SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 10 | Issue 1

Volume 10 Issue 1 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! In this issue, we have identified five of the most important judgements, including decisions on:

• Relief under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
• Preventive detention under the National Security Act 
• Notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act 
• Recall of  Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process 
• Determining a “natural witness” 

As always, SCO.LR judgements come with concise and accurate summaries, clean and well-formatted judgements with linking features for better readability and ease of research. 

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 10 | Issue 1

28 September – 2 October 2026

**********

Omitted Relief Under Order II Rule 2 CPC

Bombay Garage Ahmedabad v J P Iscon Private

29 September 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1066 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(1)[1]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Chandran

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot seek a relief in a subsequent suit after the relief was omitted from an earlier suit. It is deemed to be a relinquishment of claim under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The respondent initially filed a suit for permanent injunction based on an alleged oral agreement for sale of immovable property. The plaintiff stated that the defendants had refused to honour the agreement. The suit was subsequently withdrawn after the plaintiff sought liberty to file a fresh suit, following which the respondent instituted a second suit seeking specific performance. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court affirmed the decree. The appellants challenged the maintainability of the second suit, contending that it was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, since the specific performance had already arisen in the first suit and no leave had been obtained to seek that relief subsequently. The respondent argued that the liberty sought while withdrawing the first suit permitted the fresh suit and that Order XXIII Rule 1(3), rather than Order II Rule 2, applied.

The Supreme Court held that the relief of specific performance was available when the first suit was instituted, but the plaintiff neither claimed it nor obtained leave to reserve it. The Court held that the liberty sought at the time of withdrawal could not cure the omission and that Order XXIII Rule 1(3) applied to withdrawal of a suit for the subject matter, not to a new relief omitted from the earlier suit.

Key words/phrases: Order II Rule 2—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order II Rule 2(3)—Omitted relief—Specific performance—Earlier suit for permanent injunction—Same cause of action—Withdrawal of suit—Liberty to file fresh suit—Leave at institution of first suit—Oral agreement—Concluded contract—Appeal allowed—Suit dismissed

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Preventive Detention Based on Police Confession

Mulla Afroz v Union of India

29 September 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 1067 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(1)[2]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

The Supreme Court held that a confession made to a police officer cannot  justify preventive detention unless independent material supports it.

Mulla Afroz was arrested in January 2025 in connection with the violence which occurred during the survey of a mosque in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. He allegedly made a confession in police custody. After he obtained bail in one case, the District Magistrate detained him on 13 October 2025 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention was subsequently confirmed for one year. The Allahabad High Court dismissed his habeas corpus petition, holding that the District Magistrate’s subjective satisfaction was justified.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgement, the detention and the confirmation orders. It held that Afroz’s police confession could not sustain the detention. Further, his allegations of torture and threats had not been rebutted. The CCTV footage and video recordings relied upon to implicate him had neither been supplied to him nor produced before the courts. It directed Afroz’s release and ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay him ₹10 lakh as costs within one month. 

Key words/phrases: Section 3(2)—Preventive Detention—National Security Act, 1980—Sambhal mosque survey violence—Arrest in multiple cases—Confession in police custody—Confession allegedly obtained through torture and threats—Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India—protection against self-incrimination—Section 23—Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023—CCTV and video material neither supplied nor produced—Detention order quashed—₹10 lakh costs imposed as costs.

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Service of Notice under Negotiable Instruments Act

Sainaba v State of Kerala

30 September 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 1069 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(1)[3]

Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Manmohan

The Supreme Court held that a statutory demand notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is presumed to be served on the notice being dispatched to the correct address, irrespective of whether the notice is received by a third-party. 

The respondent was served a notice of statutory demand by the appellant under Section 138 after his cheque towards the re-payment of a borrowed sum of ₹ 3 lakhs was dishonoured. The notice was received by the respondent’s mother, following which the respondent did not make any payment or file a reply. The appellant moved the Trial Court, which sentenced the respondent to imprisonment of six months with a fine. The respondent’s appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge was dismissed. The Kerala High Court acquitted the respondent holding that service of the notice cannot be validly concluded without proof that the accused was aware and deliberately avoided it. The appellant moved the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgement, holding that once the notice is dispatched by the sender to the correct address of the sendee, it is not for the sender to prove the receipt of the notice by the sendee. Rather, the obligation lies on the sendee to prove that the notice has not been delivered to the correct address or that he had no knowledge of the notice. 

Key words/Phrases: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Notice—Satutordy demand—Received by a third party—First Information Report—Trial Court convicted—Appeal—High Court acquitted—Appeal to Supreme Court—Presumption of service—Notice being sent at the correct address—Burden of proof lies on the recipient—Receipt by third-party cannot rebut presumption of service. 

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Adjudicating Authority’s Power to Recall CIRP 

Orris Infrastructure v Rakesh Kumar Gupta

30 September 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 1070 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(1)[4]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that the Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) possesses the power and jurisdiction to recall an order admitting a Section 9 petition and initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), if the initiation was based on fraud and active collusion between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor.  

Orris Infrastructure entered into a development agreement with Three C Shelters for constructing a real estate project. Due to construction delays, homebuyers formed an association and pursued remedies before the HRERA and NCDRC. During this period, Straight Edge Contracts filed a Section 9 petition claiming to be an operational creditor. The petition was admitted by the AA based on an admission affidavit submitted by the Corporate Debtor’s directors. Subsequent applications revealed that the initiation of CIRP was fraudulent and collusive, having been facilitated by dummy directors without any genuine underlying debt or actual work performed. The AA held that while active collusion existed, it lacked the statutory power to recall or review its own admission order. On appeal, the NCLAT set aside the CIRP entirely on grounds of fraud. Appellants, including Orris Infrastructure and homebuyer associations, appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT judgement and restored the CIRP proceedings. It held that a finding of fraud or collusion does not automatically mandate the termination of CIRP. The AA has the jurisdiction to decide whether to continue the CIRP to subserve the larger public purpose of resolving the corporate debtor’s insolvency in the interest of other stakeholders, including homebuyers and financial creditors. It directed the AA to examine whether the CIRP should be continued. If answered affirmatively, to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. 

Key words/phrases: Section 9—Application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP)—Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016—Initiation of  CIRP—Petition for initiation was fraudulent and collusive—Adjudicating Authority (AA) refuses recall of admission order—Lack of statutory power to recall—NCLAT sets aside CIRP—Supreme Court appeal—AA has authority to recall—Jurisdiction to decide whether CIRP can continue for larger interest—Decide proceedings expeditiously—CIRP restored 

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Determination of “Natural Witness”

State of Himachal Pradesh v Anchla @ Chanchla

Citation: 2026 INSC 1074 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(1)[5]

01 October 2026

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi

The Supreme Court held that determining whether a person is a “natural witness” involves evaluating why, when and under what circumstances their statement was recorded during an investigation. A natural witness is someone who organically possesses knowledge or awareness of relevant, incriminating facts and voluntarily or logically imparts that information to the police.

The accused was arrested for the double murder of her step-mother and step-brother. She was convicted by the trial court on the basis of witness testimonies that claimed she was last seen with the deceased before taking a taxi and residing at a nearby hotel. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the conviction on the grounds that the motive of interest in property bequeathed to the deceased was not proved and that the witness testimonies were not reliable. 

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal and questioned why a taxi driver and a hotel worker’s statements were recorded when they were neither present at the scene of the crime nor disclosing information that was incriminating in and of itself. It emphasised that omission of tower locations from the Call Detail Records of seized mobile phones was a serious investigating lapse. 

Key words/phrases: Accused convicted by trial court for double murder—Conviction based on last seen circumstance and witness testimonies of a taxi driver and hotel worker—High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the conviction—Witnesses not reliable and motive not proved—Supreme Court upheld the acquittal—Investigating Officer must be able to explain why the statements of certain persons were recorded in order to establish that they are natural witnesses

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP