This batch of civil appeals—filed by Yes Bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and the Union of India—challenged the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated January 20, 2023, which had set aside the Administrator’s March 14, 2020 decision to permanently write down Basel III compliant Additional Tier 1 (AT-1) Bonds
The Supreme Court sustained a preliminary objection raised by Respondent No. 2 and dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Central Tax Department under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) as time-barred. The appeal challenged an NCLAT order dated August 2, 2023, which had confirmed an
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals filed by self-financing engineering and professional colleges while upholding the final relief granted by the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench. The core legal question revolved around whether professional education fees in self-financing Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) could be altered midstream. The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings and charge-sheet pending against the appellant in Muzaffarnagar. The case arose from an FIR alleging that the appellant had deliberately provided false information and forged her mother’s death certificate by stating the date of death as November 21,
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the legal validity of a High Court order directing the State to absorb a terminated lecturer from a “no grant-in-aid” educational institution and award substantial compensation. The respondent-lecturer had been terminated in 1999 following a departmental inquiry, a decision initially upheld by the
In this case, the Supreme Court came to the rescue of a law student who was unlawfully denied her final marksheets and degree due to administrative blunders and a fraudulent scam involving the university’s previous management. The appellant, a bona fide student who completed her B.A. LL.B. (2016–2021) course, passed
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the misuse of criminal machinery in what was fundamentally a civil and commercial dispute. The appellant, who served as the Chief Executive Officer and authorized signatory of a company, had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the first respondent concerning a
