Supreme Court Daily Digest [12 January 2026]

Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association v. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 INSC 51. Consumer Protection Act - Companies Act - IBC

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 71 - Execution must strictly conform to the decree - A decree cannot, by process of execution, be employed to shift or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder. Where the judgment debtor is a company, the liability of its shareholders or joint venture partners remains confined to the extent of their shareholding or to such guarantees or undertakings as may have been expressly furnished by them. (Para 12-13)

Companies Act 2013 - A company registered under the Companies Act is a distinct legal entity other than the legal entity or entities that hold its shares - a clear distinction must be maintained between a company and its shareholders. (Para 16) Doctrine of lifting of the corporate veil - The lifting of the corporate veil is an exceptional measure, to be resorted to only upon a clear finding that the corporate personality was abused for fraudulent or dishonest purposes. Such a finding must be preceded by specific pleadings and a determination on merits. (Para 18)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 14 - Once a moratorium has been declared against the judgment debtor company, the modes of execution contemplated under including attachment and sale of movable or immovable property, attachment of bank accounts, or withdrawal of decretal amounts from the accounts of the judgment debtor, stand interdicted. (Para 15)

Ravi Shankar Bhushan v. Union of India 2026 INSC 50

Summary:  SC recorded compliance with prior directions to recover bank dues into the Fund for persons with disabilities, acknowledged cumulative recoveries of ₹212.39 crore, and recognized that the erstwhile Trust Fund now operates as the statutory National Fund under the RPwD Act. The Court dissolved the oversight committee, relieved the CAG of chairing duties, and placed ongoing administration of the National Fund on the Central Government per Section 86 and Rule 42.

State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar; 2026 INSC 49 - Public Employment- Non Disclosure - Criminal Cases

Public Employment - Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Cases- Proper and complete disclosure in applications for government employment is not a simple procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public trust. -While non-disclosure, depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding circumstances, may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it nevertheless remains a serious lapse. The gravity is significantly compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated, as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects deliberate concealment. Such strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes, and justify a far stricter view by the authorities. (Para 6) [In this case, the SC noted that, the disclaimer makes it clear that concealment of information would render the applicant ineligible/unfit for government service- Held: Subsequent acquittal or the fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of facts cannot accrue to his benefit. ]

Legal Maxim - Juda lex sed lex - The law may be harsh, but the law is law. (Para 9)

Kishorilal (D) v. Gopal 2026 INSC 48 - CPC - Abatement - Specific Performance Suit - Res Judicata - Lis Pendens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXII - Abatement- Before declaring a suit or proceeding to have abated on ground of non-substitution of the heirs/ legal representatives of a deceased party, the Court must examine whether the interest of the deceased party qua the subject matter of the proceeding is sufficiently represented by other parties already on record. If the interest of the deceased party is sufficiently represented by other parties already on record, and the decree/order eventually passed in the suit or proceeding would not be rendered non-executable for absence of that party, the suit or proceeding would not abate. (Para 38(1))

Specific Performance Suit- In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property, vendor is a necessary party notwithstanding he has transferred his interest in the property to a third party. As a sequitur, a suit or an appeal emanating from such a suit would abate if, upon death of the vendor, his legal heirs/ representatives are not substituted. (Para 38(2))

Transfer of Property Act 1882- Section 52 - Lis Pendens - Though a transfer lis pendens is not always void, such transferee’s title is subservient to the decree that may ultimately be passed in the pending suit. (Para 38(3))

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I- A transferee lis pendens is not a necessary party in a suit for specific performance. (Para 38(3))

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I- A transferee lis pendens may pursue the appeal against a decree of specific performance against the vendor, as a legal representative/ inter-meddler of the estate of the vendor- The vendor would have to be impleaded as a party in the appeal and on his death, on non-substitution of his heirs /legal representatives, the appeal would abate. (Para 38(4))

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 10- Specific Performance Suit - the vendor is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, notwithstanding that vendor has transferred his interest in the subject matter of the agreement to a third party. Reason being that the transferee/ third party cannot be subjected to special covenants, if any, between the vendor and the plaintiff-purchaser. Besides that, the object of the decree of specific performance is to put the person who has agreed to purchase the property in the same position which he would have obtained in case the contracting parties i.e., vendor and the purchaser had, pursuant to the agreement, executed a deed of sale and completed it in every way. 

Res Judicata - The principle applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to the extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. However, what is important is that this does not preclude the appellate court or a higher court to test the correctness of that decision. (Para 31)