Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 r/w Ss. 2(4) and 16 — Jurisdiction of arbitrator to adjudicate under the 1996 Act: Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitrator to adjudicate under the 1996 Act, under S. 34 on account of the 1983 Adhiniyam, post rendering of award is not permissible, when such objection is not raised in terms of S. 16(2) of the 1996 Act, [Sweta Construction v. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 722]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 r/w Ss. 2(4) and 16 — Jurisdiction of arbitrator to adjudicate under the 1996 Act: Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitrator to adjudicate under the 1996 Act, under S. 34 on account of the 1983 Adhiniyam, post rendering of award is not permissible, when such objection is not raised in terms of S. 16(2), [JMC Projects (India) Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corpn, (2024) 4 SCC 729]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 9 — Jurisdiction: Absolute necessity of determination of jurisdiction, at the earliest stage, emphasized. Illegal and erroneous assumption of jurisdiction renders any order as void ab initio, without such adjudication on question of jurisdiction, [Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, (2024) 4 SCC 696]
Constitution of India — Arts. 21, 14 and 39-A — Anticipatory bail — Scope of: Law clarified re grant of extra-territorial transit or interim anticipatory bail, [Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 4 SCC 749]
Customs — Appeal — Appeal to Supreme Court: Refusal to interfere, where matters stand concluded by findings of facts by authorities, [Commr. of Customs v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd, (2024) 4 SCC 825]
Customs Act, 1962 — S. 28(1) — Extended period of limitation: Conditions for applicability of extended period of limitation, summarized. Decision thereon, held, is a must for maintainability of show-cause notice, [Shashi Dhawal Hydraulics (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, (2024) 4 SCC 812]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 53 r/w S. 52 and S. 30(2)(b)(ii) — Set-off under IBC: Law extensively surveyed and clarified re scope, ambit and permissibility of set-off under IBC, with reference to five kinds of set-off, namely : (a) statutory or legal set-off; (b) common law set-off; (c) equitable set-off; (d) contractual set-off; and (e) insolvency set-off — Law extensively surveyed and clarified. Insolvency set-off (i.e. one amongst the five kinds of set-off) under CIRP, not permissible. Binding effect of principle of pari passu implicitly contained within S. 53 r/w S. 52 IBC, clarified, [Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Aircel Ltd. & Dishnet Wireless Ltd. (Resolution Professional, (2024) 4 SCC 668]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 201, 363 and 364 — Confession — Extra-judicial: Principles summarized re when extra-judicial confession may be relied, [Kalinga v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 4 SCC 735]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 323 and 341 — Discharge — Remission of matter for holding trial — Whether warranted: In absence of justification for such remission, because of prior enmity between parties and inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, discharge, affirmed, [Ramalingam v. N. Viswanathan, (2024) 4 SCC 808]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 376 and 506 — Post marriage relationship with spouse, based on forced marriage alleged by complainant: Ingredients of rape whether made out in case of post marriage relationship with spouse, based on forced marriage alleged by complainant, [Mohd. Julfukar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2024) 4 SCC 821]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 499 and 500 — Defamation — Quashing of prosecution — Circumstances envisaged: Though every prosecution for defamation cannot be quashed on ground that offending allegations have been withdrawn, but in instant case, considering that not only offending statements were unconditionally withdrawn, but petitioner had also explained circumstances and context in which they were made, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution, prosecution directed to be quashed, [Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta, (2024) 4 SCC 731]
Securities, Markets and Exchanges — Securities — Nomination and Succession: Nomination under Ss. 109-A and 109-B of the Companies Act, 1956/S. 72 of the Companies Act, 2013 and/or Bye-laws framed under S. 26 of the Depositories Act (NSDL Bye-laws 9.11.1 & 9.11.7), is subject to succession laws i.e. such nomination does not override testamentary or intestate succession, [Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, (2024) 4 SCC 642]
