Supreme court
Investments Of Multi State Co-Operative Societies Must Align With Society's Own Business As Per Bye-Laws: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a multi-state co-operative society can invest in another company, including as a resolution applicant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, only if the target company is either its subsidiary or engaged in the “same line of business”.A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan clarified that Section 64 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which governs how such societies can invest their funds, restricts investments to...
IBC | NCLT Not To Examine If 'Pre-Existing Dispute' Will Succeed While Considering S.9 Application Of Operational Creditor : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that it is impermissible for the adjudicating authority under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code to examine the merits of the dispute while considering an application for CIRP under Section 9 by an operational creditor. It added that once the authority is satisfied that there exists a plausible pre-existing dispute, the Section 9 application would be non-maintainable. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the NCLAT's judgment, which...
Right To Vote & Right To Contest In Elections Not Fundamental Rights: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right. The two rights are distinct from each other, and the right to contest is subject to stricter regulations, such as, in terms of qualifications, disqualifications, and institutional requirements.A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the observation while dealing with an election dispute related to District Milk Unions in Rajasthan.The judgment authored...
Supreme Court Daily Round-Up : April 10, 2026
Links to reports of April 10 :Court Cannot Substitute Its Decision In Place Of Authority's Discretion : Supreme Court Sets Aside Direction To GovernorTitle Suit Hit By 'Constructive Res Judicata' If Plaintiff Omitted It In Earlier Injunction Suit Where Title Was Disputed : Supreme CourtWest Bengal SIR | Supreme Court To Consider 'Freezing Date' Issue For Pending Appeals On April 13'Don't Rush To Court' : Supreme Court To Advocate Who Filed 25 PILsSupreme Court Dismisses Plea To Stop Caste...
Granting Pensioners Lower Dearness Relief Than Employees' DA Is Arbitrary, Violates Article 14: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday (April 10) observed that granting higher dearness allowance (DA) to serving employees than dearness relief (DR) to pensioners is arbitrary and violates Article 14, ruling that both benefits share a common objective, i.e., neutralising the impact of inflation. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale dismissed appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), thereby upholding the Kerala High Court's decision...
General Reference To Tender Document Containing Arbitration Clause Will Not Amount To Its Incorporation In Contract : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a general reference in a Letter of Intent to an arbitration clause contained in a tender document cannot form a valid arbitration clause to seek an appointment of an arbitrator.A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Bombay High Court order that had appointed an arbitrator in a construction dispute. The High Court had originally allowed the Respondent's plea for arbitration by concluding that a valid agreement existed....
Title Suit Hit By 'Constructive Res Judicata' If Plaintiff Omitted It In Earlier Injunction Suit Where Title Was Disputed : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified on Thursday (April 9) that a subsequent suit for declaration of title would be barred under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC (constructive res judicata) if the plaintiff had omitted to seek title declaration in the earlier suit for permanent injunction where title was under dispute.The Court held that since the claim to title could and should have been raised in...
