Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Supreme Court Mandates Full Payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity by Resolution Applicants Amid Insolvency

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

This batch of civil appeals challenged orders passed at the instance of the Central Board of Trustees under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act), which mandated that the share of workmen’s dues—specifically Provident Fund (PF) and Gratuity (GF)—must be kept outside the liquidation estate and paid in full by Successful Resolution Applicants (SRAs). The Supreme Court reaffirmed that statutory first charges and worker dues override standard resolution waterfalls and non-obstante clauses under frameworks like the SARFAESI Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Furthermore, because of conflicting views regarding whether the imposition of penalties under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act is strictly mandatory or leaves room for quasi-judicial discretion, the Court referred the specific question regarding Section 14B to a larger Bench.

  • Precedence of Worker Dues: The Court reinforced that provident fund and gratuity dues must be paid to workmen and employees in full and cannot be subjected to the distribution waterfall under Section 53(1) of the IBC, as these dues do not form part of the liquidation estate.
  • Statutory First Charge: The statutory first charge created under Section 11(2) of the EPF & MP Act overrides other legislative priorities, including non-obstante clauses found in the SARFAESI Act.
  • Liability of Successful Resolution Applicants (SRAs): SRAs are legally mandated to pay upfront or clear all dues pertaining to the provident fund and gratuity to prevent resolution plans from violating Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC.
  • Separation of Interest and Penalty: The judgment highlighted that the 1988 amendment split the compensatory interest aspect (now statutorily mandated under Section 7Q at 12% per annum) from the penal aspect (governed under Section 14B and Paragraph 32A of the Scheme).
  • Reference to a Larger Bench: Doubting the absolute rigidity established in prior precedents like Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, the bench referred the issue of whether authorities possess discretionary power to waive or levy penalties under Section 14B to a larger Bench.
  • Relief and Payment Structure: While referring the core legal question to a larger Bench, the Court permitted the SRAs to approach the Central Board under the second proviso of Section 14B for potential waiver/reduction similar to sick company provisions, and granted a structured timeline allowing appellants to clear dues and Section 7Q interest in four quarterly installments starting December 15, 2026.

2026 INSC 990

M/s Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Central Board of Trustees and Anr. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

2026 INSC 990 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Interference with Public Examination Answer Key

September 16, 2026 No Comments

This appeal arose from a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in a review application, which had set aside concurrent dismissal orders and directed the appellant-Commission to award a mark to the respondent-writ petitioner and grant him appointment. The dispute centered around a multiple-choice question in a recruitment examination regarding book-author/subject matching. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order, holding that constitutional courts must exercise extreme judicial restraint and should not interfere with the evaluation of answer keys by examining bodies unless a glaring, patent mistake is demonstrated without requiring any inferential reasoning.

  • Scope of Judicial Review: The Court reiterated established legal principles (such as those from Ran Vijay Singh and Rahul Singh) emphasizing that courts lack academic expertise, must presume answer keys are correct, and should only interfere in rare cases where a glaring error is apparent on the face of the record without an inferential process.
  • Nature of the Question: The exam question asked candidates to find the incorrect pair among options relating to historical texts (Baburnama, Shahjahannama, Humayunnama, and Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri). Because the question did not explicitly state whether pairing should be based on authorship or subject matter (the person the book is about), adopting a common-sense subject-wise approach made option ‘B’ a valid, defensible answer chosen by the Commission.
  • Inconclusive Expert Report: The expert report relied upon by the High Court did not declare option ‘B’ incorrect; rather, it noted that option ‘C’ would apply if authorship logic was used, while option ‘B’ would apply if subject-matter logic was used.
  • Impermissibility of Inferential Logic: The writ petitioner arrived at option ‘C’ by applying an unstated assumption (authorship by Gulbadan Begum instead of Humayun), which amounted to an assumptive mistake rather than a patent error by the examining body.
  • Final Outcome: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction, particularly within review proceedings, by substituting its own logic for that of the academic examining body. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s impugned order was set aside, and the respondent’s writ petition was dismissed.

2026 INSC 991

Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Ashok Yadav & Ors. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

2026 INSC 991 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Supreme Court Mandates Full Payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity by Resolution Applicants Amid Insolvency

September 16, 2026 No Comments

This batch of civil appeals challenged orders passed at the instance of the Central Board of Trustees under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act), which mandated that the share of workmen’s dues—specifically Provident Fund (PF) and Gratuity (GF)—must be kept outside the liquidation estate and paid in full by Successful Resolution Applicants (SRAs). The Supreme Court reaffirmed that statutory first charges and worker dues override standard resolution waterfalls and non-obstante clauses under frameworks like the SARFAESI Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Furthermore, because of conflicting views regarding whether the imposition of penalties under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act is strictly mandatory or leaves room for quasi-judicial discretion, the Court referred the specific question regarding Section 14B to a larger Bench.

  • Precedence of Worker Dues: The Court reinforced that provident fund and gratuity dues must be paid to workmen and employees in full and cannot be subjected to the distribution waterfall under Section 53(1) of the IBC, as these dues do not form part of the liquidation estate.
  • Statutory First Charge: The statutory first charge created under Section 11(2) of the EPF & MP Act overrides other legislative priorities, including non-obstante clauses found in the SARFAESI Act.
  • Liability of Successful Resolution Applicants (SRAs): SRAs are legally mandated to pay upfront or clear all dues pertaining to the provident fund and gratuity to prevent resolution plans from violating Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC.
  • Separation of Interest and Penalty: The judgment highlighted that the 1988 amendment split the compensatory interest aspect (now statutorily mandated under Section 7Q at 12% per annum) from the penal aspect (governed under Section 14B and Paragraph 32A of the Scheme).
  • Reference to a Larger Bench: Doubting the absolute rigidity established in prior precedents like Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, the bench referred the issue of whether authorities possess discretionary power to waive or levy penalties under Section 14B to a larger Bench.
  • Relief and Payment Structure: While referring the core legal question to a larger Bench, the Court permitted the SRAs to approach the Central Board under the second proviso of Section 14B for potential waiver/reduction similar to sick company provisions, and granted a structured timeline allowing appellants to clear dues and Section 7Q interest in four quarterly installments starting December 15, 2026.

2026 INSC 990

M/s Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Central Board of Trustees and Anr. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

2026 INSC 990 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Supreme Court Summary 10th September

September 13, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court Upholds National Duty Over Administrative Delays in Sports Administration

This appeal arises from a common judgment and order dated 11.08.2026 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, which had dismissed the appellant’s writ petition seeking a direction to relieve respondent No.3—a government physical education teacher and recognized coach—to serve as the Chief Coach for the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team for the Asian Games. The Supreme Court examined whether prolonged executive inaction and subsequent administrative rejection could override urgent national sporting requirements, ultimately setting aside the High Court’s decision and directing authorities to immediately issue the necessary clearances.

2026 INSC 981 : Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Sovereign Assurance vs. Sentence Computation: Supreme Court Rejects Abu Salem’s Premature Release Plea

This criminal appeal challenged the Bombay High Court’s April 15, 2026 judgment, which dismissed the appellant’s writ petition seeking habeas corpus and mandamus for immediate release from custody. The appellant, extradited from Portugal following a solemn sovereign assurance that his imprisonment would not exceed 25 years, claimed he had already completed the maximum sentence when factoring in undertrial custody, post-conviction incarceration, and jail-earned remissions. The Supreme Court evaluated the correctness of the appellant’s sentence computation and the applicability of remissions to a life sentence governed by an extradition assurance, ultimately dismissing the appeal as premature.

2026 INSC 982 : Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Revenue Entries, Dedication, and Adverse Possession

This civil appeal arises from a long-standing property dispute over agricultural land in Muktsar, Punjab, originating from a civil suit filed in 1981. The competing claims involved a registered sale deed dated May 13, 1965, asserted by the plaintiffs versus a claim of prior dedication for religious and charitable purposes in favor of Dera Bhai Mastan Singh and alternative acquisition of title by adverse possession, asserted by the defendants. The Supreme Court reviewed the correctness of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s second appellate judgment, which had set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

2026 INSC 983 : Bhag Singh (D) Thr. Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) Thr. LRs. and Others (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Supreme Court Clarifies Age Determination Under POCSO and Powers to Convict for Rape Under IPC in Absence of Specific Charge

This criminal appeal challenges a final judgment by the High Court of Meghalaya, which had upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, sentencing him to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution successfully proved the victim’s minority under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and whether an accused can be convicted of rape under Section 376 of the IPC when a specific charge was not formally framed by the trial court.

2026 INSC 984 : Pynchemalangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Supreme Court Affirms Restrictions on Stale Electricity Demands and Disconnection Rights

This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), which had dismissed the distribution licensee’s challenge to an order by the Electricity Ombudsman setting aside a multi-million-rupee demand for Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges (MCGC). The Supreme Court evaluated whether a distribution company can raise and recover delayed electricity charges and exercise statutory disconnection rights for unbilled amounts dating back nearly a decade, in light of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2026 INSC 985 : Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Vidyut Lokpal, Uttar Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Food Safety: Front-of-Package Labelling: Safeguarding Citizens and Children in India

The Supreme Court of India evaluated a miscellaneous application concerning the implementation of Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) for packaged foods to protect public health, particularly among growing children, from High in Fat, Sugar, or Salt (HFSS) and Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF). While acknowledging that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) submitted a proposal featuring a “red hexagon” warning label, the Court identified several operational ambiguities, requiring the FSSAI to file a comprehensive clarification via affidavit within ten days.

2026 INSC 988 :3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr. (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Share
Next Story

Supreme Court Summary 9th September

September 13, 2026 No Comments

Market Manipulation: Supreme Court Clarifies Escrow Release Does Not Bar Fraud Probes, Remands Vedanta Buyback Case

This statutory appeal by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) challenged an order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) which had set aside penalties imposed on Vedanta Limited and its directors for allegedly making a misleading share buyback announcement. The Supreme Court held that releasing an escrow account under Regulation 15B(8) of the Buyback Regulations does not automatically grant immunity or act as a statutory bar against independent investigations and proceedings for fraud under the PFUTP Regulations. However, because both the Adjudicating Officer and SAT failed to properly scrutinize crucial discrepancies in historical trading data and internal investigative reports, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to SAT for a fresh adjudication strictly on the question of fraud.

2026 INSC 978 : Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Vedanta Limited & Ors. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Retiring Partners in Dissolved Firms Entitled to Current Market Value of Property, Not 1983 Rates

This civil appeal arose from a long-standing property and accounts dispute stemming from the dissolution of a partnership at will, M/s Viraj Constructions, originally formed in 1964. After the original plaintiff (Kasireddy Lakshmi Narayana Reddy) issued a notice of dissolution on October 18, 1983, protracted litigation ensued regarding whether his 25 percent share in a valuable land asset located in Begumpet, Hyderabad, should be valued based on its worth as of the 1983 dissolution date or at its current market value. The Supreme Court held that while profits and losses must be calculated up to the date of dissolution (October 18, 1983), the valuation of immovable partnership assets for final distribution must reflect contemporary market realities rather than frozen historical rates. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s directive for the Advocate Commissioner to auction the property and distribute 25 percent of the sale proceeds to the legal representative of the original plaintiff.

2026 INSC 979 : V. Sumitra Reddy & Anr. v. K. Ranganadha Reddy & Ors. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Service Law : Quashing Arbitrary Compulsory Retirement

The Supreme Court of India set aside the compulsory retirement of an Indian Trade Service officer, declaring the government’s order under Fundamental Rule 56(j) as arbitrary, perverse, and vitiated by malice in law. The Court admonished the reviewing authorities for ignoring the officer’s consistently outstanding service record and recent merit-based promotion, emphasizing that a flawless career cannot be negated by unsubstantiated allegations to unfairly label a dedicated official as dead wood.

2026 INSC 980 : S.S. Das v. Union of India (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins