This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 4 of Volume 1, embodies landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court on issues like commencement of arbitral proceedings, additional evidence before appellate court, legal character and effect of amalgamation, and more.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 9(2) and 11(6) r/w S. 21: Determination of date of commencement of arbitral proceedings, explained, [Regenta Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Hotel Grand Centre Point, (2026) 4 SCC 142]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 41 R. 27 — Additional evidence before appellate court — When may be permitted: Appellate court deciding main appeal without even adverting to application under Or. 41 R. 27 CPC, when permissible, explained. Validity of appeal filed by respondent-defendant decided without even considering Or. 41 R. 27 CPC application filed by appellant-plaintiff, determined, [Gobind Singh v. Union of India, (2026) 4 SCC 130]
Consumer Protection — Services — Deficiency in Service: Effect of natural causes (vis major) on the outcome cannot be termed as deficiency in service to the extent that the resulting loss can be explained based thereon, [Shyam Beej Bhandar v. Suresh, (2026) 4 SCC 158]
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Ss. 2(1-B), 28 and 2(47) — Profits and gains of business or profession — Scope of S. 28: Concept, Legal character and effect of amalgamation, explained. Receipt of shares of amalgamated company in substitution of stock-in-trade can give rise to taxable business profits under S. 28, IT Act, [Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT, (2026) 4 SCC 77]
Limitation Act, 1963 — S. 5 and Ss. 6 & 14 — Relative scope, applicability and scheme of: Law clarified on applicability/inapplicability of provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, to quasi-judicial bodies/tribunals. Company Law Board does not have power to condone delay/extend time in filing appeal under S. 58(3), Companies Act, 2013, [Property Company (P) Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda, (2026) 4 SCC 1]
