SC This Week: Key Rulings On Arbitral Awards, Insolvency, Rape Law, Consent Decrees And Unlicensed Money-Lending

New Delhi: This week, the Supreme Court ruled on arbitration, insolvency, criminal law and civil procedure. It held that an arbitral tribunal cannot rewrite the terms of a contract, that a Committee of Creditors cannot withdraw an approved resolution plan, and that a failed consensual relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape. It also held that a stranger to a consent decree can seek leave to appeal, and observed that unlicensed money-lenders in Maharashtra face a threshold bar in cheque cases.

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Rewrite Contractual Terms Under Section 28(3): SC

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that a majority arbitral award directing a conveyance in disregard of the agreement’s binding sequence of obligations violated Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision to set aside the award under Section 37, noting that the tribunal treated the matter as a suit for specific performance and replaced the agreed rate and terms. Invoking Article 142, it directed the landowners to refund the amounts received with 9% simple interest. Read more

CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Finances: SC

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the Ebix Singapore principle, which bars the successful resolution applicant from withdrawing a CoC-approved plan, “applies squarely to the CoC too”. The Court said Section 12-A of the IBC cannot be read apart from Sections 30 and 31, and that withdrawal is possible only until the CoC approves the plan. The pending applications on confirmation of the plan and a settlement offer were left to the NCLT. Read more

Consensual Relationship Can not Be Retrospectively Branded as Rape: SC

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan discharged a man of offences under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 IPC. The complainant had continued to live with him for seven years after learning of his earlier marriage, and the Court held that intimacy during a functioning relationship cannot be “retrospectively branded” as rape merely because it soured. It added that genuine cases of deceit must still be pursued with vigour.  Read more

Stranger to Consent Decree Can Appeal if Independent Legal Rights Are Affected: SC

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the bar under Section 96(3) CPC read with Order XXIII Rules 3 and 3A applies only to parties to the compromise. A non-party who shows a legally cognisable interest prejudicially affected by the decree may seek leave to appeal. The Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s leave, its condonation of an 11-year delay and its interim injunction, without opining on the merits or the fraud allegations. Read more

Unlicensed Maharashtra Moneylenders Cannot Enforce Promissory Note Loans: SC

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria declined to clarify its 26.05.2026 judgment in Mansi Finance as applying across India, noting that it did not decide the Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra statutes. It observed that, under the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, an advance at interest against a promissory note by an unlicensed lender is not a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 NI Act, and that the lender must produce a licence at the threshold. Whether the bar applies is for the concerned court. Read more