The Supreme Court set aside IFCI's 2011 SARFAESI auction of the Fernhill resort at Ooty and the sale certificate issued to M/s P.M. Associates. The bid was received while a DRAT restraint was in force, the sale was concluded before the 30-day notice period ran out, the borrower was not told of the bid opening, and the certificate went to a firm that neither bid nor existed on the auction date (paras 31-32, 36).
The Supreme Court held that the NCLT can recall the admission of an insolvency application when the debt behind it is shown to be fraudulent and collusive, since a debt is a jurisdictional fact. Because an admitted CIRP becomes a proceeding in rem for all creditors, the NCLT may still continue it without the collusive applicant. The Greenopolis housing project's CIRP was restored to the NCLT to decide that question (paras 28-30, 45, 49-50).
The Supreme Court quashed a Chhattisgarh rural roads agency order that withheld Rs 84.17 lakh from a contractor's bills under three ongoing PMGSY contracts to recover an alleged overpayment on earlier, separate works. None of the contract clauses relied on authorised it, the audit clause required a hearing and the CEO's orders, and an unadjudicated claim is not a debt presently due.
The Supreme Court restored a cheque-dishonour conviction that the Kerala High Court had set aside because the statutory demand notice was received by the accused's mother, not by him. Once the notice is sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address, service is presumed and the drawer must rebut it (paras 24, 32, 35). The Court declared M.D. Thomas v. P.S. Jaleel, which had held service on the drawer's wife insufficient, per incuriam (para 30).
The Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court should have condoned a 130-day delay by the UP Co-operative Federation in filing intra-court appeals, as its Managing Director, whose approval was needed, was away as an election observer during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The cause, not the length, of delay matters. The appeals will be heard on merits once the Federation pays ₹2,000 costs to each writ applicant (paras 6, 9-10).
The Supreme Court quashed a cheating complaint under Sections 417 and 420 IPC against the CEO of a tea company who signed an MoU for a tea estate on the company's behalf. The ₹40 lakh was paid to the company, the complainant already knew of the bank mortgage, and a bare assertion that he knew the representation was false did not show dishonest intention at the inception; the dispute was predominantly contractual (paras 7-11).
The Supreme Court dismissed a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell land, reversing concurrent decrees. The plaintiff had earlier sued only for an injunction when specific performance was already available and took no leave, so Order II Rule 2 CPC barred the second suit; liberty granted on withdrawal could not cure that. In any case, no concluded oral contract was proved (paras 24-27, 39-40).
In 47 appeals by landowners whose land in six Fazilka villages was acquired in 2000-01 for the Aspal Extension Drain, the Supreme Court restored the Reference Court's uniform Rs 5 lakh an acre and 50% severance charges on the unacquired land, rejecting the High Court's distance-based rates. It upheld the High Court on fruit trees (280 pleaded trees only), tubewells (Rs 50,000 each) and the bar on solatium and additional amount on such items (paras 5.4.6, 7.9, 11).
The Supreme Court set aside a conviction under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 for transporting 32 bullocks towards Odisha. Section 6 requires transport for slaughter, and apart from the Head Constable's presumption nothing showed that purpose; a veterinary doctor found the animals fit for ploughing. The reverse burden in Section 11 arises only after the essential ingredients are proved, and the lack of transport documents does not prove slaughter (paras 8-10).
The Supreme Court quashed the National Security Act detention of Mulla Afroz, arrested after the November 2024 violence during a mosque survey in Sambhal, and imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh on the State. A confession made to the police cannot by itself ground preventive detention (para 36). The other grounds rested on material never supplied, and the detention was an attempt to frustrate bail: "the process was made the punishment" (paras 46-52, 68).
The Supreme Court granted bail to Shubhanshu Dixit, a former secretary of the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board, and Sanjay Badaya, alleged to be a middleman for the then PHED Minister, in the Jal Jeevan Mission tender case. With chargesheets filed, documentary evidence already seized and a long trial ahead, further pre-trial custody served no purpose (paras 10-14). Economic offences must be viewed seriously, but pre-trial incarceration cannot become punitive detention (paras 10, 12).
The Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of Rs 6.39 crore paid by the successful bidder in an IBC liquidation auction who failed to pay the Rs 19.17 crore balance within 90 days. Though the Liquidation Process Regulations do not expressly provide for forfeiture, the e-auction notice did, and a bidder who bid with open eyes and paid without protest is bound by it; the NCLAT order affirming the forfeiture stands (paras 11-22).