The Legal Digest
Legal Digest
The latest Supreme Court and High Court rulings, distilled into what happened, how it was decided, and the lesson worth remembering.
9 rulings decided yesterday
Creditors can't undo an approved insolvency resolution plan just because the company recovered
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate tribunal's ruling that creditors cannot unilaterally withdraw an already-approved Resolution Plan merely because the debtor's fortunes later improved: once approved and placed before the Tribunal, the plan becomes binding under the IBC's statutory framework, not ordinary contract law, and the withdrawal route applies only before approval, not after. The Court left it to the Tribunal to decide both the winning bidder's confirmation request and the promoters' competing settlement application on the merits.
Courts can settle a stressed-loan dispute equitably to save jobs, without deciding every legal question
Rather than ruling on the underlying legal disputes, the Supreme Court, noting troubling facts about the ARC's funding and its failure to justify its claimed returns, acted as "a court of equity" to preserve the company as a running business and protect employee jobs. Following a court-appointed mediator's recommendation, it fixed a lump-sum further payment as full and final settlement, with securities to be released on payment and parallel recovery proceedings disposed of.
A consumer disconnected over theft claims can still get power restored by depositing half the bill
The Supreme Court held that even in theft cases, since the Act provides no separate assessment procedure, the amount needed for restoring supply must use the same procedure as ordinary unauthorized-use cases, giving consumers a provisional assessment, a chance to object, and a right of appeal. However, this process is final only for restoring the connection; it doesn't override the Special Court's separate power to finally determine civil liability once a criminal theft complaint is filed, with any excess deposit refundable later.
An original title document beats a photocopy, no matter who won the decree
The Supreme Court reversed, finding the lower courts had the evidence backwards: the resisting party's son had produced the original title document, while the decree-holder had never produced anything but an unadmitted photocopy. Possession of the original document, not tax receipts, was the real indicator of title. The Court also held that a person never made party to a suit over "their" land is entitled to resist execution directly rather than being forced into a fresh suit, since the law specifically bars that separate-suit route.
Challenging a wakf notification has a one-year window; decades of silence forecloses it
The Supreme Court restored the injunction, holding that an earlier Survey Commissioner's Report had already established the land as wakf property, meaning the defendants' vendors never had any right to sell it. The 1989 gazette notification further confirmed this, and since neither the defendants nor their vendors had challenged that notification within the one-year statutory limitation period, the question of title was never genuinely in dispute.
A fraudulent land acquisition can be unwound decades later, regardless of delay
The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's order, holding that a middleman arrangement to manipulate a government acquisition without any genuine approved scheme amounts to fraud and a colourable exercise of power that strikes at the root of the acquisition regardless of delay. Fraud overrides res judicata, and a dismissed Special Leave Petition creates no binding precedent. The Court ordered possession restored to the landowners (who must refund any compensation without interest) and barred the society from any claim.
3 more rulings for members
You're seeing the first few Supreme Court rulings. Log in — it's free — to read the full digest.
Log in to see moreAn original title document beats a photocopy, no matter who won the decree
A decree-holder won a 1999 title and possession decree based only on a photocopy of a 1972 land grant. When he tried to execute it in 2000, a third party who was never part of the original suit resisted, claiming he held the original 1972 grant document and had built structures on the site decades earlier. Both lower courts rejected his claim.
What this means for you
Producing the original title document carries far more evidentiary weight than a photocopy or tax receipts; someone who only learns of an adverse decree at execution can resist it directly rather than filing a fresh suit.
Balakrishna (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. G.N. Kanniah Naidu (Dead) Thr. LRs. and Another · 2026 INSC 1155
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
What is the Legal Digest?+
The Legal Digest is LegalAware's daily round-up of new court rulings in India. Each ruling is given a one-line takeaway and a plain-language summary of what happened, how the court decided and the lesson worth remembering.
Which courts does the Legal Digest cover?+
The Legal Digest currently covers the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. You can switch between the two courts at the top of the page.
How often is the Legal Digest updated?+
The Legal Digest is updated daily with newly decided rulings.
What does each digest entry tell me?+
Each entry shows the court, the area of law, the date of the decision, a one-line takeaway in everyday words, and a short account of what the court decided and why.
Do I need to log in to read the Legal Digest?+
The first few rulings for each court are open to everyone. Logging in, which is currently free, opens the rest of the digest.
Are the Legal Digest summaries written by lawyers?+
No. The summaries are generated by AI from the text of each judgment and are not reviewed by a lawyer before they are published. Treat each summary as a starting point and read the full judgment before relying on it.
Can I treat a Legal Digest summary as legal advice?+
No. LegalAware is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. A digest summary tells you what a court decided in one case, which may not apply to your own facts. Speak to a qualified lawyer about your situation.