Advocates Act, 1961 — Ss. 16 and 23(5) — Designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates — Validity of: The classification of advocates as Senior Advocates and other advocates under S. 16 is a valid classification made by the legislature. [Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India, (2024) 1 SCC 1]
Consumer Protection — Consumer/Consumer Dispute/Locus Standi — Earning livelihood by Self-Employment — Purchase of commercial place by complainants whether for purpose other that for earning livelihood by self-employment — Determination of — Principles for: If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods would continue to be a “consumer”. [Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., (2024) 1 SCC 8]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 30(2) and 31: Validity of valuation process regarding assets of the corporate debtor, examined. Commercial wisdom of CoC, whether materially affected due to absence of relevant information, determined. [M.K. Rajagopalan v. Periasamy Palani Gounder, (2024) 1 SCC 42]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 7 and 238-A — Limitation period for filing application invoking CIRP, in cases where recovery certificate is issued by DRT: Life of a decree is twelve years for enforcement as per Art. 136 of the Limitation Act. In the event a financial creditor wants to pursue a recovery certificate obtained under the 1993 Act as a deemed decree, he would get twelve years’ time under Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, and not just three years as held in Kotak Mahindra Bank, (2022) 9 SCC 186 vide application of Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. This is so, as the extent of operation of a recovery certificate has been construed in Kotak Mahindra Bank, (2022) 9 SCC 186 itself, to go beyond filing of winding-up petition alone. It would retain the character of a decree to lodge a claim in an IBC proceeding. [Tottempudi Salalith v. SBI, (2024) 1 SCC 24]
Landmark Dissenting Judgments by Arvind P. Datar: This article is based on a lecture delivered on 10-8-2022 to mark the release of the reports of SCC from 1950 to 1968. Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice B.V. Nagarathna were on the dias. The author acknowledges the valuable research assistance of M. Jannani, Advocate, Madras High Court. [Landmark Dissenting Judgments by Arvind P. Datar, (2024) 1 SCC J-21]
Law Reports and Law Reporting: Address delivered by the Chief Justice of India at the Release Ceremony of the SCC Pre-1969 Series, at the Claridges Hotel, New Delhi on 10-8-2022. [Law Reports and Law Reporting by Justice N.V. Ramana, (2024) 1 SCC J-5]
Life of the Law of Precedent: Not Binding Precedents: Address delivered by Sudeep Malik, Associate Editor, Supreme Court Cases at the Release Ceremony of the SCC Pre-1969 Series, at the Claridges Hotel, New Delhi on 10-8-2022. [Life of the Law of Precedent: Not Binding Precedents, But Persuasion by Sudeep Malik, (2024) 1 SCC J-46]
Precedent, Judge-Made Law and The Role of Law Reporting: Address delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna at the Release Ceremony of the SCC Pre-1969 Series, at the Claridges Hotel, New Delhi on 10-8-2022. [Precedent, Judge-Made Law and The Role Of Law Reporting by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, (2024) 1 SCC J-8]
Supreme Court Cases (SCC) Pre-1969 Series Release Function: Photographs of Supreme Court Cases (SCC) Pre-1969 Series Release Function. [Supreme Court Cases (SCC) Pre-1969 Series Release Function, (2024) 1 SCC J-1]
Three Generations: Creation Of The House Of EBC And Supreme Court Cases (SCC): Address delivered by Surendra Malik, Chief Editor, Supreme Court Cases at the Release Ceremony of the SCC Pre-1969 Series, at the Claridges Hotel, New Delhi on 10-8-2022. [Three Generations: Creation Of The House Of EBC And Supreme Court Cases (SCC) — Fulfilling The Mandate Of Article 141 Of The Constitution by Surendra Malik, (2024) 1 SCC J-40]
