Featured Case: Navigating Insolvency: SC Affirms IBC Moratorium Does Not Extend to Directors and Promoters in Consumer Complaints

In a crucial clarification for corporate governance and insolvency law, the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) applies strictly to the corporate debtor. This means directors, promoters, and other non-corporate entities cannot hide behind the corporate veil during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) to escape independent legal proceedings, including consumer complaints. This ruling has significant implications for personal liability in corporate distress, reaffirming that individual accountability remains even when the company undergoes insolvency proceedings.

Read the Full Article: Here

TEJAS J.SHAH & AMISHA T. SHAH & ORS. VS MANTRI TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS BUOYANT TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD.) & ORS., decided on 27-07-2026

Other Supreme Court Decisions You Might Find Interesting:

Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Res Judicata and Impleadment of Pendente Lite Transferees in Appeals and Cross-Objections

This landmark judgment delves into the nuanced application of the `res judicata` doctrine, particularly for interlocutory orders and impleadment applications. The Court distinguished between Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, ruling that while an erroneous but final dismissal of an impleadment application under the former might attract `res judicata`, fresh circumstances like collusion or non-prosecution can create a new cause for impleadment under the latter. A vital read for litigators navigating complex procedural aspects in property and civil disputes.

Read the Full Article: Here

Sanjiv Kumar VS Shakuntla Devi and Others, decided on 27-07-2026

Interim Custody of Seized Vehicles in a Dispute Involving Allegations of Misappropriation and Forgery

In a corporate dispute mired in allegations of misappropriation and forgery, the Supreme Court provided crucial insights into determining interim custody of seized assets. The Court emphasized that while registration certificates are important, they are not conclusive. Factors such as actual possession, continuous payment of loan EMIs, and prior undertakings from parties hold significant weight. This decision offers clarity for businesses and legal teams dealing with asset disputes, especially when criminal investigations intersect with corporate ownership claims.

Read the Full Article: Here

KRISHNAN NARAYANA VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC., decided on 27-07-2026

Directions for Combating Illegal Sand Mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and Protecting Endangered Aquatic Wildlife

Addressing a critical environmental crisis, the Supreme Court has issued extensive suo motu directions to multiple states and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to curb rampant illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary. The judgment mandates robust surveillance, enhanced enforcement, inter-departmental coordination, and strict administrative accountability for jurisdictional officers. This ruling underscores the judiciary's proactive role in environmental protection and sets a precedent for regulatory compliance and sustainable resource management, relevant for public policy makers and organizations with environmental impact.

Read the Full Article: Here

The Supreme Court (Suo Moto) vs. States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), decided on 22-07-2026