2026 के सुप्रीम कोर्ट के प्रमुख फैसले: मध्यस्थता, सार्वजनिक संसाधन, दिवालियापन और नशे की दवाओं के मामलों में नई दिशा-निर्देश

This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 4 of Volume 7, embodies landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court on issues like interpretation of arbitral award, allocation of public resources, sale of assets of corporate debtor, bail under NDPS Act, and more.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 36 — Award — Execution of — Obligation(s) of the part(ies) — Determination of, by interpretation of award: Law clarified on applicability of literal rule of interpretation and not rule of purposive interpretation, [VPS Healthcare (P) Ltd. v. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava, (2026) 7 SCC 575]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 36 — Execution of award: Letters patent appeals are not maintainable against order passed by a Single Judge of High Court in course of execution of an arbitral award. 1996 Act is a self-contained code. Proceedings for execution of arbitral awards are governed exclusively by 1996 Act and not by general provisions of CPC, except to a limited extent where 1996 Act specifically applies CPC provisions, [Bharat Kantilal Dalal v. Chetan Surendra Dalal, (2026) 7 SCC 604]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 8, 11 and 16 — Reference to arbitration and appointment of arbitrator — Allegations of fraud — Effect of: When existence of contract containing arbitration clause alleged to be fake, parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate as allegations of such a nature would amount to serious allegations of fraud and would render subject matter of an agreement non-arbitrable, [Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee, (2026) 7 SCC 631]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11(d), Or. 2 R. 2 and Or. 7 R. 13: Law clarified on distinction between bar to suit under Or. 7 R. 11(d) CPC vis-à-vis bar to relief/right to sue under Or. 2 R. 2, [S. Valliammai v. S. Ramanathan, (2026) 7 SCC 482]

Constitution of India — Arts. 14, 32 & 226 — Allocation of public resources, the award of public contracts or the execution of public works: Scope of constitutional concern and judicial review, when there are allegations relating to conflict of interest or related party benefit, explained, [Save Mon Region Federation v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (2026) 7 SCC 532]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 438 — Anticipatory bail — Entitlement to: Appellant, held, not entitled to anticipatory bail when appellant found possessing non-commercial quantity of heroin and found also involved in one more case under the NDPS Act, [Parwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2026) 7 SCC 529]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 483 — Bail — Grant of, in offence under NDPS Act, when the applicants not supplied with the “grounds of arrest” before taking them into custody: Supplying the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest or, in a given case, under exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter, held, is the mandate of the Constitutional guarantees provided under Art. 22(1) r/w Art. 21. Any deviation from the above principle, held, would lead to the arrest of the accused being declared illegal entitling such accused to be released forthwith, [Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India, (2026) 7 SCC 524]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 — Regn. 33(2)(d) — Sale of assets of corporate debtor by means of private sale with prior permission of adjudicating authority (NCLT): Forfeiture of part payment made by purchaser, on non-compliance with directed time-lines for payment given by NCLT, valid, [Shri Karshni Alloys (P) Ltd. v. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan, (2026) 7 SCC 593]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — S. 37(1)(b)(ii) r/w Ss. 21(c) and 29 — Bail — Grant of, in offence under Ss. 21(c) and 29: Right of speedy trial under Art. 21 must be exercised within the framework of S. 37 and cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to override it. Further, held, the constitutional right under Art. 21 and the special provision of law under S. 37, held, to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition to each other, [State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh, (2026) 7 SCC 513]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Ss. 38, 39 and 41 — Suit for injunction simpliciter: Law clarified re maintainability of suit for injunction simpliciter, [Sanjay Paliwal v. BHEL, (2026) 7 SCC 614]

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Ss. 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) & 38(1) — Liability of appellant — Plea of mistaken identity: Effect of plea of mistaken identity, when investigating agency had not taken requisite steps to locate, apprehend and bring the absconding accused to trial, explained, [Sri v. State, (2026) 7 SCC 556]

Powered by Nyaya 247 News