The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in V.K. John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF (Died), represented by LRs. & Others (2026 INSC 393), clarified that a challenge to an arbitral award by legal representatives must be pursued under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court made it
... Continue Reading.Absence of Full Trial Makes Foreign Judgment Unenforceable in India: Supreme Court
In a significant ruling on the enforcement of foreign judgments, the Supreme Court of India in Messer Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. (2026) has reaffirmed that a foreign judgment rendered without a full and fair trial, particularly in summary proceedings where triable issues exist, cannot be enforced in India under Section 13
... Continue Reading.Arbitration Clause Not Binding If It Uses ‘Can’: Supreme Court Clarifies Law
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant 2026 judgment, has clarified an important aspect of arbitration law, whether the use of permissive language like “can” in a dispute resolution clause creates a binding arbitration agreement. The ruling in Nagreeeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 384) reinforces a
... Continue Reading.It’s the time to Pisco: Delhi HC Dismisses Peru’s GI Hopes Again!
“A Tale of Two Countries”. That is how the Delhi HC Division Bench (“DB”) described the judgment dated 18th March 2026 in the Appeal by the Embassy of Peru against the July 2025 Pisco decision by Justice Mini Pushkarna. Extensively covered on our blog previously, in travelling through the IPAB and the Delhi HC, the
... Continue Reading.PREMATURE REJECTION, DENIED JUSTICE: REVISITING ORDER VII RULE 11
INTRODUCTION In M/s. Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani & Ors. (decided on 21 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, examined the scope of rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Judgment arose from an Order of
... Continue Reading.IBC MECHANISM NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR DECREE EXECUTION OR RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS
INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court in Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Shubh Gautam, 2026 INSC 410, on April 23, 2026, comprising of a Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. clarifying whether a decree-holder can invoke insolvency proceedings as a substitute for execution of a civil court decree. BRIEF FACTS The Respondent, a
... Continue Reading.MAINTENANCE FOR CHILD CANNOT BE DEMANDED FROM A MAN IF A DNA TEST SHOWS HE IS NOT THE FATHER
INTRODUCTION In Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026 INSC 399, decided on 21 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed a crucial principle related to whether a child born during marriage could claim maintenance when a DNA test negated
... Continue Reading.SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS JUSTIFIES REVOCATION OF PROBATE: SUPREME COURT RESTORES TRIAL COURT’S ORDER
INTRODUCTION In S. Leorex Sebastian & Anr. v. Sarojini & Ors., 2026 INSC 400, decided on 21 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, examined the scope of revocation of probate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court held that where probate is obtained by
... Continue Reading.FROM CONVICTION TO ACQUITTAL: THE ROLE OF RELIABLE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW
INTRODUCTION In The State of Assam v. Moinul Haque@ Monu (decided on 16 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, decided by the Supreme Court of India, marks a significant reiteration of the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the limits of appellate review. The Bench, while examining
... Continue Reading.SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE ON THE BASIS OF SINGLE CREDIBLE WITNESS
INTRODUCTION In Adalat Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 2026 INSC 403, decided on 22 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, reaffirmed a settled but often contested principle of criminal law: a conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a single witness, provided
... Continue Reading.