SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 8 | Issue 3

In this issue, we shortlist five important judgements from 10 August to 15 August 2026

Volume 8 Issue 3 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here!

The Supreme Court delivered 37 judgements between 10 August to 14 August 2026. In this issue, we have identified five of the most important judgements published by the Court during this period. They include judgements on:

• Intention as defence against insider-trading charges
• Interim relief in arbitration proceedings
• Interim orders on pre-arrest application
• Sentences for offences before 2019 POCSO Amendment
• Exemption from attachment or bail

As always, the judgements are available on our SCO.LR page with concise summaries, clean and readable judgements with citation features and a mindmap.

********** 

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 8 | Issue 3 

10 August – 15 August 2026

 **********

Intention as Defence Against Insider-trading Charges

Securities Exchange Board of India v Rajeev Vasanth Sheth 

11 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 826 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(3)[11]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that intention is irrelevant in determining charges of insider-trading under Section 4(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations 2015.

In 2020, the respondents—the management of the Tara Jewels Limited—were issued an Order-cum-Show Cause Notice by SEBI for jointly selling more than 30,00,000 shares during the Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) period in violation of Section 4(1) of the 2015 SEBI Regulation, resulting in the avoidance of a loss of ₹1.38 crores. In 2021, SEBI found the respondents guilty under the 2015 Regulations. The respondents challenged the Order at the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Mumbai. SAT allowed the appeal and held that the trading of shares was done with the intention to avoid the company being downgraded as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Subsequently, SEBI moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court allowed SEBI’s appeal and restored the Order. The Court held that the sale of securities during the UPSI period is presumed to be a motivated act under the 2015 Regulation, making intention to trade irrelevant.

Key word/phrases: Section 4(1)—Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations 2015—Prohibition of insider trading—Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) period—Trading during UPSI Period—Show-cause notice—Order—Securities Appellate Tribunal—SEBI Order reversed—Supreme Court—Presumption of intention—2015 Regulations—SEBI Order restored.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Interim Relief in Post-Award Arbitral Proceedings

National Projects Construction Corporation v Ishvakoo (India)

11 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 828 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(3)[12]

Bench: Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that an award debtor can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 post-award to prevent irreparable prejudice and preserve the efficacy of a Section 34 challenge, though under a higher threshold for interim relief.

In 2002, National Projects Construction Corporation (NPCC) awarded Ishvakoo (India) ₹3.5 crore as an advance against bank guarantees for a project in Agra. Following disputes, Ishvakoo initiated arbitration and sought a Section 9 injunction to restrain NPCC from invoking the guarantees. In September 2017, after Ishvakoo failed to renew the guarantees, NPCC encashed them. The arbitrator ultimately dismissed Ishvakoo’s claims, while NPCC raised no counterclaims. Ishvakoo challenged the award under Section 34 and filed a fresh Section 9 application seeking a refund of the encashed amount. The Delhi High Court ordered NPCC to deposit ₹3.5 crore with its Registry, a decision upheld by its Division Bench.

The Supreme Court found that Ishvakoo had fulfilled “in ample measure” the necessary parameters for obtaining relief under Section 9. It noted that NPCC had filed no counterclaim. Further, the arbitral award had made no finding that Ishvakoo misutilised the advance. Allowing NPCCC to retain the funds during the Section 34 proceedings would result in unjust enrichment. It granted NPCC four weeks to deposit ₹3.5 crores with the Registry of the Delhi High Court, where the amount was to be kept in a fixed deposit until disposal of the Section 34 application.

Key words/phrases: Arbitration—Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Post-award interim relief—Award Debtor—Unsuccessful party—Higher threshold—Rare and compelling cases—Irreparable prejudice—Efficacy of the challenge—Section 34 application—Bank guarantees—Prima facie case—Balance of convenience—Irreparable harm or injury—Reasonable expedition—Efficacy of arbitration

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Interim Orders in Pre-arrest Applications 

Union of India v Sunil Biyani 

12 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 849 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(3)[13]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

The Supreme Court held that a court cannot grant interim protection against arrest while dismissing an application for pre-arrest bail as non-maintainable. Further, it held that a prerequisite for seeking anticipatory bail is communication of an arrest order under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

The respondent was issued three summonses under Section 70 of the CGST Act during an investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). The respondent sought anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and subsequently the Bombay High Court. The High Court rejected his application noting that no arrest order was issued under Section 69 of the CGST Act. It granted the respondent one week of protection from arrest from the date of intimation if a Section 69 order was passed. The Union appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’ judgement. It stated that all interim protections will cease upon the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail application. On Section 69, the Court held that the order authorising arrest must carry sufficient “reasons to believe” and be communicated to the accused electronically or through other permissible modes.

Key words/phrases: Section 69—Power to arrest—Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017—Section 70—Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents—Application for pre-arrest bail—Bombay High Court—Dismisses application—No order authorising arrest—Interim protection order—Supreme Court appeal—No interim protection if application is dismissed—High Court judgement set aside 

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Sentencing for Offences Committed Before the 2019 POCSO Amendment

Balesh Kumar Kuraiti v State of Chhattisgarh

12 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 850 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(3)[14]

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and V.M. Pancholi

The Supreme Court held that a punishment introduced by a later amendment cannot be applied retrospectively. Article 20(1) of the Constitution requires the sentence to be determined under the law applicable when the offence was committed.

In 2016, Balesh Kumar Kuraiti was accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three-year-old girl. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and sentenced him to life imprisonment under both provisions. The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment. It referred to the enhanced punishment introduced by the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act and Section 42 of the POCSO Act. Kuraiti approached the Supreme Court, which confined the appeal to the sentence.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s modification of the sentence and restored life imprisonment under both provisions. It held that the High Court could not rely on the 2019 amendment for an offence committed in 2016. The Court directed that the sentences run concurrently. It clarified that the life sentence under Section 376(2)(i) would not carry a stipulation that Kuraiti remain imprisoned for the rest of his natural life.

Key words/phrases: Section 6—Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Section 376(2)(i) —Indian Penal Code, 1860—Offence committed in 2016—Trial Court imposes life imprisonment—High Court reduces sentence to 20 years—Reliance on 2019 POCSO amendment—Article 20(1)—Enhanced punishment cannot apply retrospectively—Supreme Court restores life imprisonment with eligibility for remission.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Exemption of Main Residence from Attachment or Sale

Sheela Gehlot v Mohini Hardayal Singh

14 August 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 863 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(3)[15]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that protection of main residence property under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 only applies to the judgement-debtor and does not extend to their legal representatives.

In 1983, a malt manufacturing unit ceased to function, leading to irregularities in loan repayment. The Punjab and Sind Bank filed a recovery suit for ₹3.84 crores, resulting in a compromise decree. The Bank filed an execution petition against the legal representatives of the judgement-debtor after he passed away in 1994. The proceedings were transferred to the newly established Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur in 1998. The DRT ordered an auction of property in Delhi, which was later upheld by the appellate tribunal (DRAT) in 2007. The legal representatives filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court arguing that the property was exempt from attachment for sale under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC. When the High Court remitted the matter for fresh inquiry, the DRAT held that the respondents had failed to raise the plea at an earlier stage. The DRAT’s decision was set aside by the High Court, holding that the respondent was entitled to raise the plea as a mixed question of law and fact.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court decision. It upheld the validity of the sale, stating that mixed questions of law and fact cannot be raised for the first time in a writ petition.

Key words/phrases: Debt recovery suit filed at civil court—Transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal—DRT orders auction of property in Delhi—Upheld by DRAT—Respondents argue for exemption of main residence under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Civil Procedure Code—High Court remits case for fresh inquiry—Supreme Court sets aside High Court decision—Exemption of main residence only available to judgement-debtor—Mixed question of law and fact cannot be raised for the first time in writ petition.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP