SPPL had dismantled a 12 MW generating unit on account of increase in cost and non-availability of bagasse and sought reduction of export capacity under the Force Majeure clause of the PPA. APTEL held that such circumstances are ‘usual and natural events' which could have been foreseen at the time of execution of the PPA and do not constitute a Force Majeure event.

The generator approached CERC alleging non-payment of tariff, capacity charges and transmission charges and unilateral deductions from invoices by the distribution licensee and also challenged the termination of the PPA.

The Court held that the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act does not oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to decide upon the validity or cancellation of registered sale deeds.

The High Court of Delhi, by way of its judgment dated 23.03.2026 in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Manish Jain & Ors...

The High Court of Delhi, by way of its judgment dated 16.03.2026, in the matter of Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd.1, allowed the appeal against the order of the Single Judge...

The High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as Farhad Suri & Anr. v. Praveen Choudhary & Ors. , through its judgment dated 16.12.2025, quashed multiple summoning orders and criminal complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act

The High Court of Delhi, in the matter titled as M/s Khubi Ram Rajiv Kumar & Co. v. M/s Naveen Enterprises & Ors. , through its judgment dated 20.12.2025, allowed an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act and held that the arbitral tribunal had erred in rejecting the claimant's entitlement to interest.

The High Court of Kerala through its judgment dated 10.11.2025 in Sigmatic Nidhi Limited v. Suresh Kumar & Ors. affirmed that an arbitration agreement remains valid and enforceable even if it is not signed by all the parties.

The High Court of Madras through its judgment dated 17.11.2025 in Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. v. ICMC Corporation Ltd.

The Supreme Court through its judgement dated 07.04.2026 in Renuka v. the State of Maharashtra & Anr. affirmed that where the basic ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are satisfied, the complaint cannot be dismissed at the pre-trial stage on the ground that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt.

The Supreme Court in the matter titled as Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Bharat Aluminum Company Limited , through its judgement dated 18.12.2025 affirmed that, courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards.

However, if there is a first charge statutorily created, dehors the non obstante clause conferring priority over other debts, the statutory charge would prevail

The Supreme Court through its judgement dated 07.04.2026 in State Bank of India v Amit Iron Private Limited & Others held that there is no right for borrowers to seek personal hearing before classification as fraud, however furnishing Forensic Audit Reports is mandatory.

The Supreme Court through its judgment dated 03.02.2026 in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, held that an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act")...

The Supreme Court, through its judgement dated 24.04.2026 in the matter of Home Care Retail Marts Private Limited v Haresh N. Sanghavi held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party in arbitration, may invoke Section 9 of the A&C Act at the post-award stage.

The Supreme Court through its judgment dated 02.06.2026 in the matter of National Highway Authority of India v T. Younis & Another held that the limitation period for filing an application challenging the arbitral award is to be computed from the date on which the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”) is disposed off by the arbitral tribunal.

Supreme Court through its judgement dated 06.02.2026 in M/s Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India held that, once an order confirming attachment under Section 8(3)...

The Supreme Court of India, by way of its judgement dated 20.03.2026 in the matter of Ujaas Energy Limited v. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited...

The Supreme Court through its judgement dated 10.04.2026 in the matter of Ram Chandra Choudhary & Others v Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited & Others held that District Co-operative Milk Unions (District Milk Unions) are not ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 18.05.2026 in the matter of M/s R.C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sharad Maheshwari & Anr., dismissed an appeal challenging the decree of District Judge directing refund of INR 18,00,000/- to the purchasers in a real estate dispute arising out of cancellation of a villa allotment and alleged forfeiture of earnest money.