Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Companies Act, 1956

615 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–400.

M/S KALEDONIA JUTE AND FIBRES PVT. LTD.versusM/S AXIS NIRMAN AND INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.

2020 INSC 64819 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Kaledonia Jute and Fibres Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) sought to recover a debt from M/s Axis Nirman and Industries Ltd. (first respondent) and filed a petition under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT. Simultaneously, a winding‑up petition against the first respondent was pending before the Allahabad High Court, which

J.K. INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 116119 November 2007Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 – which made Accounting Standard 22 (deferred tax) mandatory – exceeded the Central Government’s rule‑making power under s. 642 of the Companies Act, 1956 and conflicted with the Act’s provisions on true‑and‑fair accounts, Schedule VI a

B. S. MINHASversusINDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE & ORS.

1983 INSC 15119 October 1983Case Allowed

The petitioners challenged the appointment of Shri B.P. Adhikari as Director of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) on the grounds that the ISI, being a body controlled by the Union Government, is a "state" or "other authority" under Article 12 and therefore subject to judicial review under Article 32. They also con

M/S TECH SHARP ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.versusSANGHVI MOVERS LIMITED

2022 INSC 98619 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tech Sharp Engineers, sought initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC against the respondent, Sanghvi Movers, for unpaid crane‑hire invoices dated 2012‑13. The respondent had earlier filed a winding‑up petition in the Madras High Court, which was pending w

UNIT TRUST OF INDIAversusRAVINDER KUMAR SHUKLA, ETC. ETC.

2005 INSC 42719 September 2005Dismissed

The Unit Trust of India (UTI), a statutory corporation, issued account‑payee cheques to its unit holders and sent them by registered post. Approximately 1,600 unit holders claimed non‑receipt of cheques worth about Rs 3.35 crore, alleging interception and fraud. The unit holders filed complaints before Consumer Forums,

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.versusSHYAM CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY & ORS.

1988 INSC 28719 September 1988Case Allowed

Esso Eastern Inc., later Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., occupied a flat in Shyam Co‑operative Housing Society on a leave‑and‑licence basis from 1968, with the licence renewed yearly. By 1 February 1973 a subsisting licence existed, rendering the occupier a "deemed tenant" under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act

COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIAversusUNITED INDUSTRIAL BANK

1983 INSC 12319 September 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The United Industrial Bank sued the Cotton Corporation of India seeking a declaration that the bank’s branch manager lacked authority to co‑accept usance bills and also obtained an interim injunction restraining the corporation from filing a winding‑up petition against the bank. The Bombay High Court’s Division Bench u

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALAversusALAGAPPA TEXTILE (COCHIN) LTD.

1979 INSC 18919 September 1979Dismissed

Alagappa Textile (Cochin) Ltd. entered into a five‑year financing and management agreement with Kamala Mills Ltd., under which Kamala Mills received remuneration for purchases, sales and management of the mill. The assessee claimed the remuneration as a deductible business expense under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income‑

SHAGUN MAHILA UDYOGIK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADITversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2011 INSC 59819 August 2011Dismissed

The appellant, a Mahila cooperative society, challenged the award of a contract for supplying fortified blended food under the Integrated Child Development Scheme, arguing that the eligibility criteria in the Expression of Interest (EOI) were arbitrary and that the contract period should be limited to one year. The Hig

RAVINDRA ISHWARDAS SETHNA AND ANR.versusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

1983 INSC 9919 August 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The Official Liquidator, appointed to wind up Chit Centre Pvt. Ltd., took possession of the company's office premises and sought the court's direction on how to dispose of them. The Bombay High Court directed that the premises be let on a caretaker basis, leading the liquidator to enter a caretaker agreement with Smt.

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERSversusSUNDARESH BHATT AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 43819 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellants, workmen and employees of ABG Shipyard Ltd., claimed wages, salaries and statutory dues for the period of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). They argued that these amounts should be treated as insolvency resolution process costs under s.5(13) of the IBC and thus enjoy priority under s.53

MESSER HOLDINGS LTD.versusSHYAM MADANMOHAN RUIA & OTHERS

2016 INSC 32619 April 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined multiple Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) arising from a protracted dispute over the acquisition and transfer of shares in Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd. The dispute involved Messer Holdings GmbH (MGG), Goyal Gases Ltd (GGL), the Ruia family (RUIAS) and a joint venture company Messer Holdings L

N. RANGACHARIversusBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.

2007 INSC 43819 April 2007Dismissed

Data Access (India) Ltd issued two cheques to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd which were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the company and its directors, including the appellant N. Rangachari. The appellant claimed he was an honorary chair

M/S. SHABI CONSTRUCTION COMPANYversusCITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR.

1995 INSC 27619 April 1995Dismissed

The appellant, Mis. Shabi Construction Co., entered into a lease agreement with the New Town Development Authority (CIDCO) for a commercial plot, the agreement stipulating a maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 2. While the agreement was pending, the State Government issued a notification increasing the permissible FSI f

IMPERIAL CHIT FUNDS (P) LTD.versusINCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM

1996 INSC 41219 March 1996Dismissed

Imperial Chit Funds Ltd., a company in liquidation, was served with a tax demand of Rs.1,027 by the Income Tax Officer after winding‑up proceedings had begun. The Official Liquidator argued that the tax claim could not be enforced until the claim was proved in the winding‑up process, invoking the Companies Act’s scheme

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusM/S. INFORMETICS VALUATION AND RATING PVT. LTD.

2013 INSC 11119 February 2013Dismissed

M/s Informetrics Valuation and Rating Pvt. Ltd. applied to SEBI for registration as a credit rating agency, submitting a chartered accountant's net‑worth certificate based on a bank’s confirmation rather than audited accounts of its promoter. SEBI demanded audited accounts of the promoter for the five years preceding t

AL CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ANR.

2009 INSC 22019 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Al Champdany Industries Limited purchased the assets of a company in liquidation. After the sale was confirmed, Bhatpara Municipality claimed arrears of property tax for periods before the sale and sought payment from the purchaser. The High Court held that the sale terms "as is where is" imposed a duty on the buyer to

DELHI SCIENCE FORUM AND ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 27519 February 1996Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Central Government’s exercise of power under Section 4(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to grant licences to private companies for establishing and operating telecommunication services, arguing that the privilege was exclusive to the Government and that the procedure, including a capp

RAJRATHA NARANBHAI MILLS. CO. LTD.versusSALES TAX OFFICER, PETLAD

1991 INSC 5219 February 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The company Rajratha Naranbhai Mills Ltd. was ordered to be wound up on 26 June 1967 and the liquidator invited creditors to prove claims for priority under s.530(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Sales Tax Officer claimed priority for sales tax and penalties, arguing that the assessment orders and demand notices w

RAMA NARANGversusRAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2008

2021 INSC 2519 January 2021

The case arose from a family dispute between Rama Narang (petitioner) and his sons Ramesh and Rajesh Narang (respondents) who were directors of a company. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered a settlement (Consent Order) requiring joint management of the company, but the petitioner alleged that the respondents violate

RAMANARANGversusRAMESH NARANG AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6119 January 1995Dismissed

The appellant, Rama Narang, was appointed Managing Director of a deemed public limited company after being convicted of offences involving moral turpitude. Respondent Ramesh Narang challenged the appointment under Section 267 of the Companies Act, 1956, which bars a person convicted of such offences from holding the of

GEM GRANITES AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6219 January 1995Disposed off

Petitioners challenged the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 8‑C (as amended on 10 June 1992) and Rule 38, alleging that they illegally reserve quarrying of certain granites for the State Government and its companies without the Central Government’s approval required under Section 17‑A(2) of the Mines & Mineral

M/S. MALWA STRIPS PVT. LTD.versusM/S. JYOTI LTD.

2008 INSC 148918 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Malwa Strips Pvt Ltd filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC against M/s Jyoti Ltd for a sum of money. The trial court granted conditional leave to defend, requiring the respondent to deposit an admitted amount, which the respondent failed to do, leading to a decree in favour of the appellant. The respondent ap

SUNIL KR. GHOSH & ORS.versusK. RAM CHANDRAN & ORS.

2011 INSC 81118 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The workers of Philips India Ltd. opposed the transfer of their factory to Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. and refused to join the new employer. After the Labour Department declined to refer their dispute to a tribunal, the workers filed a writ petition seeking retirement and retrenchment benefits. The Single Judge of th

HINDUSTAN LEVER AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 64418 November 2003Dismissed

Hindustan Lever Ltd. challenged the levy of stamp duty by the State of Maharashtra on the High Court order sanctioning its amalgamation with Tata Oil Mills Ltd. The appellants argued that the order was a judicial decree, not an "instrument" under the Bombay Stamp Act, and that the State lacked constitutional competence

VATSALA SHENOYversusJOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2016 INSC 96918 October 2016Case Partly allowed

The partners of the dissolved partnership firm Mis. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works sold the firm's assets as a going concern to an Association of Persons (AOP-3) after winding‑up proceedings. The Assessing Officer treated the partners' share of the sale proceeds as capital gains in their individual hands, while the busin

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)versusSUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 74618 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), as a secured creditor, sought to enforce its charge over imported machinery that had been stored in a private bonded warehouse and remained unpaid of customs duty. The company was wound up on 1 December 2003, and the Official Liquidator applied for possession of the good

AIR INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1995 INSC 40218 July 1995Dismissed

Air India, created under the Air Corporations Act, 1953, had its employees' service conditions governed by the Air India Employees Service Regulations framed under Section 45 of that Act. After the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner certified the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHIversusORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

2007 INSC 64418 May 2007Disposed off

The Commissioner of Income Tax appealed against Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd, contending that the insurer could not claim deductions for a provision for taxation and a reserve for bad and doubtful debts. The Supreme Court examined the computation of income for insurance businesses under Section 44 of the I

M/S. AMBICA INDUSTRIESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2007 INSC 65518 May 2007Dismissed

Ambica Industries, carrying on business in Lucknow, was assessed to central excise there and appealed to the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Delhi, which has jurisdiction over Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Maharashtra. The appellant filed a further appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise

M/S UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD.versusRANI DEVI & ANR.

2017 INSC 36118 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Mis Unichem Laboratories Ltd., a company that provided housing to its industrial workers under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Housing Act, 1955, sought eviction of Rani Devi and others who continued to occupy a quarter after the original allottee, Dharam Dev Yadav, retired and later died. The company filed a civil suit f

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANR. ETC.versusCUSTODIAN AND ANOTHER ETC.

2000 INSC 22618 April 2000Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 where Standard Chartered Bank claimed that shares and securities pledged by broker Hiten Dalal were its security against a loss of Rs. 280.80 crore. The Court held that the bank had

VISHNU DAYAL JHUNJHUNWALA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1984 INSC 8618 April 1984Dismissed

The appellant owned a sugar mill that had been permanently shut down before the Central Government issued an order under Rule 125A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, taking over its management and appointing an authorised controller. The appellant argued that because the mill was closed and not engaged in production,

SMT. CLAUDE-LILA PARULEKARversusM/S. SAKAL PAPERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 15918 March 2005Disposed off

The appellant, a beneficiary of a trust, claimed a pre‑emptive right under Article 57‑A of the company's Articles of Association to purchase 3,417 and 93 shares held by joint executors, but the executors sold those shares to a third‑party group without complying with the Articles or Section 108 of the Companies Act. Th

M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

1998 INSC 14518 March 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Gujarat High Court set aside the acquisition of land in Surat for Larsen & Toubro Ltd.'s employee housing scheme, holding that the State had not complied with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and that no notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been served. The Supre

T. TAKANOversusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR.

2022 INSC 20818 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, former MD and CEO of Ricoh India Ltd., was served a show‑cause notice by SEBI alleging violations of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations based on an investigation report. The appellant demanded the full investigation report, but SEBI claimed it was an internal document not subject to disclosure. The S

J.K. (BOMBAY) LTD.versusBHARTI MATHA MISHRA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 3518 January 2001Dismissed

The appellant J.K. (Bombay) Ltd employed M as a trainee supervisor and allotted him a company flat. After M resigned, he was directed to vacate but refused, claiming unpaid dues. The company filed a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 against M and his wife and father. The lower courts upheld the pro

POOJA RAVINDER DEVIDASANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA&ANR.

2014 INSC 88017 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a non‑executive director of M/S Elite International Pvt. Ltd., was charged under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of cheques issued by the company. She had resigned from the board on 17‑December‑2005, while the cheques were dishonoured in 2008. The com

DHARIWAL TOBAGO PRODUCTS LTD. AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2008 INSC 146017 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and its senior officials were charged with manufacturing adulterated Gutkha, violating Rule 62(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. A Judicial Magistrate issued summons, and the accused filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIESversusM/S. NATL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

2008 INSC 146717 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Vijay Industries, a small‑scale supplier of castor oil, sued Natl Technologies for non‑payment of invoices and for interest on delayed payments, filing a winding‑up petition under Sections 433(e), 433(f) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent argued that interest was not a debt because there was no explicit

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORversusPARTHASARATHI SINHA & OTHERS

1982 INSC 10417 December 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The Official Liquidator instituted misfeasance proceedings under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the directors of a company in liquidation, including Dr. S.N. Sinha. Dr. Sinha died intestate during the pendency of the suit, and his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place. The Calcut

AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 80817 November 2011Dismissed

The Air India Cabin Crew Association challenged the management’s revised promotion policy and the government’s 2003 directive that equalised the retirement and flying ages of male Flight Pursers and female Air Hostesses. The petitioners argued that these changes violated earlier bilateral settlements, the Air Corporati

NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2008 INSC 130817 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (NSIC), a government company, lodged a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that a cheque drawn in its favour was dishonoured. The complaint was filed by NSIC’s Development Officer, who is a public servant, and the Magistrate, relying on the proviso to S

HOOGHLY MILLS COMPANY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

2019 INSC 115917 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd., a corporate entity, sought possession of a residential flat that had been occupied by its former director, Bal Binode Bajoria, after his retirement. The company filed a criminal complaint under Section 630(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and an application under Section 630(2) for dispossessio

GUNMALA SALES PRIVATE LTD.versusANU MEHTA & ORS.

2014 INSC 73617 October 2014Disposed off

The appellant, Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., challenged the Calcutta High Court’s order quashing criminal complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against several directors of the accused company. The Supreme Court held that a complaint must specifically aver that a director wa

A.K. SINGHANIAversusGUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & ANR.

2013 INSC 70117 October 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and its directors, including A.K. Singhania and Vikram Prakash, for dishonour of cheques. The key issue was whether the complaints specifically alleged that the directors were "in ch

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.versusSHRI AMBICA MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

1997 INSC 69617 October 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) supplied hot rolled steel strips to Ambica Mills Ltd. under an Import‑Export Policy scheme that required the importer to hold a valid advance licence, duty exemption certificate, export bond and an irrevocable Letter of Credit. The importer submitted a licence on 20‑Aug‑1983 tha

BALDEV KRISHNA SAHIversusSHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ANR.

1987 INSC 25317 September 1987Dismissed

The petitioner, a former joint manager of a government undertaking, was allotted a company flat during his service and was allowed to stay for six months after retirement on humanitarian grounds. He failed to vacate, prompting the Shipping Corporation of India to lodge a complaint under s.630 of the Companies Act, 1956

DANKHA DEVI AGARWAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTARA PROPERTIES PVT. LIMITED AND ORS.

2006 INSC 51417 August 2006Disposed off

Dankha Devi Agarwal, a majority shareholder, alleged that her elder son Bhagirath forged her signature to transfer 1,650 of her shares to himself and his wife in order to wrest control of Tara Properties Pvt. Ltd. The transfer was challenged in a suit which was later withdrawn on a petition filed by an advocate who had

U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusBANARAS ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. LTD.

2001 INSC 37617 August 2001Dismissed

The Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board purchased the undertaking of Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. under the Indian Electricity (U.P.) Amendment Act, 1975, causing the undertaking to vest in the Board on 5‑6 February 1975. Uncollected electricity dues owed to the company for consumption before that date w

M/S. UNIPLAS INDIA LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

2001 INSC 29717 July 2001Dismissed

The appellants issued two cheques that were dishonoured. The respondent sent a notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act after the 15‑day period, and later presented the cheque again, issuing a second notice within 15 days. The Supreme Court examined whether a notice under Section 434 can satisfy the demand require

SHAJI POULOSEversusINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & OTHERS

2024 INSC 45117 May 2024Disposed off

The petitioners, chartered accountants, challenged the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India's Guidelines dated 08‑08‑2008 that capped the number of tax audits a member could undertake under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. They argued that the restriction was beyond the Council's competence, vi

ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELE SERVICES PROVIDERS & OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA

2014 INSC 29417 April 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) could audit the accounts of private telecom service providers under the Unified Access Services (UAS) licences to verify revenue sharing with the Union. Service providers argued that the CAG’s powers under Article 149 of the Constitut

JATYA PAL SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 26417 April 2013Dismissed

The appellants, former employees of the Overseas Communication Service (OCS), were transferred to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) and later to Tata Communications Limited (TCL) after the government's disinvestment. They challenged the termination of their services, arguing that VSNL/TCL was a "State" or "other auth

GENERAL RADIO & APPLIANCES CO. LTD. & ORS.versusM.A. KHADER (DEAD) BY LRS.

1986 INSC 8517 April 1986Dismissed

General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd., the original tenant of a premises in Secunderabad, merged with National Ekco Radio and Engineering Co. Ltd. under a court‑sanctioned scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The landlord, M.A. Khader, sought eviction on the grounds that the amalg

MEDIQUIP SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.versusPROXIMA MEDICAL SYSTEM G.M.B.H.

2005 INSC 15417 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Medi Quip Systems Pvt Ltd filed an appeal against a winding‑up petition filed by Proxima Medical System GmbH under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging that the appellant had failed to refund US$5,000 and US$11,000 received as bid security. The appellant contended that the US$11,000 was remitted by a dif

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 12917 February 2011Disposed off

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL), a central government PSU, challenged show‑cause notices issued by the Ministry of Finance that sought reversal of Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs that had been written off. The adjudicating authority rejected ECIL’s claim that the write‑off complied with AS‑2, and the matter

AVINASH HANSRAJ GAJBHIYEversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, M/S. V. PHARMA. P. LTD.

2006 INSC 9317 February 2006Dismissed

The appellant, a legal representative of an ex‑director of a company that had been liquidated, challenged a Company Judge's order that held all former directors jointly and severally liable for a sum with interest in a misfeasance proceeding. The Company Judge dismissed the appellant's application for review of that or

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD.versusANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR

2022 INSC 4917 January 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the winding‑up petition filed by Antrix Corporation against Devas Multimedia Private Ltd under section 271(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging fraud in the formation and conduct of the company. The petition was never advertised, and the petitioners challenged the order on grounds of lack

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.versusTHOMAS JOSEPH ALIAS THOMAS M. J. & ORS.

2022 INSC 129316 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) appealed against a Kerala High Court judgment that held excess consumption of electricity within the same premises and tariff does not constitute "unauthorised use" for the purpose of imposing a double‑tariff penalty. The Supreme Court examined whether drawing electricity beyon

GAUTAM KUNDUversusMANOJ KUMAR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, EASTERN REGION, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT(PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT) GOVT. OF INDIA

2015 INSC 93916 December 2015Dismissed

Gautam Kundu, chairman of Rose Valley, was arrested for alleged money‑laundering offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and related violations of the SEBI Act. He sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Calcutta High Court rejected the application, holding th

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAIversusTULSYAN NEC LTD.

2010 INSC 88416 December 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be set off against assessed tax before computing interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C. It held that the tax paid under Section 115JA is a "tax" within the meaning of the Act and the credit

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD AND ANR.versusI.T.C. LTD.

2006 INSC 85416 November 2006Disposed off

The appellant Mandi Parishad sought market fee on cut tobacco processed by ITC Ltd in Saharanpur and sent to its own factory in Calcutta and to contract manufacturers. The Mandi Samiti’s President exempted the consignment to Calcutta but referred the contract‑manufacturer case to the Director, who ordered a fresh decis

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 48216 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The Centre for Public Interest Litigation challenged the Government of India's decision to sell majority shares of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) to private parties without amending the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974, the Burma Shell Act, 197

TERAPALLI DYVASAHATA KUMARversusS.M. KANTHA RAJU (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2017 INSC 74816 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar, filed a petition under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, seeking declarations and injunctions concerning the management of a society. The District Court allowed the petition, holding that "District Court concerned" should be interpreted using t

RAJU JHURANIversusM/S GERMINDA PVT. LTD.

2012 INSC 33516 August 2012Case Partly allowed

The landlord, Raju Jhurni, obtained an eviction decree against the tenant company under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, but the decree did not determine the arrears of rent. He then filed a winding‑up petition before the Company Court under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking recov

SUDARSAN CHITS (I) LTD.versusO. SUKUMARAN PILLAI & ORS .

1984 INSC 14316 August 1984Appeal(s) allowed

Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. was ordered to be wound up under the Companies Act, 1956, but the High Court held the winding‑up order in abeyance while a scheme of compromise was being implemented. The company sought a direction that the provisional liquidator file claim petitions under section 446(2)(b) to recover debts

M/S. INTEGRATED FINANCE CO. LTD.versusRESERVE BANK OF INDIA ETC. ETC.

2013 INSC 47216 July 2013Dismissed

Integrated Finance Co. Ltd., a non‑banking financial company, was inspected by the RBI which found multiple violations and issued a circular prohibiting it from accepting deposits. The company, facing profitability problems, proposed a scheme of compromise under Section 391 of the Companies Act to convert deposits into

A.V. MOHAN RAO AND ANR.versusM. KISHAN RAO AND ANR.

2002 INSC 30216 July 2002Dismissed

The appellant‑accused filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash a criminal complaint that alleged violations of Sections 60, 63, 68 and 68‑A of the Companies Act, 1956, involving the alleged siphoning of funds from Non‑Resident Indians into offshore entities. The High Court refused to quash the co

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P.versusLAXMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS LTD.

1986 INSC 13816 July 1986Dismissed

Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd. had debited Rs 8,16,000 as a provision for additional cane price payable to cane‑growers under the Sugarcane Price Control Order, 1955, and shown it under "Current liabilities and provisions". The amount was later reversed and no actual payment was made. The Income‑Tax Officer excluded the

TATA MOTORS LTD.versusPHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.

2008 INSC 69216 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Tata Motors Ltd., an unsecured creditor, challenged a scheme of arrangement approved by the Bombay High Court under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, which sought to settle debts of Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. (the sick company) while the matter was pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial

M/S. BAKEMANS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusM/S. NEW CAWNPORE FLOUR MILLS AND OTHERS

2008 INSC 72716 May 2008

Bakemans Industries Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) defaulted on a loan from SICOM Ltd. under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. SICOM invoked Section 29 of that Act to take possession of the appellant's factory and sought sale of the assets, while the appellant and other creditors filed winding‑up applications befo

G.L. SULTANIA AND ANR.versusTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 60716 May 2007Dismissed

The appellants challenged the price approved by SEBI for a public offer to acquire the minority shares of Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd., alleging that the valuation by the independent valuer did not comply with Regulation 20(5) of the Takeover Code. SEBI appointed an independent merchant banker, Patni &

IBI CONSULTANCY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDSC LIMITED

2018 INSC 34916 April 2018Disposed off

The petitioners, IBI Consultancy India Private Limited and its parent IBI Group, entered into six contracts with DSC Limited for toll and traffic management systems on two highway projects. The contracts contained an arbitration clause stipulating that disputes be referred to an independent arbitrator in Delhi. After t

HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELLS CORPORATION & ORS.versusG.S. UPPAL & ORS.

2008 INSC 49816 April 2008Dismissed

The Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation, a government company, denied a pay‑scale revision to its Assistant Engineers, Sub‑Divisional Officers and Law Officers, arguing that the duties differed from those of government engineers and that the corporation faced financial loss. The employees claimed that

LALITA JALAN AND ANR.versusBOMBAY GAS CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 23316 April 2003Dismissed

Bombay Gas Co. leased a flat to its director N.K. Jalan, who later died. The company later purchased the flat, but Jalan’s son Ashok Kumar Jalan, his wife Lalita Jalan and grandson Siddharth Jalan continued to occupy it and refused to vacate. The company filed a criminal complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF MUMBAIversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION

1998 INSC 18116 April 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Port of Mumbai, acting as Board of Trustees, arrested the vessel M.V. Varuna belonging to Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd for non‑payment of anchorage and other port charges under Section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and issued a notice of auction. The company was wound up in a company petition and the Official Li

N. PARTHASARATHY ETC.versusCONTROLLER OF CAPITAL ISSUES AND ANOTHER ETC.

1991 INSC 10416 April 1991Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the sale of 39 lakh shares of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. by public financial institutions to Trishna Investments through BOB Fiscal Services, and the Controller of Capital Issues' consent to a mega issue of convertible debentures (including a Rs.310 crore preferential allotment to Reliance

AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD.versusGUJARAT INNS. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 17216 March 2004Dismissed

The respondents, who purchased urban properties at auction under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and under the Official Liquidator in winding‑up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, sought fresh electricity connections for those premises. The appellant, Gujarat Electricity Board, demanded

NTPC LIMITEDversusANSALDO CALDAIE BOILERS INDIA P. LTD. & ANR.

2012 INSC 9316 February 2012Appeal(s) allowed

NTPC Ltd invited bids for a super‑critical steam‑generator package and rejected the bid of Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers India Ltd on the ground that its proposed Qualified Steam Generator Manufacturer had not designed and engineered the evaporator, an integral part of the generator, but had outsourced its manufacture to a t

M/S. DYNAMIC ORTHOPEDICS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN, KERALA

2010 INSC 10216 February 2010Matter referred to larger bench

The appeal concerned whether depreciation for computing book profit under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act should be allowed as per Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, rather than Schedule XIV of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee, a private limited company, had claimed depreciation under the Rules, but the Asse

MACQUARIE BANK LIMITEDversusSHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

2017 INSC 124115 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two pivotal questions arising under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: (i) whether the requirement in Section 9(3)(c) to attach a certificate from the financial institution confirming non‑payment of an operational debt is a mandatory condition precedent, and (ii) whether a demand notic

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusBRIJLAL SADASUKH MODANI

2015 INSC 104315 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Brijlal Sadashuk Modani, was a senior employee of Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., a multi‑state cooperative bank. While in service he received notices from the Anti‑Corruption Bureau demanding details of his assets, which he contested on the ground that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA)

H.V. JAYARAMversusTHE INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. ETC.

1999 INSC 56115 December 1999Dismissed

The appellant, H.V. Jayaram, purchased shares of Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. and alleged that the company failed to deliver the share certificates within the time limits prescribed by Section 113(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. He filed a criminal complaint under Section 113(2) before the

GURCHARAN SINGH BALDEV SINGHversusYASHWANT SINGH AND ORS

1991 INSC 29615 November 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a stage carriage operator, applied for renewal of his permit under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the application was duly notified. Before the renewal could be granted, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force, repealing the 1939 Act. The respondent applied for a fresh permit on

SEWARAMversusSOBARAN SINGH

1992 INSC 24615 September 1992Dismissed

Sewaram was elected to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Morena, but his opponent Sobaran Singh challenged the election alleging that Sewaram held contracts with the state government at the time of filing his nomination, which would disqualify him under Section 9‑A of the Representation of the People Act, 19

BALASAHEB KESHAWRAO BHAPKAR & ORS.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 52515 July 2024Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition under Article 32 filed by the promoters of the Sai Prasad Group seeking the liquidation of the companies' immovable assets to refund investors. The petitioners alleged that SEBI's efforts to auction the properties were inadequate and that the investors had been waiting for

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusGAURAV VARSHNEY & ANR.

2016 INSC 53515 July 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the directors of Gaurav Agrigenetics Ltd. violated Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act by operating a collective investment scheme without a registration certificate. It held that Section 12(1B) creates an absolute, mandatory bar for new operators from 25‑Jan‑1995 until they obtain a certi

COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANRversusCOMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR

2023 INSC 58015 June 2023

Coal India Ltd (CIL) and its subsidiary Western Coalfields Ltd challenged the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) finding of abuse of dominant position, arguing that the Competition Act, 2002 does not apply to them because they are government companies created under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and ar

HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR.versusAMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2023 INSC 58215 June 2023Case Partly allowed

The case involved a private limited company with an authorised capital of Rs.1 crore, where the board of directors resolved to issue additional shares on a 1:1 basis and sought to increase the authorised capital to Rs.2 crore following a bank's advice. The V.P. Patel and Sheth groups alleged oppression and mismanagemen

SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. THRU. DIRversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2009 INSC 81815 May 2009Hearing Adjourned

Suraj Lamp & Industries Ltd. filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court order that held Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to be merely directory. The company alleged that its land purchase in Gurugram was effected through a sale agreement, General Power of Attorney and a will (SA‑GPA‑Will) r

M.D., BHORUKA TEXTILES LTD.versusM/S KASHMIRI RICE INDUSTRIES

2009 INSC 82515 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

M.D., Bhoruka Textiles Ltd. (appellant) supplied paddy husk to M/s Kashmir Rice Industries (respondent) but allegedly failed to receive payment, prompting the respondent to sue for Rs.2,61,696. The respondent contended that the appellant had become a "sick" industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Specia

M.P. STATE CO-OP. DAIRY FEDN. LTD. & ANR.versusRAJNESH KUMAR JAMINDAR & ORS.

2009 INSC 51215 April 2009Dismissed

The Madhya Pradesh State Co‑operative Dairy Federation Ltd., a society incorporated under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, ordered the compulsory retirement of 52 employees who had completed 20 years of service. Sixteen employees challenged the order and were awarded 50% back wages by a Single Judge, while

ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKAversusJINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 18715 March 2021Dismissed

The corporate debtor Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd (GNCL) initiated a corporate insolvency resolution process, but its promoter Arun Kumar Jagatramka was deemed ineligible to submit a resolution plan under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). After the liquidation order, Jagatramka filed an application under

GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ANR.versusSHREE VALLABH GLASS WORKS LIMITED AND ORS.

1990 INSC 8715 March 1990Dismissed

The Gram Panchayat sought to recover property tax from Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., which had been declared a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had conducted an enquiry under s.16, found the company

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITEDversusABDUL SAMAD & ANR.

2018 INSC 14615 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Sundaram Finance Ltd. granted a loan to Abdul Samad, who defaulted, leading to arbitration under the loan agreement. An ex parte award of Rs.12.69 lakh was made, and Sundaram sought execution of the award in the Morena court, which dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, directing the appellant to first obt

NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP. LTD.versusHARMEET SINGH PAINTAL AND ANR.

2010 INSC 9815 February 2010Dismissed

The appellant, National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., filed criminal complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the managing director and a director of the defendant company for dishonoured cheques. The High Court quashed the summoning orders against the director(s

M/S. BSI LTD. AND ANR.versusGIFT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ETC.

2000 INSC 7215 February 2000Dismissed

The appellants, companies whose cheques were dishonoured, were prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the complaints were filed, they obtained a declaration from the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) that they were "sick" companies under the Sick Industrial Companies

PANKAJ MEHRA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 7315 February 2000Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether a company that issued a cheque, which was later dishonoured, could avoid criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by invoking the provision of the Companies Act that makes any disposition of its property void after a winding‑up petition is presented. The

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARATversusJYOTI LTD.

1996 INSC 26015 February 1996Case Partly allowed

Jyoti Ltd., a Baroda‑based company, claimed that its reserves for doubtful debts (Rs 85,000) and gratuity (Rs 5,60,000) should be treated as part of its capital base for computing statutory deduction under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Surtax Officer excluded the amounts; the Appellate Assistant Commiss

SHAILESH PRABHUDAS MEHTA AND ORS.versusCALICO DYING AND PRINTING MILLS LTD.

1994 INSC 7415 February 1994

The appellants, heirs of a deceased shareholder of Calico Dying & Printing Mills Ltd., sought transmission of 100 shares after obtaining an heirship certificate. The company, having amended its Articles of Association in 1977 to empower the Board to refuse any transfer without reason, declined to register the transmiss

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD.versusASHOK RANGHBA AMBRE

2008 INSC 5215 January 2008Case Allowed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (the appellant) had engaged Ashok Ranghba Ambre on a casual basis as a compounder/dresser from 1984. Ambre filed a writ petition in 1992 seeking to be declared a permanent employee with retrospective benefits. The corporation stopped employing him in 1996, leading to an industrial d

AMINA AHMED DOSSA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2001 INSC 2515 January 2001Dismissed

The appellants, Amina Ahmed Dossa and others, claimed rights over properties attached under Section 8 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) and sought relief from the Designated Court under Section 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Designated Court rejected their claim

DELHI GOLF CLUB LTD. AND ANR.versusN.D.M.C.

2001 INSC 2415 January 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Golf Club Ltd., a limited company, held a 20‑year temporary lease of government land for operating a golf club, with the lease expressly stating that any continuance beyond the term would also be temporary and that construction required government permission. The New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) demanded

SHAKTI YEZDANI & ANR.versusJAYANAND JAYANT SALGAONKAR & ORS.

2023 INSC 107614 December 2023Dismissed

The testator, Jayant Shivram Salgaonkar, died leaving fixed deposits and mutual fund securities for which he had nominated certain family members under Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Bye‑law 9.11.1 of the Depositories Act, 1996. The nominees claimed that the nomination gave them absolute beneficial ownersh

MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDIT PVT.LTDversusMODI RUBBER LTD.

2006 INSC 100614 December 2006Dismissed

Morgan Securities advanced an inter‑corporate deposit to Modi Rubber, which defaulted, leading to an arbitral award in favour of Morgan and a winding‑up petition. The High Court restrained Modi Rubber from dealing with its assets, but the company made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusG. NARSHIMHAN (DIED) BY HEIRS

1998 INSC 47914 December 1998Case Partly allowed

The assessee, a shareholder of Kasthuri Estates Pvt. Ltd., received cash and property when the company reduced its share capital from Rs 1,000 to Rs 210 per share. Earlier advances to shareholders had been treated as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income‑Tax Act. The Tribunal held that no capital gains

KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

2008 INSC 129914 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Khoday Distilleries Ltd issued a rights issue; twenty of its twenty‑seven shareholders did not subscribe and the unissued shares were allotted to seven existing investment‑company shareholders. The company also issued fully paid bonus shares in a 1:23 ratio. The Assessing Officer treated both the rights‑issue allotment

BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJARversusVEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2020 INSC 49014 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The corporate debtor Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries defaulted on its loans on 08 July 2011. The financial creditor, JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in March 2018 to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process, stating

DHANASINGH PRABHUversusCHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 83114 July 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, Dhanasingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of Rs.21 lakh to the respondents who were partners of the partnership firm “Mouriya Coirs”. The respondents issued a cheque in the name of the firm which was dishonoured, prompting the appellant to serve a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusTHE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND ORS. ETC.

1998 INSC 25314 July 1998Appeal(s) allowed

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., a government‑owned company, applied for a factory licence for its Namkum storage unit. The Chief Inspector of Factories refused, deeming the depot manager not an occupier because, under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, only a director of a company could

CHINTALAPATI SRINIVASA RAJUversusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2018 INSC 51014 May 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined multiple appeals arising from the Satyam scandal, where the appellant, Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju, a former executive and non‑executive director of Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SCSL) and co‑brother of its chairman, was shown cause for insider trading under SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradi

MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2015 INSC 41014 May 2015Disposed off

The Madras Bar Association challenged several provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 relating to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), alleging that their constitution and the qualifications for members violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supr

M/S. SPEEDLINE AGENCIESversusM/S. T. STANES & CO. LTD.

2010 INSC 32614 May 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Speedline Agencies, occupied a building and land leased from United Coffee Supply Co. Ltd., later renamed Stanes Tea and Coffee Ltd., for over four decades. The landlord filed a petition under sections 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking eviction f

N.P.V. RAMASWAMY UDAYAR ETC.versusALL LNDIA SUBSCRLBER ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS ETC.

1993 INSC 21214 May 1993Disposed off

The appellant holding company, which had received Rs 10 crore through chit subscriptions by its subsidiary, failed to pay the subscribers the promised prize money, leading to winding‑up proceedings against the subsidiary. The Kerala High Court held the winding‑up order in abeyance on the condition that the holding comp

M.S.D.C RADHARAMANANversusM.S.D. CHANDRASEKARA RAJA AND ANOTHER

2008 INSC 37714 March 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a director of a private limited company, challenged an order of the Company Law Board (CLB) that, despite finding no oppression, directed him to purchase the managing director's shares to resolve a deadlock between the two directors/shareholders. The Supreme Court examined whether Sections 397, 398 and 4

ANDHRA BANKversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ANR.

2005 INSC 13714 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Andhra Bank, a secured creditor, appealed against a Calcutta High Court order that directed it to pay Rs 38 lakhs on an ad‑hoc basis to the official liquidator for disbursing workmen’s salaries. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue such an order, the priority of workmen’s dues ver

SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUMversusMANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR

2020 INSC 18914 February 2020Directions issued

The Sobha Hibiscus Condominium, a statutory body created under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the managing director of Sobha Developers Ltd. The NCDRC dismissed the complaint, holding that the condominium was neit

KAILASH NATH AGRAWAL AND ORS.versusPRADESHYA INDST. & INV. CORP. OF U.P. AND ANR.

2003 INSC 8714 February 2003Leave Granted & Dismissed

The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corp. of U.P. (PICUP) advanced a loan to Shefali Papers Ltd., secured by mortgage and guarantee bonds executed by Kailash Nath Agrawal and others. After the company was declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), PICUP issued demand not

GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LTD.versusDUNDAYYA GURUSHIDDAIAH HIREMATH AND ORS.

1991 INSC 4114 February 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd., filed criminal complaints under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 406 IPC against former employees who, after retirement, failed to vacate company quarters. The trial magistrate dismissed the complaints as time‑barred under the six‑month limitation prescri

INDIAN TUBE CO. (P) LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA

1992 INSC 514 January 1992Dismissed

Indian Tube Co. transferred Rs 90 lakh to a dividend reserve in 1963, of which Rs 76 lakh was paid out as dividend and Rs 14 lakh remained. The issue was whether the transferred amount, or any part of it, should be treated as a reserve for computing the company's capital under the Companies (Profits) Sur‑tax Act, 1964,

SMT. ARATI DUTTAversusEASTERN TEA ESTATE (P) LTD.

1987 INSC 33513 November 1987Disposed off

The appellant filed a petition under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking determination of liabilities of Eastern Tea Estate (P) Ltd. The parties compromised, agreeing that no auditor would be appointed and that the Court would decide liability based on the 1973 balance sheet. A Single Judge of

RAJRATAN BABULAL AGARWALversusSOLARTEX INDIA PVT. LTD.& ORS.

2022 INSC 108113 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an ex‑director of the corporate debtor, contested the admission of an application filed by the operational creditor under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) alleging a debt for coal supplied under a purchase order. The creditor claimed the coal was of inferior quality, leading to email

SABITHA RAMAMURTHY AND ANR.versusR.B.S. CHANNABASAVARADHA

2006 INSC 60113 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were alleged to have issued two cheques on behalf of Karnataka News Net (Bangalore) Ltd. which were later dishonoured. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed, invoking Section 141 to hold the directors vicariously liable. The complaint, however, failed to specifically s

M/S. DALE AND CARRINGTON INVT. P. LTD. AND ANOTHERversusP.K. PRATHAPAN AND OTHERS

2004 INSC 51513 September 2004Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of M/s. Dale & Carrington Investments Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director P.K. Ramanujam, upholding the Kerala High Court’s order that the allotment of 6,865 equity shares to Ramanujam was invalid. The Court held that no valid Board meeting had taken place, the company did not ne

STANTECH PROJECT ENGG. PVT. LTD.versusNICCO CORPORATION LTD.

2015 INSC 57013 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Stantech Project Engineering Pvt Ltd filed winding‑up petitions against Nicco Corporation Ltd for unpaid debts that the respondent had admitted. The Company Judge allowed the respondent’s counsel to obtain a concession to pay the debt in installments, thereby postponing the publication of the winding‑up petition. The r

DCM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusNEEL KAMAL PLASTICS LTD. & ANR.

2008 INSC 93213 August 2008Dismissed

DCM Financial Services Ltd., a creditor of Pure Drinks Ltd., filed a winding‑up petition under the Companies Act, 1956, which initially restrained the debtor from alienating its assets. During the pendency, the debtor sold property in other proceedings and the purchaser agreed to pay Rs 1.95 crore to DCM, which was rep

SINGER INDIA LTD.versusCHANDER MOHAN CHADHA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 44713 August 2004Dismissed

The landlord sued Singer India Ltd for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging that the American tenant had transferred possession to the Indian company without the landlord's written consent. The transfer resulted from a court‑sanctioned amalgamation compelled by a Reserve Bank of India

LAUREL ENERGETICS PVT. LTD.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2017 INSC 61613 July 2017Dismissed

Laurel Energetics Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) acquired 18% of Rattan India Infrastructure Ltd., the target company, in July 2014 at Rs 6.30 per share. In October 2015 it made an open offer to acquire the remaining shares at Rs 3.20 per share. SEBI held that the acquisition was not exempt under Regulation 10 of the SEBI Subst

SHRIRAM CHITS AND INVESTMENT (P) LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1993 INSC 22213 July 1993Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, challenged by various chit fund companies and individuals on the grounds that it infringed their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) and that Parliament lacked legislative competence, alleging the Act dealt with money‑lend

KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA AND ORS.versusMEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI AND ANR.

2009 INSC 80213 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a practising advocate, filed a complaint alleging that the construction and tarring of a road by an architect (appellant No.6) at the direction of the managing director and other directors of a company (appellants No.1‑5) caused wrongful restraint to him and his parents in accessing their house. The tri

RITESH AGARWAL AND ANR.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT AND ORS.

2008 INSC 65713 May 2008Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined SEBI’s action against the promoters of Ritesh Polyster Ltd., whose 1995 public issue was found to be a fraudulent hoax. SEBI directed the promoters – including the father, his wife and two sons who were minors at the time – to disassociate from the capital market for ten years under Sections

SUDHARSHAN TRADING COMPANY LTD.versusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS AND ORS.

1994 INSC 21913 May 1994Disposed off

The Supreme Court clarified directions given on 14 May 1993 in a dispute between Sudharshan Trading Company Ltd., its subsidiary’s liquidators, and the Subscribers' Association of a chit fund. The Court ordered the holding company to pay 25% interest on a Rs 5 lakh deposit for the period 3 Nov 1989 to 5 Apr 1990, after

ASPINWALL AND CO. LTD.versusINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

2026 INSC 35913 April 2026Dismissed

Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. amalgamated with Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd., with the scheme approved in 2006 and the appointed date set as 01‑01‑2006. The appellant sought to set off the accumulated losses of the amalgamating company against its own income under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, relying on

M/S. SURANA STEELS PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC.versusTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

1999 INSC 17813 April 1999Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered whether the term "loss" in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, as incorporated into Section 115‑J of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, includes depreciation. The assessees, including Mis. Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd. and V.V. Trans‑Investments (P) Ltd., argued that lo

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusN. HARGOPAL & ORS.

1987 INSC 10513 April 1987Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 applies to government establishments and whether it obliges any employer to recruit only candidates sponsored by employment exchanges. It held that government offices are "establishments in public sector" and th

ASH OK KUMAR KAPUR AND ORSversusASHOK KHANNA AND ORS

2007 INSC 28413 March 2007Matter referred to larger bench

The case concerned a pension fund set up as a trust by Mis Dunlop India Ltd. After the beneficiaries had been paid, the trustees applied to the Calcutta High Court under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act seeking a direction on the surplus fund. The High Court refused to entertain the application, holding that Section

GOPIKA CHANDRABHUSHAN SARAN & ANR.versusM/S. XLO INDIA LTD. & ANR.

2009 INSC 18213 February 2009Dismissed

The case concerned a residential flat allotted to Mr C.B. Saran, a managing director of XLO India Ltd., which after his resignation and death was occupied by his heirs (the appellants). The company filed a criminal complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging wrongful withholding of its property. The

PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.versusPODDAR PROJECTS LTD. & ANR.

2007 INSC 13813 February 2007Disposed off

Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (appellant) held shares of Poddar Udyog Ltd. Under a court‑sanctioned scheme of arrangement, a portion of the business was transferred to Poddar Projects Ltd. (respondent No.1), which subsequently sold the shares to Vijaya Finance Corp. Ltd. (respondent No.2). The appellan

U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.versusU.P. RAJYA SETU NIGAM S. KARAMCHARI SANGH

2004 INSC 10913 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. terminated the services of 168 muster‑roll employees after they remained absent for more than ten consecutive days, invoking Clause L‑2.12 of its Certified Standing Orders. The employees, represented by a union, filed writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the termination. T

PREM CHAND JAIN & ANRversusR. K. CHHABRA

1984 INSC 2913 February 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, members of Commercial University Ltd (CUL), were prosecuted under Section 24 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 for continuing to use the word "University" and for conferring degrees after the Act came into force, despite CUL being incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913. The central issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAMversusHINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ORS.

2015 INSC 2613 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether an Official Liquidator, appointed to wind up Premier Cable Company Ltd., qualifies as a "dealer" under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and consequently bears sales tax liability on the auction sale of the company's assets. The Court held that the liquidator, by stepping into th

MIS INDIAN MAIZE AND CHEMICALS LTD.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1997 INSC 2013 January 1997Dismissed

Indian Maize and Chemicals Ltd obtained electricity supply from the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board under an agreement governed by the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The company accrued arrears of Rs 49.95 lakh and, to avoid disconnection, agreed to pay the amount in twelve monthly instalments, a plan accepted by

JAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY MR. TEJ RAM MEENAversusJAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.

2018 INSC 119612 December 2018Leave granted

The employees' union of Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd challenged a High Court order that refused to transfer winding‑up proceedings, filed under Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and set aside an NCLT order admitting a Section 7 insolvency application by Alch

ERACH BOMAN KHAVARversusTUKARAM SHRIDHAR BHAT AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 82712 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landlord, sought to evict a tenant occupying a flat owned by his father under a licence agreement with a company that later went into winding up. While the eviction suit was pending, the appellant applied under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the court's permission to continue the suit again

PRADYUT BORDOLOIversusSWAPAN ROY

2000 INSC 58712 December 2000Dismissed

Pradyut Bordoloi, a Clerk Grade‑I in Coal India Ltd., filed his nomination for the Margherita Legislative Assembly seat. A complaint alleged that his employment constituted an "office of profit" under the Government of India, invoking disqualification under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Re

M/S COX AND KINGS LTD. AND ANR.versusSMT. CHANDER MALHOTRA

1996 INSC 147512 December 1996Dismissed

The premises were originally leased to Cox & Kings (Agents) Ltd., a foreign company incorporated in the United Kingdom. After the Reserve Bank of India denied permission for the foreign company to continue its business under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the leasehold interest was assigned to an Indian com

S. M. MAHENDRU AND COMPANY ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

1984 INSC 23412 December 1984Dismissed

The petitioners, tenants in a building owned by an Apex Co‑operative Society, challenged a 1976 notification issued under section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 which exempted all buildings owned by co‑operative societies from the Act’s provisions. They argued that the blanket exempti

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAversusSMT. V. LAKSHMIKUTTY

1980 INSC 23412 December 1980Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered two distinct matters. In Official Liquidator v. Lakshmikutty, the Court held that Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 incorporates the set‑off rule of Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, so that where a creditor and a company in winding up have mutual dealings, only the net bala

DEVINDER SINGH AND ORSversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

2007 INSC 108312 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of agricultural land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, challenged the State's acquisition of their land for a project of International Tractors Ltd. The State issued a notification under Section 4 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, entered into an agreement with the company

ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD.versusALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS

2022 INSC 71312 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., the licensor, granted individual shop licenses to various shopkeepers, including the respondents, and later revoked those licenses. The respondents filed suits seeking a declaration that their licenses were irrevocable and perpetual. While the suits were pending, they applied to amend their p

UNION OF INDIAversusABN AMRO BANK AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 46212 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India prosecuted M/s Maple Leaf Trading International Pvt. Ltd. and its foreign shareholders for trading imported gold coins without RBI permission, alleging violations of Sections 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d), 29(1)(b), 47(1), 49(1)(a) and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Adjudicating Authority

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusVENKATESWARLU KARI AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 56212 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned PTC India Financial Services Ltd (PIFSL) who, after a corporate debtor defaulted, invoked a pledge over 31,80,678 dematerialised shares of NEVPL under a pledge deed and sought to enforce its rights under the Contract Act, 1872. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had held that the pledge cr

PANCHANAN OHARA AND ORS.versusMONMATHA NATH MAITY (DEAD) TH. LRS. & ANR.

2006 INSC 32812 May 2006Dismissed

The appellant, a subsequent purchaser of a suit property, challenged a decree granting specific performance of an agreement for sale entered into between the original buyer (Respondent No.1) and a private limited company (Respondent No.2). The company had promised to execute and register a sale deed but later refused,

NAZIR HOOSEIN AND ANR.versusDARAYUS BHATTENA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 32412 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, directors of a motor‑sports club, challenged a series of board resolutions passed in a meeting on 8 November 1995 that removed the appellant as chairman, appointed a respondent as chairman and added twelve directors, alleging the meeting was held without notice. The High Court had earlier ordered a fres

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIPCOT, A MADRAS - 8 AND ORS.versusCONTROMIX PVT. LTD. BY ITS DIRECTOR (FINANCE) SEETHARAMAN, MADRAS AND ANR

1995 INSC 37312 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Contromix Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.1) obtained a term loan of Rs 38 lakhs and a soft loan of Rs 6.8 lakhs from SIPCOT, a State Financial Corporation, and executed a mortgage. The company repeatedly defaulted despite several reschedulings, leading SIPCOT to foreclose, take possession of the mortgaged assets and attempt

ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 36112 April 2023Dismissed

The Anil Agarwal Foundation, a private company at the time of land acquisition, sought 6,000 acres of agricultural land in Odisha to establish a university. The State issued Section 4(1) notifications and proceeded with acquisition despite the company’s conversion to a public company occurring only after the notificati

TEXTILE LABOUR ASSOCIATION AND ANR.versusTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ANR.

2004 INSC 25012 April 2004Case Allowed

The Official Liquidator of Ambica Mills Ltd., a company under liquidation, sought the court’s permission to sell the company’s immovable assets and to distribute the proceeds, directing that the dues of ONGC Ltd. be paid first. The Textile Labour Association and another workers' union, representing workmen owed more th

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPURversusM/S GOPAL SHRI SCRIPS PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 35112 March 2019

The Income Tax Department appealed an assessment order, but the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous after learning that the assessee company, Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt. Ltd., had been struck off the register under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. The question before the Supreme Court was whet

PHATU ROCHIRAM MULCHANDANIversusKARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ORS.

2014 INSC 18512 March 2014Dismissed

The appellant, a promoter/shareholder of Relectronics Ltd., challenged the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board’s termination of a lease‑cum‑sale agreement for two industrial plots allotted to the company, arguing that the company owned the land and that the Board required prior court permission under the Compa

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, U.P. AND UTTARAKHANDversusALLAHABAD BANK AND ORS.

2013 INSC 15312 March 2013Disposed off

The Official Liquidator of a company in liquidation challenged the setting aside of an auction and sale of the company's assets that had been conducted by a Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (ROB Act). The Company Judge of the High Court had intervened, nulli

M/S. P.G.F. LIMITED & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

2013 INSC 15512 March 2013Dismissed

PGF Limited, which sold and developed agricultural land and ran joint‑venture schemes, was directed by SEBI to cease collecting money and to refund investors, on the ground that its activities constituted a collective investment scheme (CIS) under Section 11AA of the SEBI Act. PGF challenged the SEBI order and the cons

USHA ANANTHASUBRAMANIANversusUNION OF INDIA

2020 INSC 17612 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Usha Anandhasubramanian, former MD & CEO of Punjab National Bank, was subject to a CBI charge sheet for alleged negligence in preventing the Nirav Modi fraud. The NCLT, and subsequently the NCLAT, ordered a freeze of her assets under Sections 241, 337 and 339 of the Companies Act, 1956, invoking the Tribunal's power to

T.N. ALLOY FOUNDRY CO. LTD.versusT.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

2004 INSC 10212 February 2004Dismissed

T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, sued the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others for damages arising from non‑supply of electricity between 28 March 1983 and 16 October 1992. The suit was filed in March 1993, and in July 1998 the company sought to amend the plaint to

DOYPACK SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS., ETC.

1988 INSC 4212 February 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered multiple suits and special leave petitions concerning whether 10,00,000 shares in Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. and 17,18,344 shares in Swadeshi Mining & Manufacturing Ltd., held by Swadeshi Cotton Mills, along with certain immovable properties in Kanpur, vested in the Central Government under Sect

BALKRISHAN GUPTA AND ORS.versusSWADESHI POLYTEX LTD. AND ANR

1985 INSC 2412 February 1985Dismissed

The Collector of Kanpur appointed a receiver over Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. and ordered the seizure, attachment and pledge of its 10 lakh shares in Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. The Cotton Mills Company, together with four other shareholders, requisitioned an extraordinary general meeting of Polytex under s.169 of the Compani

DR. K.R. LAKSHMANAN ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

1996 INSC 5712 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Madras Race Club, a company that conducts horse races, challenged the Tamil Nadu Horse Races (Abolition and Wagering or Betting) Act, 1974 and the Madras Race Club (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986. The Court held that horse racing is a game of "mere skill" under Section 49 of the Police Act and

LALANKUMAR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2022 INSC 106111 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, directors of Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., were charged under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for manufacturing a sub‑standard drug (Hemfer syrup) and were summoned as accused under sections 16, 18 and 34. They challenged the summons, a criminal revision and a writ petition, arguing that mere dire

HILL PROPERTIES LTD.versusUNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 60711 September 2013Dismissed

Hill Properties Ltd., the appellant, claimed ownership of Flat No.23 in Mumbai, asserting that the flat was allotted to its shareholder (Respondent No.5) who could only occupy it and could not mortgage it without the company's consent under its Articles of Association. Respondent No.5 had created an equitable mortgage

M/S. GUJARAT MACHINERY MANUFACTURERS LTD.versusCOLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA.

1996 INSC 103911 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent transferee-company sought sanction of a scheme of amalgamation with the transferor-company. The appellant, a shareholder, objected on grounds of non-disclosure of director's interest, unfairness to minority, and unfair exchange ratio. The High Court sanctioned the scheme, and the Division Bench confirmed

MJHEER H. MAFATLALversusMAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

[1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 111 September 1996

Mafatlal Industries Ltd (the transferee) sought to amalgamate with Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Manufacturing Co Ltd (the transferor) under a scheme of arrangement approved by a meeting of equity shareholders. The appellant, Miheer H. Mafatlal, a 5% shareholder and director of the transferor, objected under Section 391 o

KAMAL KUMAR DUTTA AND ANR.versusRUBY GENERAL HOSPITAL LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 50611 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved Dr. Kamal Kumar Dutta, a major shareholder of Ruby General Hospital Ltd., who alleged that the company’s board, led by his younger brother, fabricated board resolutions, denied him shares for equipment supplied, and ousted him as managing director, constituting oppression and mismanagement under Secti

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusSUNIL KRISHNA KHAITAN AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 66911 July 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined two appeals filed by SEBI against Sunil Krishna Khaitan and others and Madhuri S. Pitti, challenging SEBI's show‑cause notices and directions under the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997. The Court clarified that the term “acquirer” in Regulation 10 inclu

RAMESH B. DESAI AND ORS.versusBIPIN VADILAL MEHTA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 41511 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, nine shareholders of Sayaji Industries Ltd., filed a Company Petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act seeking rectification of the register on the ground that the managing director, Bipin Mehta, had fraudulently used company funds to purchase its own shares, violating Section 77. The respondents

AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSOCIATIONversusYESHAWINEE MERCHANT AND ORS.

2003 INSC 30911 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the retirement age and service conditions of air hostesses employed by Air India and Indian Airlines, who under various agreements were required to retire from flying duties at age 50 (later 45/50) with the option of ground duties up to age 58, while male cabin crew could serve until 58. A small g

DIVYA MANUFACTURING CO. (P) LTD. TIRUPATI WOOLLEN MILLS SHRAMIK SHANGHARSH SAMITY AND ANR.versusUNION BANK OF LNDIA AND ORS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ORS.

2000 INSC 33411 July 2000Dismissed

The Calcutta High Court ordered the winding up of Tirupati Woollen Mills Ltd and directed the official liquidator to sell its assets as a going concern. The initial reserve price was Rs.37 lakh, which was later raised to Rs.85 lakh and then to Rs.1.30 crore, with Divya Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd being declared the highe

UCO BANKversusTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT, BOMBAY AND ANR.

1994 INSC 22911 July 1994

UCO Bank, a secured creditor of Glass Carboys & Pressedwares Ltd., obtained a decree in 1976 to recover its debt before the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985 came into force. The amendment inserted a proviso to Section 529(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, deeming the security of every secured creditor to be subject to a pa

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