Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court allowed Rajasthan's appeal and cancelled the regular bail the High Court had granted to Jhabra Ram, an Official Secrets Act accused, solely because written grounds of arrest were not furnished. With the grounds conveyed at arrest, a signed Arrest Memo setting out the material, and no objection raised at remand, there was substantial and effective compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS, and no demonstrable prejudice (paras 16, 18, 21-23, 25-26).

The Supreme Court dismissed South Bihar Power Distribution Company's appeals against a Patna High Court ruling. Having twice consented to a sole arbitrator and taken part in the arbitration, the distribution licensee had waived the agreement's three-member panel and acquiesced. The IBC moratorium does not stop a corporate debtor's own arbitral claim. The High Court's view that it could extend the mandate under Section 29A was set aside, without changing the outcome (paras 25, 29, 43-44, 47).

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by Chetan Sabharwal and his brother against the reopening of their income-tax assessments for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 under Sections 147 and 148. An investigation report received after the assessments, finding the shares they sold prima facie overvalued, was tangible material with a live link to the belief that income had escaped assessment, and no earlier opinion had been formed that the reopening could change (paras 56-58).

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal and upheld War Injury Pension for a soldier whose rheumatoid arthritis began during his Kargil posting under Operation Rakshak. Once the Government specially notifies an operation, Category E(i) of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated 31.01.2001 applies unless the policy or the notification excludes it, and a pension policy is read liberally (paras 16, 19, 21-22).

The Supreme Court set aside an order of 21.10.2026 passed by the Lucknow Development Authority in Section 27 proceedings under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, because City Montessori School, on whose complaint of unauthorised construction the proceedings began, was not heard. A High Court direction to decide independently and impartially never meant that the complainant be kept away, the Court said. Both sides must be heard afresh on a date within one month (paras 4-6).

The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of ECL Finance, sole debenture holder and lender, and its debenture trustee from the Committee of Creditors of a guarantor company as related parties under Section 5(24)(m)(i) of the IBC. That clause needs only association through participation in policy making, not the proactive control required under Section 29A, and the Court found no question of law or perversity in the tribunals' findings (paras 17, 23-24, 27).