Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 : Company, Competition & IBC Laws

Administrative Action - Judicial Review of - Statutory Authorities - Interplay with IBC Moratorium - Held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not curtailed by Section 14 of the IBC - The High Court is competent to entertain a writ petition and direct statutory authorities to process a redevelopment proposal in favour of a new developer, even during the pendency of CIRP - Such directions fall in the public law domain and do not encroach upon the NCLT's jurisdiction or offend the moratorium, especially where the corporate debtor has no subsisting contractual or proprietary interest in the project. [Relied on Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd v. Amit Gupta and others 2021 7 SCC 209; Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others 2020 13 SCC 308; Para 17, 20] A.A. Estates v. Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1151 : 2025 INSC 1366 Article 226 - Constitutional Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Statutory Authorities - Interplay with IBC Moratorium - Held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not curtailed by Section 14 of the IBC - The High Court is competent to entertain a writ petition and direct statutory authorities to process a redevelopment proposal in favour of a new developer, even during the pendency of CIRP - Such directions fall in the public law domain and do not encroach upon the NCLT's jurisdiction or offend the moratorium, especially where the corporate debtor has no subsisting contractual or proprietary interest in the project. [Relied on Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd v. Amit Gupta and others 2021 7 SCC 209; Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others 2020 13 SCC 308; Para 17, 20] A.A. Estates v. Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1151 : 2025 INSC 1366 Companies Act, 2013; Section 212 and 447 - Punishment for Fraud - Investigation into affairs of company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office - Bail, including anticipatory bail, cannot be granted for an offence under Section 447 of the Act 2013 unless twin conditions are satisfied. Section 212 (6) of the Companies Act states that the offences covered under Section 447 are cognisable in nature and no person can be released on bail unless he satisfies the twin conditions, that are: (1) that a Public Prosecutor should be given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; (2) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Cryptic orders granting bail without adverting to the facts or the consideration of such restrictive conditions are perverse and liable to be set aside. (Relied: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1; Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 201; Para 23 – 25)) Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 414 : 2025 INSC 477 Companies Act, 2013; Section 212 (6) and 447 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 82, 204 and 438 –Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigated Adarsh Group for illegal loans worth Rs. 1700 crores, alleging fraud and siphoning of funds. Special Court issued bailable and non-bailable warrants and initiated proclamation proceedings against accused for non-compliance. High Court granted anticipatory bail, ignoring mandatory bail conditions under Section 212(6) and 2 accused's absconding conduct. High Court orders set aside as perverse for disregarding legal provisions and Special Court proceedings. Accused directed to surrender. (Para 23 - 30) Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 414 : 2025 INSC 477 Contract Act, 1872 - Section 74 - Inapplicability to Court -Supervised Sales - Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate - Conduct of Litigant - A forfeiture condition stipulated by the NCLT while granting an extension of time in a liquidation proceeding cannot be equated with a forfeiture clause in a private contract - a defaulting purchaser cannot invoke Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act to seek a refund on the grounds that the stakeholders suffered no actual loss - A party cannot "approbate and reprobate" by acting upon an order (e.g., making partial payments after an extension is granted) and subsequently assailing the conditions of that same order - Appeal dismissed. [Relied on: Kridhan Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Venkatesan Sankaranarayan and others, (2021) 6 SCC 94; Paras 12-19] Shri Karshni Alloys v. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1195 : 2025 INSC 1411 NCLT, NCLAT Vacancies must be filled on war footing - RERA must be adequately staffed – Held, dedicated IBC benches with additional strength...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 : Company, Competition & IBC Laws

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags