the Government of West Bengal as majority shareholder, refused to register the transfer of 100 shares to itself, alleging that the applicant was controlled by a competitor and that the transfer could affect the company’s interest. The respondent sought registration, and the Co

M/S PARAKH FOODS LTD.versusSTATE OF A.P. & ANR.

2008 INSC 41127 March 2008Case Allowed

Mis Parakh Foods Ltd., the manufacturer of "Shaktimaan Refined Soyabean Oil", was prosecuted for alleged misbranding under Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 after a public analyst claimed that the label’s pictures of various vegetables exaggerated the quality of the oil. The High Court held t

HANUMAN PRASAD BAGRI AND ORS.versusBAGRESS CEREALS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 18027 March 2001Dismissed

A petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed by several shareholders alleging oppression and mismanagement, including the illegal removal of a director and unfair share valuation. The Company Judge found the grievance legitimate, ordered the petitioners to sell their shares at a valuation,

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

2009 INSC 28627 February 2009Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the statutory first‑charge provisions in the Bombay Sales Tax Act (s.38C) and the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (s.26B) conflicted with the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (ORT Act) and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and En

LALSAI KHUNTEversusNIRMAL SINHA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 22027 February 2007Dismissed

Lal Saij Khunte was elected to the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly but his election was challenged on the ground that he had been convicted under IPC sections 420, 34 and 468 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, which under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 disqualifies a person

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROLversusB. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 128326 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) filed complaints against the City Municipal Council (CMC) of Krishnarajapuram and its former commissioners for discharging untreated sewage in violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section

AHMED ABDULLA AHMED AL GHURAIR (THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. BARTHOLOMEW KAMYA) & ANR.versusSTAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2018 INSC 110026 November 2018Dismissed

The plaintiffs, Dubai nationals and shareholders of a Dubai‑incorporated company (Defendant No.2), filed a derivative suit in the Madras High Court seeking a declaration that Defendant No.2 held the beneficial interest in 6.16% of the shares of an Indian company (Defendant No.1) that were registered in the names of oth

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARHversusM/S. KWALITY ICE CREAM CO.

2010 INSC 82326 November 2010Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the CEGAT order that held Kwality Ice Cream Co. and its buyer, Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. (later HLL), were not "related persons" under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The revenue argued that the sourcing agreement gave the buyer control ove

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

2007 INSC 118726 November 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd, a manufacturer of generators, claimed enhanced depreciation under section 43A of the Income Tax Act for foreign‑exchange fluctuations in the cost of machinery. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the claim, failing to consider a coordinate‑bench judgment (Samtel Color Ltd) that was

J.P. SRIVASTAVA AND SONS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusM/S GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 62026 October 2004Leave Granted & Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a petition filed by a group of minority shareholders, including a family trust, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act alleging oppression and mismanagement by Gwalior Sugar Co. The Court had to decide whether the petitioners satisfied the 10% shareholding requirement, whether a co‑t

P.C. AGGARWALAversusPAYMENT OF WAGES INSPECTOR, M.P. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 44526 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether directors of Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd., a company that owned factories, could be held personally liable for unpaid wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Court held that the Act does not incorporate the "occupi

FEDERAL BANK LTD.versusSAGAR THOMAS AND OTHERS

2003 INSC 51526 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Sagar Thomas, a branch manager of Federal Bank, was dismissed after a disciplinary enquiry and challenged the dismissal by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held the petition maintainable, deeming the bank a public authority performing a public duty. The bank a

ILLACHI DEVI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusJAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS INDIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 52326 September 2003Case Partly allowed

The appellant, the heirs of the deceased Ratan Lal, challenged the Delhi High Court's order granting letters of administration to the Jain Society, a body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, under Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act. The Supreme Court examined whether a society qualifies as a ju

FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ORS.versusM/S COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED

2024 INSC 34826 April 2024Disposed off

M/s Coromandal Sacks supplied HDPE bags to Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd (FCIL) and sued for recovery of unpaid amounts, alleging price differences, liquidated damages, penalties and loss of unsold bags. FCIL contended it was a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,

N. NARAYANANversusADJUDICATING OFFICER, SEBI

2013 INSC 28726 April 2013Dismissed

The appellant, N. Narayanan, a whole‑time director and promoter of Mis Pyramid Saimira Theatre Ltd., was found to have participated in a scheme that inflated the company’s revenues, profits, security deposits and receivables, thereby creating artificiality in its financial statements. SEBI’s investigation revealed fals

STATE OF U.P. AND. ANR.versusUPTRON EMPLOYEES UNION CMD-I AND ORS.

2006 INSC 25726 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) could, under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay the wages of workmen employed by M/s. UPTRON, a sick company that is a subsidiary of a wholly‑state‑ow

UNION BANK OF INDIAversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR H.C. OF CALCUTTA AND ORS .

2000 INSC 25926 April 2000Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the sale of assets of Kolay Biscuits Co. Ltd., a company under liquidation, where the Company Judge ordered an auction as a going concern based largely on oral statements about 1,200 workers and a valuation report that was not disclosed to the secured creditor, Union Bank of India. The Court

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITEDversusCYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2021 INSC 21726 March 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the NCLAT order that had declared Tata Sons' affairs oppressive and prejudicial, reinstated Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (CPM) as Executive Chairman and Director, restrained the Tata Trust nominees, and set aside the conversion of Tata Sons from a public to a private company. The Court held that the

S. SATYANARAYANAversusENERGO MASCH POWER ENGINEERING & CONSULTING PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 26626 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, a promoter‑director of a biomass power company, filed a private complaint alleging conspiracy, false declarations and cheating under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Sections 1208 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Judge for Economic Offences took cognizance, but the Andhra Pradesh

RADHEY SHYAM KHEMKA AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC.

1993 INSC 12126 March 1993Dismissed

The appellants, promoters and directors of a public limited company, issued a prospectus inviting public subscription for shares, claimed that the application to list the shares on a stock exchange was rejected, yet retained the money collected from investors and transferred it to another company account. A complaint w

JIGNESH SHAH & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 108025 September 2019Disposed off

The petitioners, shareholders of La‑Fin Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., challenged a winding‑up petition filed by IL&FS under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, which had been transferred to the NCLT as a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dispute arose from a 2009 share pur

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAIversusM/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

2006 INSC 65125 September 2006Dismissed

The assessee, a general insurance company, incurred Rs. 1,04,28,500 as stamp duty and registration fees in connection with the increase of its authorized share capital and the issuance of bonus shares. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount as capital expenditure, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allow

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-ILL

2015 INSC 60425 August 2015Disposed off

M/s Purolator India Ltd, a manufacturer of excisable filter elements, claimed deductions for cash discount, volume discount and sales tax while filing excise returns. The Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the cash‑discount deduction and affirmed duty on other items, leading to an appeal. The Supreme Court examine

BALWANT RAI SALUJA &ANR. ETC. ETC.versusAIR INDIALTD. & ORS.

2014 INSC 56125 August 2014Dismissed

The case concerned workmen employed by a contractor to run a statutory canteen on the premises of Air India, which under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, must provide such a facility. The workmen claimed they were deemed employees of Air India and sought regularisation and other employment benefits. The Supreme C

SWEDISH MATCH AB AND ANR.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD, INDIA AND ANR.

2004 INSC 47025 August 2004Case Partly allowed

Swedish Match AB and its associated companies acquired a 74% shareholding in Wimco Ltd., a listed Indian company, by purchasing shares from Indian promoters at a price well above market value. The acquisition was done without making a public announcement as required under Regulation 10/11 of the Substantial Acquisition

CLARIANT INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANR.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2004 INSC 47125 August 2004Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered a dispute arising from SEBI’s direction that the acquirer of Colour‑Chem Ltd. pay interest to shareholders for the delay in making a public offer under the 1997 Takeover Regulations, as amended in 2002. The Board had directed a 15% per‑annum interest on the offer price and held that dividen

V.M. SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

1995 INSC 49925 August 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former employee of Rallis India Ltd., continued to occupy a residential flat after resigning, which the company claimed he held under its tenancy rights. The company prosecuted him under Section 408 of the IPC and Section 630 of the Companies Act for wrongful possession, and a criminal court convicted

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEWversusMARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

2019 INSC 81525 July 2019Dismissed

The assessee, Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd (SPIL), was amalgamated into Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (MSIL) effective 1 April 2012. For Assessment Year 2012-13, a notice under s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued to SPIL, which no longer existed, and a final assessment order adding Rs. 78.97 crore was passed in SPIL's n

TUSHAR KANTI BOSE AND ORS.versusSA VITRI DEVI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 78425 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased a property from a company under liquidation and sought demarcation of their plot, which led the respondents—owners of an adjoining plot—to claim encroachment and obtain an injunction. The Single Judge ordered the appellants to remove obstructions and appointed a Special Officer to supervise com

A.K. BINDAL AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 25825 April 2003Directions issued

The petitioners, officers of the sick public sector undertakings Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI) and Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation (HFC), challenged two Government memoranda that denied pay‑scale revision for employees of units referred to BIFR and that provided no budgetary support for such revisions. They ar

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRASversusM/S. AMALGAMATION PVT. LTD.

1997 INSC 43625 April 1997Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether Amalgamation Pvt. Ltd., a bulk shareholder holding investments in numerous subsidiaries, could claim a capital loss on the forced sale of shares to a subsidiary of a subsidiary, whether a loss incurred while guaranteeing a subsidiary's loan qualified as a business loss, and whether re

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD AND ORS.versusCHHOTA BIRSA URANW

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 88725 March 2014Dismissed

The employee, Chhota Birsa Uranw, joined Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in 1973 with a date of birth recorded as 15‑Feb‑1947. He later discovered that his school leaving certificate and Mining Sardarship certificate recorded his birth as 6‑Feb‑1950 and sought correction under Implementation Instruction No. 76 in 1987. The emp

KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

1993 INSC 6825 February 1993Dismissed

Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. set aside Rs 4,50,000 as a provision for a possible tax liability under Section 23A of the Income‑Tax Act, 1922. The company later claimed that this amount was a reserve and should be included in its capital for the purposes of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1

SMT. NIRMALA R. BAFNA/KERSHI SHIVAX CAMBATTA AND ORS.versusKHANDESH SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANR./OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ORS.

1992 INSC 5725 February 1992Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered two appeals arising from a dispute over a flat leased by Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., which had gone into liquidation. The appellant, Smt. Nirmala R. Bafna, claimed a sub‑tenancy created in 1979 with the landlord’s oral consent and sought protection under the Bombay Rent Contro

M/S. MARUTI UDYOG LTD.versusRAM LAL AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5025 January 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were workmen of Maruti Ltd whose employment ended in 1977 due to the closure of the factory. After the Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 transferred the company's assets to the Central Government and then to the appellant company, the workmen claimed re‑employment under

NARENDRA BAHADUR TANDONversusSHANKERLAL (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ANR.

1980 INSC 1025 January 1980Appeal(s) allowed

The original owners of a plot in Saharanpur granted a permanent, transferable lease to Patel Mills Ltd. The company went into voluntary liquidation and its liquidator sold the lease‑hold interest to Benaras Bank Ltd., after which the company was dissolved under the Companies Act, 1913. The bank later entered liquidatio

R. SAI BHARATHIversusJ. JAYALALITHA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 66824 November 2003Dismissed

The State alleged that the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation (TANSI) sold land at a price below market value to a firm in which the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and her associate were partners, thereby causing wrongful loss to the corporation and wrongful gain to the accused. The trial court convicted the accused

UNION OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC.ETC.

2019 INSC 118724 October 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the definition of "gross revenue" in clause 19.1 of the telecom licence agreement, which determines the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) for licence fee calculation, could be challenged by the licensees. It held that the contractual definition is binding, that TRAI and the Telecom Dispute

M/S. HANU MOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS .versusU.P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

2008 INSC 122124 October 2008Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Hanu Motel Pvt. Ltd. entered into a loan agreement with U.P. Financial Corporation which was later cancelled and a demand notice issued. The company filed a suit in 2001, naming itself and its director Ram Raj Singh as plaintiffs, and obtained an interim injunction. During the appeal, the company removed Ram Raj Si

M/S. EVEREST HOLDING LTD.versusSHYAM KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.

2008 INSC 122824 October 2008Disposed off

M/s. Everest Holding Ltd., a Chinese company, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Shyam Kumar Shrivastava and his group for mining iron ore in India. The JVA contained an arbitration clause (cl. 14.3) and led to the incorporation of Everest Mining & Mineral Pvt. Ltd., for which the petitioner made equity

HINDUSTAN LEVER EMPLOYEES' UNIONversusHINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED AND ORS

1994 INSC 48324 October 1994Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered the sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. (TOMCO) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL), a subsidiary of the foreign multinational Unilever. The petitioners – nominal TOMCO shareholders, employee unions and consumer groups – challenged the scheme on six grounds,

V.P. SHRIVASTAVAversusINDIAN EXPLOSIVES LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 64624 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a tripartite agreement between the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd (FCIL), Indian Explosives Ltd (IEL) and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (BCCL) for the supply of ammonium nitrate. IEL later filed a criminal complaint alleging that senior FCIL officials (the appellants) and a third party suppressed the

M/S MEGHAL HOMES PVT. LTD.versusSHREE NIWAS GIRNI K.K. SAMITI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 86224 August 2007Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a scheme proposed under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 for Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd., a company already under liquidation since 1984. The scheme, as modified, involved the sale of the mill’s land to Lodha Builders Private Ltd. (LBPL) and did not constitute a genuine revival of the

JAI NARAIN PARASRAMPURIA (DEAD) AND ORS.versusPUSHPA DEVI SARAF AND ORS.

2006 INSC 55224 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The promoters of a proposed company purchased a house and land before incorporation and later transferred the title to the incorporated company, which was declared the owner by a decree. The promoters, acting as directors, subsequently entered into a sale agreement with the appellants and also leased the property, lead

M/S. PATHEJA BROS. FORGING AND STAMPING AND ANR.versusI. C. I. C. I. LTD. AND ORS.

2000 INSC 34924 July 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a suit to recover loans granted to I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., impleading the company's guarantors. The company was subsequently declared a sick undertaking under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the High Court directed that the receiver not take possession of the company's as

RADHESHYAM AJITSARLA AND ANR.versusBENGAL CHATKAL MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS.

2006 INSC 35924 May 2006Disposed off

The Baranagore Jute Factory was ordered to be wound up in 1987 but a scheme of arrangement was later approved, allowing the mill to operate as a going concern under a committee of management. The scheme earmarked a fund with the High Court registrar for payment to pre‑scheme unsecured creditors, including the Nemani Gr

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNALWA SONS INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANR.

2019 INSC 56424 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) allotted a commercial plot to Jindal Strips Ltd. (respondent No.1) under a perpetual lease deed containing clause 6(a) which requires prior written consent for any transfer and allows the lessor to recover 50% of the unearned increase (UEI). Respondent No.1 and Jindal Stainless Ltd

HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.versusDALJIT SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 56924 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had entered into an agreement to sell a Delhi property and associated business for Rs 55.50 crore, receiving Rs 5 crore as part consideration, and sued for specific performance. The defendants contested the agreement, claiming the document was forged, the signatures on pages 3

THE COMMISSIONERversusMAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. THRG. M.D.

2018 INSC 40924 April 2018Dismissed

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. obtained a loan of $650,000 from Kaiser Jeep Corporation to purchase tooling equipment. The loan, bearing 6% interest, was later waived by American Motor Corporation, the successor lender, resulting in a cash receipt of Rs 57,74,064 for Mahindra. The Income Tax Officer treated the waiver as tax

CHERAN PROPERTIES LIMITEDversusKASTURI AND SONS LIMITED AND ORS.

2018 INSC 39424 April 2018Dismissed

The dispute arose from a share purchase agreement where KCP and its nominees, including Cheran Properties Limited (the appellant), were to acquire shares of SPIL from KSL. The parties later entered arbitration, which awarded KSL the return of share documents and payment of Rs 3.58 crore. The award attained finality, an

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIversusVIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD.

2018 INSC 39924 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Virtual Soft Systems Ltd claimed a deduction for lease equalisation charges in its 1999-2000 income tax return. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed it, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning whether such a ded

U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT. CORPORATION AND ANR.versusK.C.P. SINHA

1996 INSC 57924 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

K.C.P. Sinha, who had been employed by the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation since 1977, was compulsorily retired in August 1988 under Rule 27(iv) of the corporation’s service rules, which permits retirement at age 50 with three months’ notice. He challenged the order, arguing that the rule was arbitrary, viol

M/S. MAHARASHTRA STATE SEEDS CORPN. LTD.versusHARIDAS AND ANR.

2006 INSC 11824 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd., dismissed its assistant field officer, Haridas, after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of several misconducts and the Managing Director issued a second show‑cause notice changing the proposed penalty from freezing two increments to dismissal. The High Cour

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusM/S FAST WAY TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD.

2018 INSC 5424 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) appealed against a penalty imposed on four Multi System Operators (MSOs) for terminating a cable‑TV broadcast agreement with a news channel, Day & Night News, alleging abuse of dominant position. The MSOs held about 85% of the cable‑TV subscriber base in Punjab and Chandigarh,

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S. CHOWGULE AND CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 3424 January 2003Dismissed

The Union of India appealed a High Court order that quashed the rejection of Chowgule & Co.'s claim for an additional export licence (Exim Scrip/REP) and directed payment of a 20% premium under Circular 11/93. Chowgule, a recognised trading house, had exported processed iron ore during April 1989‑March 1990 under the o

ANARKALI SARABHAI, :SHAHIBAG HOUSE, AHMEDABADversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDAHAD

1997 INSC 5324 January 1997Dismissed

Anarkali Sarabhai held 297 redeemable preference shares of Universal Corporation Pvt Ltd, purchased for Rs 2,68,550. The company redeemed the shares, paying the face value of Rs 2,97,000, resulting in a surplus of Rs 30,450. The Income Tax Officer treated the surplus as a capital gain under Section 45 of the Income‑Tax

RATNABALI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.versusSECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 109823 October 2007Dismissed

Ratnabali Capital Markets Ltd. (RCML) sought to claim fee‑continuity under a SEBI circular dated 30 September 2002, arguing that its merger with Ratnabali Securities Ltd. (RSL) was compelled by law because SEBI’s Gupta Committee required a net‑worth of Rs 3 crore to trade in derivatives. The merger was effected under t

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANKversusD. VISALAKSHI AND ANR.

2019 INSC 106723 September 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in non‑metropolitan areas could entertain a secured creditor's application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for taking possession of secured ass

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC LITIGATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 90823 September 2016Disposed off

The Centre for Public Litigation filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking an independent investigation into alleged administrative and financial irregularities of the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI), a public financial institution with substantial loans, grants and guarantees from the Union Governm

JAI MAHAL HOTELS PVT. LTD.versusRAJ KUMAR DEVRAJ & ORS.

2015 INSC 69623 September 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over the transfer of shares of Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. after the death of Late Maharaja Jagat Singh, who had bequeathed his shares to his mother Gayatri Devi (GD). GD and the grandchildren (the DR Group) obtained a succession certificate and GD executed a transfer deed and a will

YASH DEEP TREXIM PRIVATE LIMITEDversusNAMOKAR VINIMAY PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2013 INSC 64823 September 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals filed by Yash Deep Trexim Private Limited against Namokar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and others, challenging a Calcutta High Court order that applied the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) to a foreign company registered in India. The Court examined whether the r

M/S. IBA HEALTH (I) P. LTD.versusM/S INFO-DRIVE SYSTEMS SDN. BHD.

2010 INSC 63923 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, IBA Health (India) Ltd., challenged a winding‑up petition filed by the respondent, Info‑Drive Systems Bhd., which alleged non‑payment of commission fees under a deed of settlement. The petition relied on Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, claiming the appellant had neglected to pay a deb

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, DELHIversusM/S HCL COM NET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD.

2008 INSC 107623 September 2008Dismissed

The assessee, M/s HCL Com Net Systems & Services Ltd, for Assessment Year 1997-98, debited Rs 92,15,187 as bad debts in its profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount back to the book profit under clause (c) of the Explanation to section 115JA(2) of the Income‑Tax Act, treating it as a provis

GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusP. VENKU REDDY

2002 INSC 40423 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh and a District Co-operative Central Bank appealed a High Court order that had quashed a criminal case against P. Venku Reddy for alleged acceptance of a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court had held that Reddy was not a "public servant" within the meaning o

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusM/S. GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.

2022 INSC 85323 August 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and its 2016 amendment in a dispute between the Union of India and M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that Section 3(2) of the 1988 Act, which created a strict‑liability offence without mens rea, is manifestly arbi

PRAKASH GUPTAversusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2021 INSC 35323 July 2021Disposed off

Prakash Gupta, a director of Ideal Hotels & Industries Ltd, was prosecuted by SEBI for alleged price rigging and insider trading during the company's 1995 IPO. Gupta applied to have the offence under Section 24 of the SEBI Act compounded under Section 24A, but the trial judge and the Delhi High Court rejected the appli

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITEDversusANADINATH BANERJEE (D) AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 35123 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned whether Anadi Nath Banerjee, whose land was acquired for the Sonepur Bazari Open Cast Project, was entitled to employment under a tripartite agreement that promised jobs to land‑losers possessing at least two acres. The Land Acquisition Collector’s certificate recorded Banerjee’s own holding as 0.300

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. & ORS.versusM/S. S. KUMAR’S ASSOCIATES AKM (JV)

2021 INSC 35023 July 2021Dismissed

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL) floated a tender for hiring excavation equipment and awarded the contract to M/s S. Kumar’s Associates AKM (JV) through a Letter of Intent (LoI). The LoI required the successful bidder to deposit a performance security of 5% of the contract value within 28 days and to sign an Integr

URMILA ROY & ORS.versusM/S.BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

2009 INSC 38923 March 2009Dismissed

The appellants, who owned land intended for an international school and other projects, challenged the State's acquisition of their land for a housing scheme that was to be executed by a private joint‑sector company, Bengal Peerless. The High Court initially set aside the acquisition, but a Division Bench later upheld

MADHUMILAN SYNTEX LTD. AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2007 INSC 33523 March 2007Dismissed

Madhumilan Syntex Ltd., a public limited company, failed to deposit Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) within the statutory period for AY 1989-90, though it later paid the amount with interest. The Income Tax Officer issued a show‑cause notice under Section 276B read with Section 278B, treating the company and its directors

VINOD KRISHAN KHANNA & ORS.versusAMRITSAR SWADESHI WOOLLEN MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED

2021 INSC 11023 February 2021Disposed off

The appellants, holding 14.62% of the paid‑up share capital of Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd., filed a company petition under ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking to sell their shares. An independent valuer fixed the fair price at Rs 10.35 per share as of the petition filing date (14‑03‑2007).

INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITEDversusM/S. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 20023 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd (appellant) sought to enforce loan recovery against Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd and others under the SARFAESI Act after the original lender, Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd (IBFSL), merged into Indiabulls Housing Finance. The High Court held that SARFAESI could not be invoked because

S. SUKUMARversusTHE SECRETARY, INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 19923 February 2018Disposed off

The petition challenged the operation of multinational accounting firms (MAFs) in India through Indian chartered accountant firms (ICAFs) that used the same brand name, alleging violations of Sections 25 and 29 of the Chartered Accountants Act, the Companies Act, FDI policy, RBI and FEMA regulations, and the ICAI Code

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELLversusRAMESH GELLI AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 13423 February 2016Case Partly allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation appealed against orders that held the Chairman‑cum‑Managing Director and Executive Director of Global Trust Bank (a private bank before its 2004 amalgamation with Oriental Bank of Commerce) were not public servants for purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHINversusMRS. GRACE COLLIS AND ORS.

2001 INSC 11323 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, shareholders of Ambassador Steamship Ltd., received 14 shares of Collis Line Ltd. for each share they held in the amalgamating company under a scheme of arrangement. They later sold 45,318 of these new shares at a profit, and the Income Tax Officer levied capital gains tax, treating the transaction as

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2009 INSC 6723 January 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., a colonizer, was directed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana to pay Rs.61,000 per gross acre as part of external development charges, allegedly for internal community buildings. The appellant contended that the demand was unauthorized because the land for such buildi

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

2019 INSC 127722 November 2019Dismissed

Genpact India Private Limited bought back shares from its Mauritius holding company and was assessed a tax under Section 115QA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee denied liability and challenged the assessment order through a writ petition under Article 226, arguing that no statutory appeal was available. The Hig

STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHERversusHARIHAR YADAV AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 77522 November 2013Disposed off

The Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation (BHALCO), a government company of Bihar, was transferred to the newly created Jharkhand Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation (JHALCO) after the bifurcation of Bihar under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Employees of the erstwhile BHALCO filed writ petitions seeking a

INDRA KUMAR PATODIA & ANR.versusRELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.

2012 INSC 53422 November 2012Dismissed

The appellants were charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring cheques. The complaint filed by the payee was not signed by the complainant but was later verified and signed on a verification statement before the magistrate. The legal issue was whether a complaint "in writing" under Sec

STATE OF PUNJABversusKARNAIL SINGH

2008 INSC 107022 September 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Karnail Singh, was a Manager of the Punjab Agricultural Development Bank, a co‑operative bank. The trial court framed charges against him under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging he was a "public servant". He filed a criminal revision petition, and the Punjab and Ha

PRATHAMA BANK, HEAD OFFICE MORADABAD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMANversusVIJAY KUMAR GOEL & ANR.

1989 INSC 25222 August 1989Disposed off

The respondent, an employee of Prathama Bank, was dismissed after a disciplinary inquiry in which he was not given adequate opportunity to examine the documents relied upon against him. He filed a suit challenging the validity of the inquiry and seeking reinstatement. The bank contended that the bank was not a "State"

AJAY G. PODARversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF J.S. & W.M. AND ORS.

2008 INSC 85422 July 2008Dismissed

The High Court ordered the winding up of a company on 2 December 1983 and appointed an Official Liquidator. The Liquidator filed misfeasance proceedings on 1 December 1989 under s.543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, although the five‑year limitation prescribed in s.543(2) had expired on 1 December 1988. The appellant ar

BAJAJ AUTO LTD.versusCOMPANY LAW BOARD AND ORS.

1998 INSC 27022 July 1998Appeal(s) allowed

Bajaj Auto Ltd. and its subsidiary purchased 13,200 shares in Bajaj Tempo Ltd., a listed public company. The Board of Directors of Bajaj Tempo refused to register the transfer, citing four reasons: potential inter‑connection, lack of bona‑fide investment, competition, and the transferees being undesirable. The Company

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusATIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED

1984 INSC 11622 June 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India challenged a demand for differential excise duty on dyes manufactured by ATIC Industries Ltd., arguing that the definition of "related person" in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was unconstitutional and that ATIC's wholesale buyers, Atul Products Ltd. and Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd., were "r

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversus63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

2022 INSC 46522 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra sought attachment of the properties of 63 Moons Technologies, which holds 99.99% of National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL), under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, alleging that NSEL is a financial establishment that accepted deposits and

HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 42822 April 1997Dismissed

Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., a wholly‑owned Central Government company, entered into a contract to build a stadium for the Greater Cochin Development Authority. The Authority deducted 1% of the contract value as a contribution under the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Funds Act, 1989. The company claime

BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LTD.versusCO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

2007 INSC 33122 March 2007Dismissed

Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd., a multi‑state co‑operative bank, challenged the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Trade Union Act, arguing that under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the "appropriate Government" for a "Banking Company" with branches in more than one state is the Central Governmen

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.versusNEW GOVINDPUR COAL CO. PVT. LTD.

2004 INSC 19522 March 2004Dismissed

Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL), a Central Government company appointed as custodian of coking coal mines, claimed recovery of excess payments made to New Govindpur Coal Co. for the management period (17 Oct 1971 to 30 Apr 1972) under Section 25 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The claim was su

M/S TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LTDversusM/S SMS ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2022 INSC 21422 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

M/s TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. (the appellant) issued cheques to M/s SMS Asia Private Ltd. which were dishonoured. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before a Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate, the complaint being filed in the name of the company and signed by

SUMITOMO CORPORATIONversusCDC FINANCIAL SERVICES (MAURITIUS) LTD. & ORS.

2008 INSC 24522 February 2008Dismissed

Sumitomo Corporation, Punjab Tractors Pvt. Ltd. and Swaraj Mazda Ltd. entered into a joint venture agreement that later gave rise to disputes over shareholding and management. The respondents filed a company petition before the Company Law Board (CLB) under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging

FORECH INDIA LTD.versusEDELWEISS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

2019 INSC 7722 January 2019Disposed off

Forech India Ltd. filed a winding‑up petition in the Delhi High Court in 2014 against a company, serving notice under Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules. Later, a financial creditor (Respondent No.1) filed an insolvency petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the NCLT, which was ad

M. D. FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusHERO FINCORP LTD.

2017 INSC 97621 September 2017Dismissed

The appellants borrowed money from the respondent, securing the loan with seven immovable properties. Their loan account was declared a non‑performing asset and the parties’ contract contained an arbitration clause, leading the respondent to initiate arbitration while also issuing notices under Section 13 of the SARFAE

JITENDRA NATH SINGHversusTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ORS.

2012 INSC 41521 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant workmen sought priority over the sale proceeds of unsecured assets of UMI Special Steels Ltd., arguing that under Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, workmen's dues should rank ahead of secured creditors on those assets. The respondents, representing the secured creditors, contended that the

MOHAMMAD SADIQ AND ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 96221 September 2007Dismissed

The Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology (IERT), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, decided to close one of its centres, retrenching 105 employees. The employees filed a writ petition seeking their absorption under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government

DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA ETC.

1983 INSC 7921 July 1983Dismissed

The petitioners, a group of companies, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, arguing that the mandatory 10% liquid asset requirement for deposits maturing in a year violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Cons

SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACTORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

2019 INSC 69621 June 2019Dismissed

Silppi Constructions Contractors submitted technical bids for two government tenders but their bids were rejected on the ground that they failed to meet eligibility criteria and that adverse remarks against their sister company were taken into account. The petitioner appealed the rejection, but the appellate authority

NAVEEN KOHLIversusNEELU KOHLI

2006 INSC 15721 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Naveen Kohli, filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty, alleging that his wife, Neelu Kohli, was bad‑tempered, engaged in indecent conduct, transferred property to herself, and repeatedly harassed him through criminal and civil complaints. The trial court fou

MANISH MOHAN SHARMA AND CO.versusRAM BAHADUR THAKUR LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 16021 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Two groups of family shareholders in Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging ouster from management. The Company Law Board (CLB) removed the directors, facilitated a family settlement and, on 19 August 1999, passed an order under Section 402 incorporating

SMT. ABHILASH VINOD KUMAR JAIN ETC.versusCOX AND KINGS (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS. ETC.

1995 INSC 19521 March 1995Dismissed

The heirs of an employee who died while in service were prosecuted by the employer under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 for refusing to vacate premises allotted to the deceased. The heirs filed petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the provision did not apply

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON LONDON BRANCHversusZENITH INFOTECH LIMITED

2017 INSC 16521 February 2017Disposed off

Zenith Infotech Ltd filed a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The Registrar of the Board refused to register the reference on the ground that the company was not an "industrial company" within the meaning of

SHRI V.S. KRISHNAN AND ORS.versusM/S. WESTFORT HI-TECH HOSPITAL LTD. AND ORS.

2008 INSC 23521 February 2008Dismissed

The appellants, directors and shareholders of Westfort Hi‑Tech Hospital Ltd., claimed that they were denied proper notice of the eleventh Annual General Meeting (AGM), were illegally removed from directorships despite a promise of permanent appointment, and that the issuance of right shares and duplicate shares was unl

H.M.T. HOUSE BUILIDNG CO-OP. SOCIETYversusSYED KHADER AND ORS.

1995 INSC 12121 February 1995Dismissed

The H.M.T. House Building Co‑operative Society, a housing society for HMT employees, submitted a scheme to the Karnataka Government and entered into an agreement with a construction firm (respondent No.11) to secure acquisition of land for its members. The State issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the

KARNATAKA BANK LTD.versusSTATE OF A.P. & ORS.

2008 INSC 7721 January 2008Dismissed

The appellants, including Karnataka Bank Ltd., Shaw Wallace & Co., and a partnership firm, challenged notices requiring each of their branches in Andhra Pradesh to pay profession tax of Rs.2500 per annum, arguing that the explanation to the definition of "person" in the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callin

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusM/S. EXPRESS NEWS PAPERS LTD.

1998 INSC 3521 January 1998Appeal(s) allowed

Express News Papers Ltd., a public limited company, resolved on 6 December 1962 to pay an interim dividend, payable on 16 January 1963. The Income Tax Officer reduced the rebate available under the Finance Act, 1964 for assessment year 1964‑65, treating the dividend as a reduction trigger. The company contended that, u

R.D. GOYAL AND ANR.versusRELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

2002 INSC 47720 November 2002Dismissed

The appellants R.D. Goyal and others challenged the MRTP Commission’s finding that the issue of equity shares linked with redeemable non‑convertible debentures, before allotment, did not constitute "goods" under Section 2(e) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. They argued that shares (including

IRIDIUM INDIA TELECOM LTD.versusMOTOROLA INCORPORATED & ORS.

2010 INSC 71320 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Iridium India Telecom Ltd. filed a criminal complaint alleging cheating by Motorola Inc. (respondent No.1) for misleading investors about the Iridium satellite system. The Bombay High Court, invoking Article 227 and Section 482 of the CrPC, quashed the magistrate's process, holding that a corporation cannot possess the

M/S ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD.versusMAST RAM & ORS.

2024 INSC 70920 September 2024Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the acquisition of 56.14 bighas of land for a safety zone around a cement plant, where the original award of compensation was paid by Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) and a supplementary award was later issued. The key issue was whether the liability for the supplementar

S.M.S. PHARMACEUTICALS LTDversusNEETA BHALLA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 43220 September 2005Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined a reference concerning prosecutions under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, focusing on the necessity of specific averments in a complaint to hold company officers liable for a dishonoured cheque. It held that a complaint must expressly state that the accused was i

VIKRAM BAKSHI AND OTHERSversusR.P. KHOSLA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 102020 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose between the Khosla and Bakshi groups over a resort development project, leading to allegations of perjury and a criminal proceeding under Section 340 of the CrPC. The High Court initially dismissed the criminal application but later recalled its own order after a review petition was filed under Order

1.P. HOLDING ASIA SINGAPORE P. LTD. & ANR.versusSECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2014 INSC 99320 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

P. Holding Asia Singapore Ltd. and its holding company acquired 53.46% of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. from the Bangur group for Rs. 523 per share, also paying an exclusivity fee and a non‑compete fee of about Rs. 277.95 crore. SEBI directed the acquirers to increase the public offer price by adding the non‑compete

SMT. LEELABAI GAJANAN PANSARE & ORS.versusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

2008 INSC 94920 August 2008Disposed off

The landlords sought eviction of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (OIC) from premises in Thane, arguing that OIC, a Government company under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, was exempt from protection under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The High Court held that Government companies we

AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS INDIA LTD.versusDAS JOHN PETER & ORS.

2010 INSC 41220 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Automobile Products India Ltd filed a criminal complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 against its former caretaker, Das John Peter, for refusing to vacate a servant quarter after retirement and for allowing his daughter to occupy it. The company filed the complaint through its factory manager using a po

RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ANR.versusM/S HILLCREST REALTY SDN.BHD. & ORS. ETC.

2009 INSC 92620 July 2009Dismissed

The case concerned whether Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd., a special purpose vehicle, had converted into a public company by resolutions passed on 30 September 2002, which were accompanied by a Form 23 filing and a statement in lieu of prospectus. The conversion would affect the applicability of Section 87(2)(b) of the Com

MORGAN STANLEY MUTUAL FUNDversusKARTICK DAS

1994 INSC 22020 May 1994Disposed off

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund, a SEBI‑registered domestic mutual fund, sought to issue a public fund scheme after obtaining SEBI approval for its draft scheme and advertising the issue. A prospective investor filed a petition before the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking an ex‑parte injunction res

BISHAMBHAR PRASADversusM/S. ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. AND ORS

2023 INSC 40620 April 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the status of the Large-Scale Industrial Area (LIA) in Kota, Rajasthan, and held that the land has remained under the uninterrupted ownership and lessor relationship of the State Government, not transferred to RIICO by the 1979 order. It found that the leases granted to JKSL and later to Arfa

ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. & ANR.versusM/S. PAMPA HOTELS LTD.

2010 INSC 22720 April 2010Disposed off

The dispute arose between Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (APTDC) and Pampa Hotels Ltd over lease and management agreements executed on 30‑March‑2002, which contained arbitration clauses. Pampa Hotels Ltd was incorporated only on 9‑April‑2003, so it did not exist when the contracts were signed. APTDC

PRANAB KUMAR PALversusM/S. LIZ. INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 55920 April 2009Disposed off

The petition filed by Liz Investment Pvt. Ltd. before the Company Law Board (CLB) alleged that the appellant, Pranab Kumar Pal, diverted a corporate opportunity and sought to restrain his resignation as a director. The CLB initially ordered the appointment of three directors by the petitioner and barred the appellant’s

ALLAHABAD BANK ETC. ETC.versusBENGAL PAPER MILLS CO. LTD. AND ORS.

1999 INSC 19420 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Allahabad Bank and other banks appealed against the Calcutta High Court's confirmation of a sale of Bengal Paper Mills' assets by the Official Liquidator. The sale, valued at Rs. 1.5 crore and later raised to Rs. 2 crore, was conducted with limited newspaper advertisements, without disclosing the valuation report, and

BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. & ORS.versusPARTHA SARATHI SEN ROY & ORS.

2013 INSC 11220 February 2013Disposed off

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., a government‑owned company, terminated the services of employee Partha Sarathi Sen Roy under a clause that allowed dismissal at the company's sole discretion without reason. The employee challenged the termination by filing writ petitions, contending that the clause was unconstitutional and th

VODAFONE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS B.V.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2012 INSC 4520 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined Vodafone International Holdings' acquisition of the entire share capital of CGP Investments (Holdings) Ltd., a Cayman Islands company that indirectly held a 52% stake in Hutchison Essar Ltd. (HEL). The Revenue argued that the sale of CGP, together with associated rights and entitlements, amou

M/S. SHREE SIDHBALI STEELS LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2011 INSC 5820 January 2011Dismissed

The petitioners, industrial units in the hill areas of Uttar Pradesh, claimed a 33.33% Hill Development Rebate on electricity charges granted under a 1996 notification issued pursuant to Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Subsequent notifications reduced the rebate to 17% and finally withdrew it entirely

SANGRAMSINH P. GAEKWAD AND ORS.versusSHANTADEVI P. GAEKWAD (I) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4520 January 2005Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined a family‑run private company where the board had broadened capital by issuing 15,000 new equity shares, allocating 6,475 to the appellants and reserving 8,000 for the late chairman. The petitioner, a class‑I heir, claimed entitlement to the 8,000 shares and alleged oppression and mismanagemen

AMRIT LAL CHUMversusDEVOPRASAD DUTTA ROY AND ANR. ETC.

1988 INSC 1820 January 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a company‑allotted flat that a former officer continued to occupy after retirement. The company sought prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, which penalises officers or employees who wrongfully retain company property. The Supreme Court examined whether the term "officer or employ

WORLD WIDE AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR .versusMRS. MARGARAT T. DESOR AND ORS.

1989 INSC 39219 December 1989Dismissed

World Wide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and its director Mrs. Amrit Kaur Singh appealed against a Delhi High Court order that allowed the widow and children of the deceased shareholder S.K. Desor to file a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and alternatively for winding up). The respondents argued th

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusESCORTS LTD, & ORS.

1985 INSC 25119 December 1985Disposed off

The case concerned the purchase of shares in Escorts Ltd by thirteen overseas companies, predominantly owned by non‑resident Indians, under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) portfolio investment scheme. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) later granted permission for the purchases, which the company had init

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 89019 November 2024Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed a High Court order that directed the original sale certificate of auction‑purchased property to be handed over to the purchaser and that the stamp duty deposited by the purchaser be refunded. The dispute arose from the liquidation of M/s Punjab United Forge Ltd., where M/s Ferrous Alloy For

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search