Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: February 2026

JudgmentsNo Point In Prosecution Multiplying Witnesses On One & Same Issue, Says Supreme Court While Granting Bail Due To Trial DelayCase Details: Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya v. State of Maharashtra | Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 439/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 99The Supreme Court released a petitioner on bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(NDPS Act), after finding that he had spent more than three years in undertrial custody, with 159 witnesses left to be examined.The petitioner has been arrested by the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Worli Unit, under Sections 8(b), 22(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, for possessing 2428 kg of Mephedrone.A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, in the order passed on January 28, stated that despite the seriousness of the alleged offence, the Court had to exercise discretion in granting bail in an NDPS case because the Trial Court took more than three and a half years to frame charges.IBC | Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Corporate Entities Which Are Intricately Linked : Supreme CourtCase Details: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 100In a relief to homebuyers, the Supreme Court (February 2) held that in real estate projects, a single insolvency petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code is maintainable against more than one corporate entity if they are intrinsically connected in the execution and marketing of the project.A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran upheld the NCLAT's ruling, which has permitted a joint Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against two corporate entities that were intrinsically connected to the real estate project.The insolvency proceedings arose from the failure of the developers to hand over possession of commercial units to homebuyers despite long delays. The NCLT admitted the petition filed by the allottees, a decision later affirmed by the NCLAT. The developers and their directors approached the Supreme Court, contending that the insolvency proceedings were legally unsustainable as initiating a joint CIRP is impermissible under the IBC.When Arbitration Agreement Is Alleged To Be Forged, Dispute Is Not Arbitrable : Supreme CourtCase Details: Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee (With Connected Appeal)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 101The Supreme Court (February 2) observed that the parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate when the very existence of the contract containing the arbitration clause was alleged to be fake.“…in a case where plea is taken with regard to non-existence of an arbitration clause or agreement, the same would amount to serious allegation of fraud and would render the subject matter of an agreement non-arbitrable.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, pointing that the allegations of fraud going to the very existence of the contract containing the arbitration clause must be first decided by the civil court.“when an allegation of fraud is made with regard to arbitration agreement itself, such a dispute is generally recognised as a dispute, which is in the realm of non-arbitrability and the court will examine it, as a jurisdictional issue only to enquire whether the dispute has become non-arbitrable due to one or the other reason.”, the court said.Temple Trust Not An 'Industry' As Per Industrial Disputes Act : Supreme CourtCase Details: Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada v. Laxminarayan Dev TrustCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 102Holding that a temple trust does not qualify as an “industry”, the Supreme Court upheld the termination of an accountant employed by the trust, despite the absence of a formal inquiry and after more than twelve years of service.“the respondent-Trust is a temple and as such, it would not fall within the four corners of the expression “industry”.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.However, acknowledging the uninterrupted and continuous service rendered by the Appellant and he was terminated without holding any inquiry, followed by a transfer to a far-off location, the Court directed the Respondent-trust to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs).Armed Forces Tribunal Can Hear Appeal Against Findings Of ICC Under POSH Act : Supreme CourtCase Details: 42605-B Cdr Yogesh Mahla v. Union of India & OthersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 103The Supreme Court ruled that an army personnel aggrieved by the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act can file an appeal before the Armed Forces Tribunal.“Section 14 of the AFT Act, 2007 when read in juxtaposition with Section 18 of the POSH Act, we find that the appellant herein had rightly approached the Tribunal so as to assail the report as well as the recommendations of the ICC. The Tribunal ought to have considered the correctness of the said report in accordance with law.”,...

Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: February 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags