Supreme Court Summary 14th Oct, 2026

Supreme Court Judgments Summary

14th Oct, 2026

Education: Supreme Court Restricts Midstream Fee Hikes for Professional Courses

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 ruled that fee structures must provide financial certainty to students and parents at the threshold of a course, and fees determined at the commencement cannot be varied mid-course unless exceptional and unforeseen circumstances arise. The Court criticized the State Government and the fee fixation committees for administrative inefficiency in delaying the revision exercise for seven years (last revised in 2016-17, updated via notification on October 16, 2023). Consequently, while clarifying that the notification could not apply retrospectively to students whose admissions were already finalized before October 16, 2023, the Court affirmed the High Court’s directions requiring colleges to refund or adjust any excess fees collected from those students.

2026 INSC 1120: Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (D.O.J. 14.10.2026)

Supreme Court Dismisses IBC Appeal as Barred by Limitation

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 NCLT-approved resolution plan. The apex court held that the IBC is a self-contained, special code that mandates strict timelines to preserve asset value and economic health, and its limitation periods cannot be defeated by indefinite or fluctuating interpretations of when a copy of an order is received. By computing the 35 days of pre-application inaction (which cannot be excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act) and factoring in the absolute 60-day statutory ceiling under Section 62 of the IBC (45 days plus a maximum 15-day condonable grace period), the Court ruled that the appeal—filed on November 21, 2023—exceeded its jurisdiction to condone delay.

2026 INSC 1121: The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Division v. Srinivasa Rao Ravinuthala and Another (D.O.J. 14.10.2026)

Third-Party Obstruction in Execution Proceedings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal and Remands Back

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the concurrent orders of the Executing Court and the High Court which had dismissed the appellant’s claim petition regarding a property execution decree. The dispute centered around execution proceedings filed by Respondent No. 1 for physical possession of property following an ex parte specific performance decree. The appellant, a third-party wakf claiming independent title and possession through historical grants and gazette notifications, resisted execution. Both lower courts dismissed the objection partly on technical grounds—holding that an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC was not maintainable against a warrant for possession (as opposed to attachment)—and faulted the appellant for failing to discharge the burden of proof. Relying on its recent precedent in Periyammal, the Supreme Court held that citing a wrong provision of law cannot defeat a third party’s substantive rights, and that obstruction or resistance by a stranger to a decree must be fully inquired into under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the matter back to the Executing Court for a fresh, comprehensive inquiry after permitting both parties to file additional pleas and evidence.

2026 INSC 1122: Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf v. Mohammed Saleem Alias Mohd. Wajid Ali and Another (D.O.J. 14.10.2026)

Bail Granted in Multi-Crore PMLA Case: Prolonged Incarceration Overrides Twin Conditions

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order, thereby granting regular bail to the accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The appellant, accused of orchestrating a complex web of financial transactions and shell companies involving proceeds of crime amounting to over ₹6,210.72 crores, had already undergone approximately 20 months of incarceration. While the Court rejected the appellant’s contention that a 5-day delay in forwarding the arrest order to the Adjudicating Authority vitiated the arrest under Section 19(2), it nonetheless held that the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the fundamental constitutional safeguards of Article 21. Emphasizing that the massive volume of evidence (97 accused, 48 witnesses, and 15,000 pages of documents) rendered a speedy trial impossible, the Court granted bail to prevent indefinite detention from becoming a pre-trial punishment.

2026 INSC 1124: Sanjay Sureka @ Sanjay Kumar Sureka v. Directorate of Enforcement (D.O.J. 14.10.2026)

Arbitrary Cancellation of Sand Mining Tenders: SC Sets Aside Rejection of Highest Bids

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals filed by M/s Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. and Sahakar Global Limited, setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment and the State Mining Corporation’s decision to cancel the e-tender-cum-auction for the Katni and Shahdol sand groups. The Corporation had rejected the highest bids and cancelled the tenders primarily because the appellants—who had previously operated the same groups before lawfully surrendering their contracts under the rules then in force—returned to the fresh auction with bids that were substantially lower than their historical offers. The Supreme Court held that while an H1 bidder has no indefeasible right to an allotment, the rejection of an above-reserve highest bid must be supported by relevant material demonstrating current market inadequacy rather than merely pointing out a numerical drop from a past contract. The Court ruled that under the regulatory regime prevailing in September 2025, surrendering MDOs were not disqualified from participating, and a past bid cannot serve as an immutable minimum benchmark without proving that the fresh competitive auction failed to fetch the true current market value. Consequently, the Court restored the September 2025 tender process in favor of the appellants, subject to their reaffirming their final bids and completing necessary formalities.

2026 INSC 1125: M/s Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (D.O.J. 14.10.2026)

Family Property Dispute : SC Upholds Validity of Compromise Decree and Nullifies Unauthorized Gift Deed

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Telangana High Court and the trial court, and decreed the appellants’ suit for a declaration of title and to declare a gift deed null and void. The litigation originated from a 1959 family settlement and subsequent partition suits, during which a formal compromise (“Settlement of Dispute” dated February 24, 1986) was recorded in a high court appeal under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. Under this compromise—which received judicial imprimatur on September 7, 1990—Madhusudhan Reddy relinquished all claims over properties allotted to his mother (Manikyamma) in favor of Anasuyamma and her adopted son. Despite this binding settlement, Madhusudhan Reddy executed a gift deed in 2007 conveying lands that did not belong to his share and which he had expressly surrendered. Both lower courts erred by ignoring the binding effect of the compromise decree. The Supreme Court rectified these fundamental errors and decreed the suit, noting that the respondents chose not to contest the appeal despite service and an interim status quo order.

2026 INSC 1126: B. Anasuyamma (Died) Per LR and Another v. B. Madhusudhan Reddy (Died) Per LRs and Others (D.O.J. 14.10.2026)

SC Directs University to Verify Credentials and Release Government Employee’s Salary

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order which had relegated the appellant to approach a civil court. The appellant, a B.Tech graduate from Manav Bharti University, had been appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the State Taxes Department, Jammu and Kashmir, but his appointment could not be confirmed and he remained unpaid because the University failed to verify his credentials due to records seizure and administrative omissions. The Supreme Court held that the omission of the appellant’s name from the admission disclosure list was an inadvertent clerical error by the University’s previous administration, for which an innocent student cannot be penalized. Emphasizing that the appellant was a bona fide student who passed all examinations and that minor mark discrepancies in the 7th and 8th semesters still reflected a ‘pass’, the Court directed the State and the University to complete the verification, issue corrected mark sheets, and ensure the release of all salary arrears and consequential benefits to the appellant within specified timelines.

2026 INSC 1127: Mohd. Asad Choudhary v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 14.10.2026)

Appealability of Contempt Orders and Intra-Court Appeal Scope

The Supreme Court disposed of a civil appeal filed by an alleged contemnor against an interim order of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) passed in a contempt application, which had rejected a compliance affidavit and threatened personal appearance and framing of charges. The apex court held that an intra-court appeal (Special Appeal) is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in contempt proceedings where the court oversteps its jurisdiction by adjudicating on the merits of the underlying dispute or determining substantive rights, rather than merely imposing a punishment for contempt. Expressing respectful disagreement with the 3-Judge Bench decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana—which held that writ proceedings originating from criminal law constitute the exercise of “criminal jurisdiction” and bar intra-court appeals—the Court formulated specific questions and referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench to reconsider Ram Kishan Fauji. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a Special Appeal before the High Court, staying the contempt proceedings for two months.

2026 INSC 1128: Sanjay Prasad v. Madhusudan Dwivedi & Ors. (D.O.J. 14.10.2026)