Filing of Applications under IBC, 2016 : Supreme Court Clarifies the Legal Position
It has been held till the objections in an application filed under Sections 7, 9 or 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are removed, it is not to be treated as an application validly filed, as it is only after the application is complete in every respect that it is required to be entertained.
Satinder Singh Bhasin versus Col. Gautam Mullick [2026] GCtR 99 (SC)
Duty of Trial Courts Explained by Supreme Court
It was noted that the accused did not cross examine the witnesses at the initial stage and it was only after she engaged her own counsel and her application for re-examining those witnesses was allowed that she was permitted to do so. It is incumbent upon the trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings, faced with such situations, to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The trial Courts shall record the offer made to the accused in this regard, the response of the accused to such offer and also the action taken thereupon in their orders, before commencing examination of the witnesses.
Reginamary Chellamani v. State [2026] GCtR 98 (SC)
What are the Essential Things to Obtain Injunction : Supreme Court Highlights the Legal Position
Disposing of a civil appeal after more than 13 years, it has been held that when suit is one for perpetual injunction, alternatively for recovery of possession, then the plaintiff for the relief of perpetual injunction, along with prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, must also prove the actual possession of the suit schedule on the date of filing of the suit. It is axiomatic that possession on the date of filing the suit is an essential requisite for granting perpetual injunction.
Kanta v. Soma Devi [2026] GCtR 97 (SC)
Essentials of Prosecution under PMLA, 2002 Explained by High Court
Law relating to PMLA, 2002 was explained in Manoj Kumar Babulal Punamiya v. State of Jharkhand [2025] GCtR 1919 (Jharkhand) and the petition filed by accused was dismissed. S.2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002 indicates that in the explanation it has been referred that for removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
In this case, accused in ECIR under PMLA, 2002 was not an accused in the FIR of scheduled offence and HC dismissed the petition of accused filed in respect of prosecution under PMLA, 2002.
Change of State of Members of IPS : Supreme Court Answers the Legal Position
Dealing with case of change of State cadre of member of IPS, it has been held that finality has to be attached to the process of selection. Claim made by member of IPS for change of cadre from State 1 to State 2 was rejected.
Rupesh K. Meena v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 96 (SC)
Notice issued by Govt Organisation for Empanelment of Advocates : Last Date to Apply will expire before 15 Feb 2026
Notice has been issued by a Govt. organisation for empanelment of Advocates.
Last date to apply will expire before 15 February 2026.
Panel will be valid for 3 years.
Full text copy of notification is uploaded on the official website of the organisation.
Anyone who is interested in receiving full text (PDF) copy of notification directly on their email address, they may click on Follow option on right side of this blog and mention your email address in "Comments" section of this post.
Vacancy in Govt Organisation for Legal Professionals : Salary More Than Rs. 2.04 Lacs
Salary : Rs. 2.25 lacs
Organisation : CERC
Last Date : 19 February 2026
Effect of Acquittal/Discharge in Predicate Offence on Proceedings under PMLA, 2002
Effect of Scheduled Offence Occurring before the year 2005 on Proceedings under PMLA, 2002
ED v. Hi-Tech Mercantile India Pvt Ltd [2025] GCtR 1918 (Delhi) has answered issued on PMLA, 2002 and petition filed by ED was allowed. S.3 of PMLA, 2002 was discussed. In this case, coal block allocation took place before the year 2005 and despite that, the action initiated under PMLA, 2002 were not held invalid.
It was held that continuing nature of the offence of money laundering is recognised under explanation (ii) to Section 3 of the PMLA, which highlights that the said offence persists as long as the proceeds of crime are possessed, used, concealed, or projected as untainted. ED is not confined to the timeframe or scope set out by the predicate agency.
It was held that it is erroneous to conclude that since the first FIR and the consequential chargesheet were quashed by this Court, that there exists no criminal activity, consequently, there can be no proceeds of crime, thereby failing to attract the offence of money laundering under the PMLA. Therefore, at this stage, the Court ought not to have rendered conclusive findings premised on an outcome that lacks finality. More specifically, owing to the reason that, the quashing of the FIR and chargesheet was allowed at a preliminary stage, without delving into the examination of the facts, evidence and surrounding circumstances.
Important Tax Decisions of January 2026
To receive full text (PDF) Copies of all these decisions with Synopsis Free of cost directly on your email address, please follow following steps : 1. Click on "follow" option on right side to become follower of this blog; 2. Mention your email address in "Comments" section of this post.
PMLA, 2002 and Role of Scheduled Offence/ Predicate Offence
Dealing with PMLA, 2002 is has been held that an equally well settled principle relating to the retroactive application of penal provisions is that merely because a requisite or facet for initiation of action pertains to a period prior to the enforcement of the statute, that would not be sufficient to characterize the statute as being retrospective. The Court thus concludes that an offense of money laundering that may be committed post 01 July 2005 would still be subject to the rigours of the PMLA, 2002 notwithstanding the predicate offense having been committed prior to that date.
Prakash Industries Ltd v. ED [2022] GCtR 2008 (Delhi)
Money Laundering and Nature of Offence under PMLA, 2002
"Though the expression 'continuing offence' is not defined in the PMLA, 2002 whether a particular offence is a continuing one or not depends upon the nature of offence and purpose intended to be achieved. The concept of continuing offence is keeping the offence alive day by day without wiping the original guilt. Thus, there is an ingredient of continuance of the offence in continuing offence."
Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt Ltd versus ED [2019] GCtR 6578 (Madras)
Who is a Consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ? Supreme Court Explains the Law
Dealing with case under S.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it has been held that the mere factum of leasing out the flat does not, by itself, demonstrate that the person purchased the property with the dominant purpose of engaging in commercial activity ; the mere act of purchasing immovable property, even multiple units, cannot ipso facto attract the exclusion clause of S. 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.
Vinit Bahri v. MGF Developers Ltd [2026] GCtR 85 (SC)
What Kind of Disputes are Arbitrable ? Supreme Court Answers the Issue
Dealing with a case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 it has been held that "where the arbitration agreement itself is alleged to be forged or fabricated, the disputes ceases to be merely contractual and strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction." "Arbitration, it bears reiteration, is founded upon consent. A party may be bound by the arbitral process only if it is first shown, even at a prima facie level, that such a party had agreed to submit disputes to arbitration."
Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee [2026] GCtR 83 (SC)
Arrest of Accused in cases under PMLA, 2002 : Law Demystified
In case dealing with PMLA, 2002 it has been held that merely because at initial stages when the accused/applicants were not under any judicial protection against arrest the DoE opted not to arrest them, does not mean that the need now expressed by DoE to conduct custodial interrogation is unjustified.
Bhaskar Yadav v. ED [2026] GCtR 82 (Delhi)
Property and National Highways : Legal Effect Explained by High Court
It is relevant to note that entry No.23 of List I (Union list) of the 7th Schedule, as per Article 246 of the Constitution of India, specifies highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highways. Thus, Central Government has exclusive power in the context of national highways. The State Government under S.3-A (1) of National Highways Act, 1956 has absolutely no power under the said provision to issue any notification with regard to acquisition of land for the purpose of national highways.
Vikrant Happy Homes Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 81 (Bombay)
Cross- Examination of Witnesses in cases under FEMA Explained by High Court
In Shahid Balwa v. ED [2013] GCtR 5814 (Delhi) dealing with case under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, it is held that "cross-examination of witnesses has been held to be an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. Refusal to grant permission to cross-examine witnesses would normally be an exception."
The legal position that would follow is that normally if the credibility of a person who has testified or given some information is in doubt or if the version or the statement of the person who has testified is in dispute normally right to cross-examination would be inevitable. If some real prejudice is caused to the complainant, the right to cross-examine witnesses may be denied.
No doubt, it is not possible to lay down any rigid rules as to when in compliance of principles of natural justice opportunity to crossexamine should be given. Everything depends on the subject matter. In the application of the concept of fair play there has to be flexibility. The application of the principles of natural justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Its Scope Explained by Supreme Court
Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 says this : "Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station." S.36 of Code, 1973 can be compared with S.30 of BNSS, 2023.
It has been held in State of Kerala v. P.B. Sourabhan [2016] GCtR 6577 (SC) that "we do not see how Sec. 36, in any way, can debar the exercise of powers by the State Police Chief to appoint any superior officer who, in his opinion, would be competent and fit to investigate a particular case keeping in view the circumstances thereof."
"Section 36 empowers police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a Police Station to exercise the same powers as that of an officer in charge of a police station insofar as the territorial/local area within the jurisdiction of such superior police officers is concerned. Section 18(1) of the State Police Act, on the other hand, vests the administration, supervision, direction and control of the police throughout the State in the State Police Chief."
The power under Section 36, on a plain reading thereof, is to be exercised by the District Police Chief who, by virtue of the said section, is empowered to appoint an officer above the rank of an officer in charge of a police station to exercise the same powers as may be exercised by an officer in charge of the police station. This is, however, subject to the condition that such superior officer would be competent to exercise powers within the territorial/local limits of his jurisdiction.
Section 36 of Code, 1973 does not fetter the jurisdiction of the State Police Chief to pass such an order based on his satisfaction. It is the satisfaction of the State Police Chief, in the light of the facts of a given case, that would be determinative of the appointment to be made in which situation the limits of jurisdiction will not act as fetter or come in the way of exercise of such jurisdiction by the superior officer so appointed. Such an appointment would not be hedged by the limitations imposed by Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 18 of the State Police Act, on the other hand, does not confer any such power and merely recognises the State Police Chief as the head of the police force in the State.
Money Laundering and Changes in PMLA, 2002
Finance Act, 2018 has amended various sections of PMLA, 2002. They are : S.45, S.5, S.19. Schedule of PMLA, 2002 was also amended to include S.447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
S.2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002 was amended where the words "or abroad" was added.
Finance Act, 2018 was published in Gazette of India EO Part II Section 1 which was published in website on 30 March 2018. S.208 of Finance Act, 2018 amended the PMLA, 2002.
It may be noted that PMLA, 2002 was amended in the year 2009 also and later on, it was amended through the Finance Act, 2018.
In this case (Vijayraj Surana v. ED [2024] GCtR 3475 (Madras)], FIR against accused by CBI was quashed by HC after which accused challenged prosecution under PMLA, 2002. This case answers the point whether quashment of predicate offence would lead to acquittal under PMLA, 2002 or not. The wordings in Vijay Madanlal's case cannot be accorded a narrow meaning by relying only on the summarisation towards the end of the judgment, but the observations in various paragraphs and the findings made therein must be read in tandem to extract its true essence. If the principles of automatic quashment of ECIR is adopted arithmetically, the very purpose and objective of PMLA is defeated. Hence, to warrant a quashing of the ECIR, mere quashing of the FIR on technical grounds by itself does not make the ECIR liable to be quashed. Mere quashing of the FIR does not absolve the accused under the PMLA proceedings and inturn cannot collapse the predicate offence in the PMLA proceedings.
PMLA : 10 Important Judgments of January 2026
10 (Ten) important Judgments have been pronounced in January 2026 dealing with issues related to PMLA, 2002 ("Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002").
Full text (PDF) Copies with synopsis will be shared directly on e-mail address to the followers of this blog.
To obtain copies with synopsis, kindly Click on "Follow" Option on Right Side of the Blog to become follower of this blog ; also please mention your email address in the "comments" of this blog post.
S. 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and its Legal Effect Explained by Supreme Court
Code of Civil Procedure has 158 sections. S.9 uses phrase "try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred".
It is held in Unichem Laboratories Ltd v. Rani Devi [2017] GCtR 6576 (SC) that S.9 of the Code provides that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a "civil nature" excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A suit filed to claim eviction from any accommodation is a suit of "civil nature" and, therefore, the Civil Court is competent to take cognizance of such suit unless its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by virtue of any special Enactment.
It is a settled principle of law that exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion is either be “explicitly expressed or clearly implied”. It is a principle by no means to be whittled down and has been referred to as a “fundamental rule”. As a necessary corollary of this rule, provisions excluding jurisdiction of Civil Courts are required to be construed strictly. In other words, it is trite rule of interpretation that existence of jurisdiction in Civil Courts to decide questions of civil nature is a general rule whereas the exclusion is an exception.
Disciplinary Action against Advocate for Misconduct : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Position
In this case, after costs were imposed on the client, the client had made complaint against Advocate. It was held that once the complainant (client) himself expressed complete satisfaction with the professional services rendered by the advocate and categorically sought to withdraw the complaint, the very substratum of the disciplinary proceedings under Advocates Act, 1961 ceased to exist.
Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh [2026] GCtR 74 (SC)
Role of Civil Courts under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 : Supreme Court Explains the Law
The extension of mandate or substitution of an arbitrator under S. 29A does not partake the character of “appointment” under S.11, but is a measure designed to ensure timely conclusion of arbitration. It is incorrect to argue that there will be hierarchical difficulties, conflict of power or jurisdictional anomaly if a Civil Court entertains application under S. 29A for extension of time of an arbitral tribunal if the High Court under S. 11(6) of the Act has appointed the arbitrator(s) is untenable.
Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule [2026] GCtR 73 (SC)
Property Disputes and Jurisdiction of Tribunal under Waqf Act Explained by Supreme Court
When property is not specified in the ‘list of auqaf’ as published in Chapter II nor registered under Chapter V of Waqf Act, 1985 then the decision as to whether the property is a waqf property or not cannot be decided by the Tribunal since the property is not one specified in the ‘list of auqaf’, which is the mandatory requirement under S. 6(1) and S. 7(1) of the Waqf Act of 1995 to approach the Tribunal.
Habib Alladin v. Mohammed Ahmed [2026] GCtR 72 (SC)
Interpreting a Contract and the Principles of Law
"It is of course true that the fact that a contract may appear to be unduly favourable to one of the parties is not a sufficient reason for supposing that it does not mean what it says. It is not unusual that an interpretation which does not strike one person as sufficiently irrational to justify a conclusion that there has been a linguistic mistake will seem commercially absurd to another."
Chartbrook Ltd v. Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] GCtR 6575 (UKHL)
Requirement of Notices in Legal Disputes : Supreme Court Explains the Law
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not prescribe any specific manner in which a dispute must arise. Specifically, a formal written demand by the workman is not a sine qua non for an industrial dispute to exist. The only exception is for public utility services, where Section 22 of the ID Act mandates a strike notice.
Premium Transmission Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 71 (SC)
Discharging an Accused under Criminal Law
S.227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dealt with discharge. Here, Judge can discharge an accused. BNSS, 2023 has repealed Code, 1973 by S.531 (1) of BNSS, 2023.
S.250 (1) of BNSS, 2023 had changed the law ; now accused has to file application within 60 days. S.250 (2) of BNSS, 2023 is quite similar to S.227 of Code, 1973 and gives power to Judge to discharge an accused.
The leading case on discharge of accused is P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala [2010] GCtR 5810 (SC) where it was held as follows : "Whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient or not are matters for trial. Insofar as the admissibility or acceptability of the extra judicial confession in the form of counter affidavit made by the first accused before the High Court in the earlier proceedings are all matters to be considered at the time of trial. Their probative value, admissibility, reliability etc are matters for evaluation after trial. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true."
The law was also explained in CBI v. R.R. Kishore [2023] GCtR 1528 (SC) where retrospective application of law was also held to be valid. The case discussed S.6A of DSPE Act, 1946. "Trial under a procedure different from the one when at the time of commission of an offence, or by a court different from the time when the offence was committed is not unconstitutional on account of violation of sub-article (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution." "A person accused of the commission of an offence has no fundamental right to trial by a particular court or by a particular procedure, except insofar as any constitutional objection by way of discrimination or the violation of any other fundamental right may be involved."
When High Court can issue Writ of Quo Warranto : Supreme Court Explains the Law
"A writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and the Court has to satisfy itself that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules".
Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka [2018] GCtR 6574 (SC)
Explanation IV of S.11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Explained by Supreme Court
Explanation IV of S.11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enacts a deeming fiction. As a result of the fiction, a matter which “might and ought” to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such a suit. In other words, Explanation IV is attracted when twin conditions are satisfied: the matter should be of a nature which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former suit.
Asgar v. Mohan Varma [2019] GCtR 6572 (SC)
Consideration of Contract under Indian Legal System : Supreme Court Interprets the Provisions of Law
While holding that "a registered Sale Deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness", it was observed that in view of Explanation 2 to S.25 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 mere allegation of inadequacy of consideration does not make the Deed void. It is only in the absence of sale consideration being tendered that the sale deed would be void.
Hemalatha v. Tukaram [2026] GCtR 69 (SC)
SC Decisions : January 2026
45 (Forty-five) Important Decisions of Supreme Court pronounced in the month of January 2026 are now available and full text (PDF) Copies of all 45 Judgments of Supreme Court of January 2026 will be shared with synopsis directly on e-mail address.
There are no charges. It is free.
List of decisions is as follows :
To receive full text copies with synopsis on email address, please (1) Click on Follow option to become Follower of this Blog (2) Mention your email address in comments of this blog post.
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Facing Allegations of Offence under BNS, 2023
After noting that the FIR was registered for an offence concerning abetment to commit suicide and the deceased had not sustained any such injury which can be said to be the cause of her death, allegation of demand of money/dowry was not made in the first instance but was made in the subsequent case diary statements, bail application under S.483 of BNSS, 2023 was allowed for offence under S.108 of BNS, 2023.
Abhijit Pandey v. State of MP [2026] GCtR 68 (SC)
Request for Invoking Arbitration and Its Legal Consequences Explained by Supreme Court
The statutory consequences tied to commencement, including the mandate under S.9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be assessed solely with reference to the date of receipt of request invoking arbitration under S.21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The rationale underlying Section 9(2) of the A&C Act, 1996 is that the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within ninety days from the grant of interim protection.
Regenta Hotels Pvt Ltd v. Hotel Grand Centre Point [2026] GCtR 66 (SC)
Supreme Court Explains Difference between "Law and Order" and "Public Order"
It is well settled that there is a fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order”. Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order unless there is material to show that the narcotic drug dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public health under the Telangana Act of 1986.
Roshini Devi v. State of Telangana [2026] GCtR 65 (SC)
Constitutional Role of State and Legitimate Expectations : Supreme Court Clarifies the Limitations on the Power
"The State must abandon the colonial conception of itself as a sovereign dispensing benefits at its absolute discretion. Policies formulated and representations made by the State generate legitimate expectations that it will act in accordance with what it proclaims in the public domain. In the exercise of all its functions, the State is bound to act fairly and transparently, consistent with the constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness enshrined in A.14 of the Constitution of India."
IFGL Refractories Ltd versus Orissa State Financial Corporation [2026] GCtR 64 (SC)
When can Courts Interfere in Arbitral Awards ? Supreme Court Examines and Explains the Legal Position
"When a Court is applying the public policy test to an arbitral award, it does not act as a Court of appeal and, consequently, errors of fact cannot be corrected. A plausible view by the arbitrator on facts necessarily has to pass muster as the arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his award."
Prakash Atlanta v. NHAI [2026] GCtR 63 (SC)
To obtain full text (PDF) Copy of this Judgment directly on your email free of cost, please follow this process : 1. Click on follow option to become follower of this blog 2. Comment your email address in the comments.
Service Law and Interpretation of Words : Supreme Court Examines the Controversy on Meaning of Provisions
"Different Ministries of the Government of India cannot assign different meaning to a provision in the Act of Parliament, which otherwise is clearly evident from the plain reading of Section 59 (2) of the Factories Act, 1948".
Union of India v. Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees' Union [2026] GCtR 62 (SC)
To obtain full text (PDF) Copy of this Judgment directly on your email free of cost, please follow this process : 1. Click on follow option to become follower of this blog 2. Comment your email address in the comments.
Contract and Effect of Time on Contract : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Position
The argument was accepted that "even where the parties have expressly provided that time of the essence of the contract such a stipulation will have to be read along with other provisions of the contract and such other provisions may, on construction of the contract, exclude the inference that the completion of the work by a particular date was intended to be fundamental."
Padmakumari v. Dasayyan [2015] GCtR 6570 (SC)
IBC, 2016 and Invoking Provisions on Failure of Resolution Professional : Supreme Court Analyses the Law
If the Resolution Professional, in a given CIRP does not move an application, resort to S.47 of the IBC, 2016 could be had vis-Ã -vis undervalued transactions by a creditor, member or a partner of a corporate debtor as the case may be and they may move an application to the Adjudicating Authority to declare such transactions void and reverse their effect in accordance with the provisions of the IBC.
Gloster Ltd v. Gloster Cables Ltd [2026] GCtR 61 (SC)
Criminal Activity and PMLA, 2002 : High Court Answers the Operation of Law
On a plain reading of various sections of PMLA, 2002 , it is clear that under S.2 (u) of PMLA, 2002 any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is proceeds of crime.
Jignesh Kishorebhai Bhajiawala v. State of Gujarat [2017] GCtR 6569 (Gujarat)
Even if the public servant had not taken any bribe or any other financial benefit for himself, cases for criminal offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 will continue if there is a wrongful loss to the government entity. The High Court exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot indulge in micro managing the decisions taken by trial Courts at every stage. Refer S. Kannan v. State [2019] GCtR 6445 (Madras)
Property Deeds and Criminal Liability : Supreme Court Analyses the Effect of Law
"Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element. Therefore, there cannot be any general proposition that whenever dispute involves a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go on. Criminal liability must be examined independently."
C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar [2026] GCtR 60 (SC)
Corruption and Illegal Gratification : When to Invoke S.17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
S.17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 talks about enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. S.17-A of PC Act, 1988 by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification.
Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan [2026] GCtR 59 (SC)
Grievance by a Judge and Legal Parameters to Consider it : Supreme Court Answers the Legal Issue
It has been held that "a grievance raised by a Judge, who, though a constitutional functionary by virtue of the office held, is nonetheless a public servant, questioning the desirability, advisability or necessity of initiating proceedings, or alleging procedural infirmities therein, partakes the character of a service-related dispute."
X v. Speaker of the House of People [2026] GCtR 58 (SC)
Approach of Court in Trivial Matters : Supreme Court Lays Down the Legal Principles
Even if a case is filed in a Court on a trivial issue such as maintenance under S.144 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier S. 125 of CrPC, 1973) or S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the first effort required to be made by the Court is to explore mediation instead of calling upon the parties for filing replies as allegations and counter allegations sometimes aggravate the dispute.
Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar [2026] GCtR 57 (SC)
Law to be Applied in Selection of Professors : Supreme Court Answers the Issue
To apply All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 to a candidate participating in recruitment for the post of Professors in the Engineering Colleges in the State conducted by the Commission under State Rules framed by the State, would be to stretch the AICTE Regulations beyond its text, context, and purpose.
Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah [2026] GCtR 54 (SC)
Income Tax and Selection of Comparable Companies for Benchmarking the International Transaction
In the recent decision dealing with selection of comparable companies, it has been concluded that since Satyatej Commercial Co. Ltd. continues to have similar functional attributes as in the preceding year, TPO/AO was directed to consider Satyatej Commercial Co. Ltd. as comparable to the assessee for benchmarking the international transaction of purchase of finished goods.
Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT [2026] GCtR 53 (ITAT, Mumbai)
High Court Explains Power of Registrar under MCS Act
S.154B-27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 does not give the Registrar authority to decide disputes between a member and the society on substantive issues. There is no express power under this section to examine rival claims, interpret bye-laws in a disputed manner, or finally decide monetary liability.
Petit Mansion C-Wing Coop Hsg Soc. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 52 (Bombay)
Story of Indian Youngsters in Law : Version 2026
Do you know drafting ? He has been collecting formats ; collecting formats is not drafting. If a client has to pay Advocate because Advocate will collect the draft from someone else then client would not pay for drafting. Client would go and collect the format from the same source and would save money of drafting. Clients spent heavy amount on drafting and those who do actually drafting always charge heavy.
What have you been doing ? I prefer going to Courts (it's clerical work to do drafting or research) where at least I can be noticed. Well, because it is easy to roam around whereas in drafting you have to slog in research you have to slog. I have been presuming that those who draft or do research instead of roaming around in Courts are actually fools. I also feel that there is no need to do drafting because formats are available everywhere and I obtain formats and do editing and claim that I have done the drafting. Roaming is not Court appearance ; it can be a ruse to avoid getting into drafting/research.
Seniors pay less. Well, do you ever think about exploiting law students by taking work from them for free [in name of internship] by telling that the work of law students was not useful [or by telling that you were teaching that law student]. If that's the case, senior is justified in exploiting you by paying you nothing or paying you less than what you deserve.
My name was not there in Order ; only seniors' name was there. Experience says that Judges are more considerate towards younger Advocates. If you have argued correctly, Judges ensure younger Advocates' name is there in Order sheet. If you were not there or you were there carrying files with your best attire expecting your name to be mentioned in Order sheet, you're wrong to expect your name. Standing with best attire or even saying "My senior is on legs in other court" hardly qualifies an argument.
My senior doesn't pays me for "expenses". You must have been trying the same trick you try on clients by asking for "expenses"(When you are unable to fetch money due to legal skills) ; senior knows the game. He knows that the amount that you claimed was spent was actually not spent ; he refuses to pay your false expenses and he was right.
I should be paid by my senior based on my lifestyle. Well, it's wrong. Some people think that they should stay in a house with rent of Rs. 3000/- ; some stay in a house of rent of Rs. 15,000/- some would stay in a house of rent of Rs. 30000/-. Your lifestyle which you think is "reasonable" are actually a shosha ; the pay depends on what's your work output and not what's your lifestyle. If lifestyle would be the basis, then people who have their house on rent at Nariman Point knowing nothing about law should be paid more than a person who stays in Dharavi knowing exactly and everything about law. The logic of lifestyle based pay is certainly made by unethical and cruel people with exploitative mindset.
There is discrimination between first generation and second generation lawyers. At the same time, I am fine with bringing cases because my non-lawyer non-judges parents are influential and due to their influence I am able to bring cases [after all, influence of non-lawyer parents even if I have no merit is fully justified].
I have done LL.M. still I am paid less. Bhai, you can have 100 other degrees. Pay depends on what is your work output and not because you have paid huge amount on doing 100s of courses.
Procedure of Arrest under PMLA, 2002 : Supreme Court Examines the Contours of Legal Provisions
It was held in context of S.19 of PMLA, 2002 that the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest. Arrest in this case was found to be valid and legal.
Ram Kishor Arora v. ED [2023] GCtR 2522 (SC)
Closure of Bank Account and Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
After noting that the aspect of the closure of the bank account of the accused prior to the issuance of the cheque, is a matter which cannot be determined without trial, the summons issued to accused under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was found justified.
Goutam Shoe Store v. Relaxo Footwear Ltd [2019] GCtR 6566 (Delhi)
Any one who'd like to receive full text copy of this decision directly on their email address, please mention your email address in comments section and kindly click on Follow option to become the follower of the blog. Full text (PDF) Copy with synopsis will be sent free of cost to the followers who have mentioned their email address in comments of this blog post.
Intellectual Property Rights Law : January 2026 Decisions [Part 1]
There have been several important decisions on law of intellectual property rights in the month of Jan 2026.
10 such important decisions pronounced between 1-17 Jan 2026 are now readily available.
Full text (PDF) Copies of decisions with synopsis will be shared on the email address.
Any one who'd like to receive them directly on their email address, please mention your email address in comments section and kindly click on Follow option to become the follower of the blog. Full text (PDF) Copies with synopsis will be sent free of cost to the followers who have mentioned their email address in comments of this blog post.
Higher Qualification for Government Job : Supreme Court Weighs the Legal Issue
Courts cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the employer. Merely because there is a provision for lateral entry of diplomates in the second year of B. Pharm course, it does not render the degree an in-line higher qualification. A qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in another.
Md. Firoz Mansuri v. The State of Bihar [2026] GCtR 46 (SC)
Accused Convicted for Murder by HC Obtains Acquittal From Supreme Court
Setting aside the order of conviction in case of murder where there was confessional statements of the accused and, thereafter, the discovery of the dead body, it has been held that if the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible.
Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka [2026] GCtR 45 (SC)
Money Laundering under PMLA, 2002 : High Court Explains the Legal Intricacies
Dealing with case of PMLA 2002, it is held that the law recognizes that money laundering is not a static event but an ongoing activity, as long as illicit gains are possessed, projected as legitimate, or reintroduced into the economy.
Shiv Murat Dwivedi v. ED [2025] GCtR 1909 (Delhi)
Vacancy for Law Graduates in a Govt Organisation : Salary more than Rs. 47,000 p.m.
Organisation : IIM, Bodh Gaya
Last Date : 20 Jan 2026.
To obtain full text copy of notification directly on email, please click on Follow Option to follow this blog and mention email address in the comments.
Stay of Criminal Trials : Supreme Court Examines and Explains the Legal Position
The law has been clarified as to whether criminal trials can be stayed or not and whether power under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked to stay the trials. Direction was issued to all Registrars of High Courts for listing of cases as per SC's directions.
Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [2001] GCtR 6565 (SC)
Forfeiture of Gratuity of Employee : High Court Grants Relief to Employee
Allowing the writ petition it is held that “forfeiture of gratuity is permissible only if the termination of an employee is for any misconduct which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, and convicted accordingly by a court of competent jurisdiction".
Rajiv Saxena v. Chief General Manager [2018] GCtR 6564 (Delhi)
Tax on Motor Vehicles in India : Supreme Court Examines the Legal Controversy
It has been held that off-road equipments not meant for use on roads or public roads as such stand excluded not only from the purview of the “motor vehicle” as defined under Section 2 (28) of the MV Act, 1988 but also from tax as Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution only authorizes taxation of vehicles suitable for use on roads only.
Ultratech Cement Ltd v. State of Gujarat [2026] GCtR 44 (SC)
Role of Committee of Creditors under IBC, 2016 : Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Powers
Where the Committee of Creditors under IBC, 2016, upon due consideration, finds it not viable to approve handover of possession in terms of Regulation 4E of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, it shall mandatorily record cogent and specific reasons in writing for such decision.
Elegna Co-op. Housing and Commercial Society Ltd v. Edelweiss ARC Ltd [2026] GCtR 43 (SC)
Absence of Motive in Criminal Cases in India and Its Legal Effect Explained by Supreme Court
"Motive assumes significance, primarily in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is direct evidence in the form of a credible and trustworthy dying declaration, the absence of strong proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case."
State of HP v. Chaman Lal [2026] GCtR 42 (SC)
Law on Maintainability of Civil Suits : Supreme Court Highlights the Crucial Legal Position
Dealing with a case arising out of a civil suit, it is held that where there is a construction raised on the disputed property alleged to be owned by the plaintiffs, the appropriate and efficacious remedy was to institute a suit for possession along with a consequential relief of injunction, and not a suit for injunction simpliciter.
Sanjay Paliwal v. BHEL [2026] GCtR 41 (SC)
Jurisprudence of False : Supreme Court Explains the Ambit
"In jurisprudence, the word ‘false’ is used to characterise a wrongful or criminal act, done intentionally and knowingly, with knowledge, actual or constructive. The word false may also be used in a wide or narrower sense. There is a difference between the terms `not proved’ and `false’."
Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [2013] GCtR 6563 (SC)
Money Laundering and Power under S.5 of PMLA, 2002
The language used in S.5 of PMLA, 2002 is that "where the Director, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession". S.5 (1) of PMLA, 2002 deals with provisional attachment.
Vacancy for Legal Professionals in Several Govt Organisations : Remuneration above Rs. 2.95 lacs per month
Serial Number 1 - Last date to apply will expire before 28 January 2026. Remuneration will be more than Rs. 87000 per month. Law Graduates who have completed law after 2024 are not eligible.
Serial Number 2 - Last date to apply will expire before 5 April 2026. Remuneration will be more than Rs. 2.95 lacs per month. Law Graduates who have completed law after 2022 are not eligible.
Serial Number 3 - Last date to apply will expire before 24 Jan 2026. Remuneration will be more than Rs. 19 lacs annually. Law Graduates who have completed law after 2023 are not eligible.
To obtain full text PDF Copies of these vacancy notifications on your email address, please Follow the Blog by clicking on Follow Option and mention your email address in the comments section.
Law on Disability Rights under RPwD Act, 2016 Explained by Supreme Court
It has been held that a concept of “reasonable accommodation” is a concept enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which emanates from Article 41 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. True equality at the workplace can be achieved only with the right impetus given to disability rights as a facet of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Sujata Bora v. Coal India Ltd [2026] GCtR 40 (SC)
Whether Daughter-in-law can Claim Maintenance from Father-in-law ? Supreme Court Clarifies the Issue
"S.19 of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 contemplates for the maintenance of the daughter-in-law during the lifetime of father-in-law, whereas, S.22 contemplates “maintenance of dependants” including “widowed daughter-in-law” from the estate of her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim under S. 22 can be raised only after the death of the father-in-law. "
Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma [2026] GCtR 39 (SC)
Power of Court under S.11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Outlined by Supreme Court
The scope of inquiry under S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. The Judgment of HC refusing to appoint arbitrator was set aside and direction was issued to appoint the arbitrator.
Goqii Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Sokrati Technologies Pvt Ltd [2024] GCtR 3472 (SC)
Whether Accused is Entitled to copy of ECIR registered by ED in cases under PMLA, 2002 ?
"Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if ED at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest."
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India [2022] GCtR 1828 (SC) (page 539)
PMLA Case : Explanation
Order dt. 19 March 2024 passed by SC. There is no stay there by SC.
Imtiyaz Ahmed v. State of UP [2012] GCtR 9877 (SC) : page 46 violated. 6 months time was fixed.
HCBA v. state of UP [2024] GCtR 2344 (SC) paras 34 and 35 violated. Page 16 gives power to HC to vacate stay (suppression or misrepresentation of material facts ; material change in circumstances ; These grounds are not exhaustive).
Hansraj Sachdeva v. Vijay Dharmsuri Samadhi Mandhir [2023] GCtR 1099 (Gwalior, MP) has held that merely because case is referred to larger Bench stay cannot be granted.
Collector of Customs v. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd [1993] GCtR 9599 (SC) has held that "mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay or suspension of the order appealed against."
Nathi Ram v. Charan Singh [2013] GCtR 9599 (P&H) has held clearly that "A lis cannot be adjourned sine die merely because an issue of law is pending adjudication in High Court or Supreme Court. If cases are adjourned sine die on this ground, then large number of cases would get adjourned sine die and proceedings would get stalled without any justification. A case can be decided on the basis of law, as it exists on the date of decision or on the date of suit, whatever may be appropriate, but a lis cannot be adjourned sine die on the ground that some issue of law is pending adjudication in a higher Court."
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India [2022] GCtR 1828 (SC) has already decided the issue where they did not examined validity of PMLA, 2002. "Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the 2002 Act stands rejected. The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the 2002 Act also stands rejected. The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. Section 24 of the 2002 Act has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. No merit in the challenge to Section 44 being arbitrary or unconstitutional.. The provision in the form of Section 45 of the 2002 Act, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. ECIR is an internal document of the ED and the fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating “civil action” of “provisional attachment” of property being proceeds of crime. Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory".
Submission made was regarding pendency of issues in Apex Court.
What is case about : a petition under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing. Interim Orders were there by HC. Stay was granted on 24 Jan 2019 by HC. Issue is about crime before 2009 when amendment took place. On 25 Jan 2024, it was noted by HC that matter be adjourned sine die but liberty to inform Registry if any development take place.
What is SC case about : it's a case of 2011. An Andhra HC judgment was under challenge.
Vacancy For Law Grads in another Govt Organisation : Last Date to Apply will Expire Before 20 Jan 2026
Name of Organisation : NTPC
Last Date : 16 Jan 2026
Post : Assistant Law Officer
Age Limit : 30 years [for General Category]
To obtain full text PDF Copy of vacancy notification, please mention your email address in comments section and kindly click on "Follow" option to become the Follower of this Blog.
Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Statutory Presumption Explained by Supreme Court
Dealing with a case of S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is held that the statutory presumption attached to the issuance of a cheque, being one made in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, is required to be accorded due weight.
Mohit Bansal v. MGI Developers and Promoters [2026] GCtR 38 (SC)
Property and Suits Related to Agreement for Sale : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Aspects
It has been held that "vendor is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, notwithstanding that vendor has transferred his interest in the subject matter of the agreement to a third party. Reason being that the transferee/ third party cannot be subjected to special covenants, if any, between the vendor and the plaintiff-purchaser."
Kishorilal v. Gopal [2026] GCtR 37 (SC)
Sexual Offences and POCSO Act : Supreme Court Highlights the Legal Principles
Pointing out towards introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships it has been held that the POCSO Act, 2012 is one of the most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow.
State of UP v. Anurudh [2026] GCtR 36 (SC)
Vacancy for Law Graduates in a Govt Organisation : Last Date to apply will expire before 11 February 2026
Name of Organisation : NCW
Location : Delhi
Remuneration : 60,000/- to 80,000/- per month
Experience : Above 2 years.
Last date : 6 February 2026.
To obtain full text PDF Copy of vacancy notification, please mention email address in comments section and kindly click on "Follow" option to become the Follower of this Blog.
Signed Blank Cheques and Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : HC Quashes the Proceedings
In this case where signed blank cheques were there, it was held that the case for issuance of process under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, requires complete verification at least on aspect of legally recoverable debt against the proposed accused. Complaint was quashed.
Sampat Baburao Kawade v. Bhartiya MSCS Ltd [2025] GCtR 1908 (Aurangabad, Bombay)
Vacancy for Law Graduates in Govt Organisation : Salary More Than Rs. 1.16 lacs per month
A government organisation has issued notice for vacancy for law graduates. Salary will be more than Rs. 1.16 lacs per month.
Name of the Organisation : National Investigation Agency.
Post : Sr.PP.
Remuneration : Rs. 1.25 lacs per month.
Last date to apply will expire before 13 January 2026.
To obtain full text PDF Copy of vacancy notification, please mention email address in comments section and kindly click on "Follow" option to become the Follower of this Blog.
Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : Who can Maintain a Complaint for Cheque Dishonour In the case of Milind ...