This roundup captures rulings that strengthened compliance, clarified procedures, and reinforced accountability across sectors. APTEL curtailed unauthorised audits, ITAT and CESTAT refined taxation safeguards, and CCI penalised Intel for abuse of dominance. NGT advanced environmental protection, NHRC intervened in serious rights violations, while NCLT/NCLAT sharpened insolvency law. Consumer forums like NCDRC and Delhi SCDRC held corporations liable through veil lifting and remedies for defective goods. Together, these decisions from Jan—Apr 2026 reflect a judiciary balancing authority with rights, sustainability, consumer protection, etc.
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
CAG Audit of Delhi DISCOMs Impermissible Without Compliance of Section 20 Conditions; APTEL quashes Lt. Governor’s Approval
In a suo motu proceeding under Section 121, Electricity Act, 2003, (EA) the Division Bench of Seema Gupta, Officiating Chairperson and Virender Bhat, Judicial Member, set aside the approval for entrustment of audit of Delhi DISCOMs to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, holding that the same was in violation of statutory requirements under Section 20, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 (CAG Act). The Tribunal further rejected the request of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) for extension of time to commence liquidation of regulatory assets and directed initiation of recovery within a fixed timeline. [In Suo-Moto action under Section 121 of the EA v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, O.P. 1 of 2025] Read more HERE
Power to review judgement or order under Section 114 and Order 47 CPC can’t be exercised suo moto; APTEL set asides CERC’s modification order
In an appeal filed by Uttar Pradesh Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (UPJVNL), the Division Bench of Virender Bhat, Judicial Member and Seema Gupta, Officiating Chairperson, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 11 July 2018 passed by Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) to the extent it modified its earlier order dated 12 October 2017 and held that CERC exceeded its review jurisdiction by issuing fresh directions on an issue neither raised in the review petition nor argued by the parties, thereby violating principles of natural justice. [U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. CERC, App No. 309 of 2018] Read more HERE
Central Administrative Tribunal
Age Relaxation in DSSSB Recruitment: CAT Flags 9-Year Recruitment Delay; Allows Provisional Participation
In a case wherein, application filed seeking provisional permission to be allowed to participate in the selection process in which advertisement had been issued after gap of 9 years from last advertisement, the two-member Bench of Manish Garg (Judicial Member)* and Anand S. Khati (Administrative Member) allowed the application and directed respondents to provisionally allow the applicants to participate in the selection process. [Dinesh v. DSSSB, 2026 SCC OnLine CAT 341] Read more HERE
Competition Commission of India
CCI imposes Rs 27 Crores penalty on Intel Corp. for abuse of dominance through India-specific warranty policy on boxed microprocessors
In the Information filed by Matrix Info System Pvt Ltd (‘informant’), under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’) against Intel Corporation alleging contravention to Section 3 and 4 of the Act, the bench comprising of Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member) stated that Intel abused its dominant position by enforcing an unfair and discriminatory India-specific warranty policy for boxed microprocessors imported from authorized overseas distributors. This conduct violated Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Act caused appreciable adverse effect on competition in the Indian market and denied consumers proper warranty service on genuine Intel products between 25-4-2016 and 1-4-2024. [Matrix Info System (P) Ltd v. Intel Corpn., 2026 SCC OnLine CCI 6] Read more HERE
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Authorities can’t have control over any amount paid as deposit or pre-deposit during investigation
In an appeal filed against order of rejecting refund of amount paid during investigation, the two-member Bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial Member)* allowed the appeal and held that the authorities cannot have the control over any amount paid either as a deposit or pre-deposit or whatever mode during investigation. Holding the rejection of refund to be unsustainable, CESTAT further held that amount deposited by assessee during investigation could not be retained after demand of excise was set aside. [Sri Coronation Fireworks (P) Ltd. v. CCE & GST, 2025 SCC OnLine CESTAT 4266] Read more HERE
Renting of building used as hotel not liable to Service Tax; CESTAT set aside demand of Service Tax against actor Rajinikanth leased property
In an appeal filed against order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals — II) wherein demand of service tax under “Renting of Immovable Property Service for furtherance of business or commerce” under Section 65(105)(zzzz), Finance Act, 1994 (Finance Act) was upheld, the Division Bench of M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member)* and Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) set aside the demand holding premises continued to qualify as a building used by a hotel, falling within the specific exclusion provided under Section 65(105)(zzzz), Finance Act. [R. Rajinikanth v. CCE & GST, 2026 SCC OnLine CESTAT 630] Read more HERE
Service Tax not leviable on data hosting services; Amazon Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. not an ‘intermediary’
In an appeal filed against order wherein demand raised by two show cause notices against the appellant Amazon Internet Services Private Limited was upheld the two-member Bench of Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) and Binu Tamta (Judicial Member)* partly allowed the appeal and held that the appellant is not an “intermediary” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and set aside service tax demands in respect of data hosting services and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the amounts paid before the issuance of show cause notice. [Amazon Internet Services (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, 2026 SCC OnLine CESTAT 155] Read more HERE
Turnover Exceeds ₹ 10 Lakhs Limit; CESTAT Dismisses Jal Mahal Resort’s Appeal for Refund of Service Tax
In an appeal filed against order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, wherein, the refund of service tax was rejected and the benefit of exemption of Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20 June 2012 (Notification) was denied, the Division Bench of Dr Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member)* dismissed the appeal and held that the appellant was not eligible for refund on merits as it crossed the threshold amount of ₹10 lakhs in accordance with Notification. [Jal Mahal Resorts (P) Ltd. v. CGST & CCE, 2026 SCC OnLine CESTAT 915] Read more HERE
Unverified DVD inadmissible as evidence under Customs Act, 1962; can’t be used to implicate individual
In an appeal filed against the impugned order wherein penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 114-AA, Customs Act, 1962 (Customs Act) was upheld, the two-member Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member)* and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) set aside the penalties and held that the conditions mentioned in Section 114-AA, Customs Act were not satisfied as there was no cogent, tangible or corroborative evidence on record. Furthermore, the electronic record in the form of the DVD, could not be treated as admissible evidence in the absence of any verification as to its genuineness. [Vikash Kumar v. Commr. of Customs, 2026 SCC OnLine CESTAT 364] Read more HERE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
Carry forward of losses cannot be denied once return is validly filed under S. 139(1) of Income Tax Act
While considering an appeal against the order dated 24-1-2023, wherein the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘CIT’) failed to consider the assessee- appellant’s carry forward losses while adjudging the validity of the return filed by the assessee, the Single Bench of Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member, held that the carry forward of losses could not be denied once the return was accepted as valid under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). [Avalon Infrastructures (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 2026 SCC OnLine ITAT 1550] Read more HERE
ITAT Delhi quashes assessment over invalid and time-barred Section 143(2) notice and jurisdictional defect
In an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the validity of assessment by assessing officer (AO), the Bench comprising Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member and Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member, held that the notice issued under Section 143(2), Income Tax Act, 1961 (1961 Act) was both time-barred and issued without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was quashed. [Naveen Goel v. CIT, 2026 SCC OnLine ITAT 4566] Read more HERE
National Green Tribunal
Equine activity in Matheran poses highest environmental and public health risk; NGT seeks response
In an original application concerning environmental degradation within the Matheran Eco-Sensitive Zone, a bench comprising of Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member), J., and Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee (Expert Member), while holding that equine activity in Matheran poses highest environmental and public health risk, granted two weeks’ time to Respondents 5 to 7 to file objections and directed the Matheran Hill Station Municipal Council to ensure representation with reply on the next date. [Sunil Ramchandra Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine NGT 53] Read more HERE
Hanging glaciers or the sword of Damocles hanging over Uttarakhand? NGT takes suo motu cognizance over danger posed by hanging glaciers in Himalayas
In a suo motu application registered by the Principal Bench, based on a newspaper report on “Danger Posed by Hanging Glaciers on Mountain Slopes in Central Himalaya”, the Bench of Prakash Shrivastava, J., (Chairperson) and Dr Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member) impleaded the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board, National Mission for Clean Ganga, Department of Urban Development, Uttarakhand and National Institute of Hydrology, and directed them to file a reply in the present matter. [News Item Titled “Study Flags Overlooked Danger Posed by Hanging Glaciers on Mountain Slopes in Central Himalaya” Appearing in the Hindu, Original Application No. 258 of 2026] Read more HERE
NGT directs constitution of Special Task Force for monitoring and effective protection of Wetlands
In an application alleging encroachment, illegal discharge of sewage waste and untreated water into the wetlands, the Bench of Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J., and Mr Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member), directed the constitution of a Special Task Force for the protection of the wetlands; further directed to remove encroachment, diversion of untreated water to protect the wetlands and directed the State Wetland Authority of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh to complete boundary demarcation of the wetlands as early as possible. [Sobran Yadav v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine NGT 194] Read more HERE
National Human Rights Commission
NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of reported abduction and rape of a 14-year-old girl in Kanpur
On 15-01-2026, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo motu cognizance of the reported abduction and rape of a 14-year-old girl in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. In a media report dated 10-01-2026, the victim was abducted from near her house on the night of 05-01-2026 and taken to a place near the railway line, where she was subjected to gang rape by two persons. According to reports, one of the accused is a sub-inspector with the Uttar Pradesh police. Read more HERE
NHRC issues notice over reported assault on journalist covering Delhi University protest
On 20-2-2026, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo motu cognizance of a media report that a woman journalist was subjected to physical and sexual assault by a mob while she was on a professional assignment to cover a students’ protest against the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations in the North Campus of Delhi University on 13-2-2026. Reportedly, the protesters, after identifying the journalist’s caste, began assaulting her and some also threatened to parade her naked before she lost consciousness. Read more HERE
National Company Law Tribunal
Demand Notice under Form B not valid invocation of personal guarantee under S. 95 IBC
In an application filed under Section 95, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by Bank of Baroda (Financial creditor) seeking initiation of personal insolvency resolution process (PIRP) against the personal guarantor of Vijay Home Appliances Ltd., the Bench of Rajeev Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial), and Sanjay Puri, Member (Technical), held that in the absence of valid invocation of the guarantee in terms of the deed, the application was not maintainable and dismissed the petition. [Bank of Baroda v. Katmula Srinivasa Reddy, 2026 SCC OnLine NCLT 519] Read more HERE
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Section 7 IBC application must confine to the defaults committed after Section 10A period
In an appeal filed against order of National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai wherein, CIRP application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was rejected holding it barred by Section 10-A of the IBC, the Division Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical member) clarified that application under Section 7 had to confine to the default committed subsequent to the period of Section 10-A of the IBC. [SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. v. R.S. Kamthe Infrastrucuture Developers (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 156] Read more HERE
Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013
In the present case, a company appeal was filed challenging the impugned order passed under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘2013 Act’) by the NCLT, Hyderabad (‘Tribunal’), which rejected the application on ground of non-maintainability. The Bench comprising Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal, stating that the findings of the Tribunal, did not suffer any apparent error warranting interference. [Mohan Ram Prasad Devineni v. Biochemical & Synthetic Products (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 2124] Read more HERE
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds Ansal Hi-Tech Township Directors Liable for Wilful Non-Compliance of Consumer Court Order
70 Execution Applications, all filed against the same Judgment Debtor M/s Ansal Hi-Tech Township Limited (“AHTTL”) were heard together by the bench comprising of Dr. Inder Jit Singh, (Presiding Member) and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, J. (Member), where the bench of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) discussed the issue related to penalty for non-compliance of order of the Consumer Commission by Directors and Key Managerial Personnel (“KMP”) under Section 71 and 72, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”), and held that Directors/KMPs of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (“APIL”/parent company) cannot be personally liable for satisfying the decree under Section 71, however the bench lifted the corporate veil between AHTTL and APIL and exposes APIL’s current directors/KMPs to penal action under Section 72, subject to their individual liability being established. [Prem Prakash Rajpurohit v. M/s Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd., EA No. 77 of 2021] Read more HERE
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
‘Manufacturer’s liability for defective goods’: Delhi SCDRC orders FIAT India Automobiles for replacement of car worth Rs. 70 lakhs
In a case where a bench of Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J. (President)* and Pinki (Member), was called upon to decide whether the opposite parties i.e. Manufacturer and Service Centre are liable for deficiency in service. The Commission while allowing the complaint opined that only Manufacturer was liable for the deficiency in services and consequently directed replacement of vehicle with a new vehicle or refund if replacement was unobtainable along with other relief. [Paawan Chaudhary v. Fiat India Automobiles (P) Ltd., CC No. 56 of 2023] Read more HERE
