This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 3 of Volume 2, embodies a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court on the challenge to arbitral awards, abatement of appeal, insolvency, departmental enquiry, limitation for specific performance, SARFAESI, and more.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6), Ss. 15 & 29-A and S. 5 — Review of S. 11(6) order appointing arbitrator — Scope and restraints on: Invocation of writ jurisdiction under Arts. 226/227 to invalidate/re-visit S. 11(6), A&C Act decision, whether permissible, explained, [Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., (2026) 3 SCC 264]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 37 and 34 — Limited scope of interference with the award by Court exercising power under Ss. 37 and 34: Interference with the award, in exercise of powers under S. 37, when the interpretation to the agreement terms given by Arbitral Tribunal is a plausible view and affirmed by the Court exercising power under S. 34, not permissible, [Jan De Nul Dredging India (P) Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust, (2026) 3 SCC 186]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 22 Rr. 4(4), 2, 11 and Or. 1 R. 10 — Abatement of appeal — Non-substitution of heirs of one of LRs of deceased defendant: In case of non-substitution of LRs of a deceased party, if interest of deceased party was sufficiently represented by other heirs/legal representatives on record, there will be no abatement, [Kishorilal v. Gopal, (2026) 3 SCC 231]
Consumer Protection — Consumer/Consumer Dispute/Locus Standi — “Commercial Purpose”: Software licence purchased by a company to automate business processes to maximise profits, amounts to “commercial purpose”. Purchaser does not qualify as “consumer” under S. 2(1)(d), CP Act, [Poly Medicure Ltd. v. Brillio Technologies (P) Ltd., (2026) 3 SCC 201]
Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 — S. 37(1) r/w Ss. 4 and 5: Protection against acts done by Official Receiver between the declaration of insolvency and annulment of adjudication of insolvency not applicable, where such act is set aside by Court. Finality of transactions,namely, conclusion of sales, dispositions of property and/or payments made in that regard is necessary for applicability of S. 37, [Singamasetty Bhagavath Guptha v. Allam Karibasappa, (2026) 3 SCC 213]
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Ss. 13(2) and 13(4): Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by bank/financial corporation against borrower i.e. action of taking over possession pursuant to the possession notice is not maintainable, in the absence of creation of a security interest, [North Eastern Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. L. Doulo Builders & Suppliers Co. (P) Ltd., (2026) 3 SCC 310]
Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Initiation or Continuation of proceedings after retirement: Permissibility of institution of departmental proceedings against appellant superannuated employee in absence of any specific provision in the 1992 Regulations by taking recourse to R. 27(2)(b) of the Pension Rules, 1982, determined, [Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corpn., (2026) 3 SCC 252]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — S. 20 r/w Art. 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Limitation — Computation of: In a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, limitation is to be computed from date when refusal to execute sale deed became final, [Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi, (2026) 3 SCC 173]
