India's legal week of 14–20 September 2026 turned on reach — how far a rule can extend past the class it was written for, and how far a legislative fix extends once Parliament decides a mischief needs correcting now, not just going forward. The Supreme Court struck down a Maharashtra methanol rule that applied a seller's licence condition to industrial buyers, the Bombay High Court held a new IBC anti-abuse provision reaches insolvency applications already pending when it commenced, and the Income Tax Department gave up its power to arrest and detain tax defaulters as a recovery tool.
The Week at a Glance
| Category | Developments |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court Judgments | 6 |
| High Court Judgments | 9 |
| Regulatory Updates | 5 |
| Securities Market | 2 |
| Judicial Administration | 1 |
| Total | 23 |
Top story
SC Strikes Down Maharashtra's Methanol Licensing and Additive Rules
Category: constitutional-rights | Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran | Date: September 18, 2026 | Case: M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 893 of 2019, with Writ Petition (C) No. 1059 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 13008 of 2026, 2026 INSC 1009
Following the 1991 hooch tragedy in Andheri, Mumbai, in which around 93 people died after consuming methanol-adulterated liquor, Maharashtra inserted Rules 18A and 18B into its Poisons Rules, 1972, made under Sections 2 and 8 of the Poisons Act, 1919. Rule 18A(1) required any licensee selling methanol to first verify the purchaser's own Form A licence; Rule 18A(2) mandated that methanol be mixed with a colourant and bitterant before sale, except for drug-manufacturing purchases; Rule 18B provided for confiscation of methanol held without a Form A licence. Chemical manufacturers who use methanol as a raw material — for paraformaldehyde, diabetic and antacid-drug intermediates, and ultra-pure formaldehyde supplied to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre — challenged the rules as disproportionate to their stated aim.
The Court held that Form A licences are issued only to persons who sell or possess poisons for sale, not to industrial consumers who purchase methanol as a raw material: "a purchaser who is a manufacturer of a product in which methanol is a raw material would not hold Form A licence." Rule 18A(1) was therefore "disproportionate or rather wider than what the object justifies," wrongly assuming licence verification would prevent methanol reaching liquor adulterators while leaving "less drastic measures like cancellation or debarment of licensees found in breach of rules... unaddressed." On the additive requirement, the Court examined affidavits from Aarti Industries, Akyl Chemicals, Balaji Amines and others showing the mandatory colourant and bitterant would contaminate pharmaceutical- and research-grade products, and held the causes of the underlying tragedies — "methanol being diverted through illegal and unlicensed channels... corruption in law enforcement agencies... pilferage" — "do not originate at the point of lawful sale by a licensee," so the additive requirement "cannot be said to bear a reasonable and proximate nexus with the object it seeks to achieve." Applying the proportionality framework from K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Court found the State had "failed in showing that no equally effective and less restrictive alternative was available," and extended the same reasoning to strike down Rule 18B, holding it "rendered unworkable and otiose" against Form B permit-holders. The Court concluded "the impugned rules are violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, respectively," allowed the writ petitions and disposed of the civil appeal in the same terms.
Why it matters: The judgment supplies a reusable template for challenging subordinate legislation that imposes a seller-facing condition on industrial buyers who structurally cannot meet it — a licensing requirement can fail proportionality review precisely because it excludes the very class of lawful end-users it was never meant to burden. Chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers complying with similar additive or purchaser-verification mandates under other states' Poisons Rules should review whether their state's scheme shares this structural flaw. Regulators defending comparable rules should be prepared to show they considered, and rejected for stated reasons, the less restrictive alternatives the Court expects to see canvassed: stricter licence renewal, mandatory return of unsold stock, and penal consequences for register discrepancies.
Court judgments
Calcutta HC: West Bengal, Not the Centre, Sets SAIL Contract Workers' Wages
Court: High Court at Calcutta | Bench: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) | Date: September 14, 2026 | Case: Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., WPA 8853 of 2026
The Court set aside a Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) order that had directed SAIL to pay Central minimum wages and ten-times compensation — Rs 97,56,111 in arrears and Rs 9,75,61,110 in compensation — to 45 contract labourers at its Durgapur warehouse. Applying the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench ruling in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1, the Court held that majority Central Government shareholding alone does not make the Centre the appropriate government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; SAIL is "not a corporation established by a central Act" but incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and the Durgapur warehouse was registered under West Bengal's own Shops & Establishments Act with locally administered tenders specifying West Bengal wage rates. The Authority's reliance on the Hindustan Aeronautics ruling, (2007) 15 SCC 51, was found misplaced since that decision had itself been held non-binding by the Supreme Court in the later Nashik Workers Union case, (2016) 6 SCC 224.
Key point: Central Government equity holding — even a controlling 65% stake in a Maharatna company — is not itself the statutory trigger for Central jurisdiction under the Minimum Wages Act or the CLRA Act. The operative test is whether the specific establishment is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, a fact-specific inquiry into incorporation, local registration and contracting practice at the particular site.
Delhi HC Grants UAPA Bail After Nearly 8 Years, Applies the Gulfisha Test
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja | Date: September 14, 2026 | Case: Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar v. National Investigation Agency, CRL.A. 676/2024 (CNR No. DLHC010456852024)
The Court granted bail to a man held nearly eight years in custody as A-5 in an alleged Harkat-ul-Harb-e-Islam terror conspiracy, holding that the restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 "melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence" — quoting the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713. Of 120 prosecution witnesses, only 40 had been examined and 39 more were to be dropped, meaning the trial was "not likely to end any time soon." Applying the Supreme Court's more recent, accused-specific framing in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) — that the question is not whether Article 21 outranks Section 43D(5), but how Article 21 applies where Parliament has conditioned bail on national-security offences — the Bench reviewed the specific evidence against the appellant and found it "not grave enough to prolong the period of detention," while declining to detail that assessment to avoid prejudicing the ongoing trial. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, subject to fourteen conditions including passport surrender, confinement to his native district except for court and NIA reporting, and fortnightly reporting to the NIA Branch Office Lucknow.
Key point: The Bench paired the eight-year delay with a specific, if deliberately undetailed, accused-level assessment of the evidence — exactly the individualised inquiry Gulfisha Fatima requires. Counsel in prolonged UAPA matters should not rest on custody length alone; courts expect a parallel showing on the individual's role within the alleged conspiracy.
SC Dismisses ~271 Union Appeals Against Ex-Servicemen's Disability Pensions
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe | Date: September 15, 2026 | Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Col. N.C. Isaac (Retd.) & Anr., arising out of SLP (C) No. 3680 of 2025, with approximately 271 connected appeals and special leave petitions
The Court dismissed a batch of roughly 271 Union of India appeals — most barred by limitation — challenging grants of disability pension to ex-servicemen whose Release Medical Boards had classified their disabilities as "Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated." It held the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008 "substantially reproduce" the 1982 scheme and remain binding despite a promulgation irregularity, and that Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316 — which established a presumption of sound health at entry — "cannot be mechanically applied" without examining the aetiology of each disability, particularly for post-2008 claims. Harmonising Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules with Regulation 423(a) of the Regulations for Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010, the Court held the primary burden of proof still rests on the military establishment in the ordinary course, but found "considerable force" in the submission that a Medical Board's opinion "deserves to be given due weight and ought not to be substituted by a Court merely because another view is possible" — a standard the Court tied to whether the Board's opinion is "sound and not flawed in any manner." A separate direction shifts the burden to the claimant for disability pension claims raised beyond 15 years of the relevant event.
Key point: Counsel for ex-servicemen can no longer rely on Dharamvir Singh's presumption as a near-automatic entitlement; claims will need to engage with the specific aetiology of the disability. Practitioners handling delayed claims should factor in the new 15-year burden-shifting rule, since claims filed beyond that window now require the claimant to affirmatively establish attributability.
Karnataka HC Upholds Rs 29.57 Crore IGST Refund After Rule 96(10) Omission
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru | Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha | Date: September 15, 2026 | Case: Union of India and others v. M/s ABB Global Industries and Services Private Limited, Writ Appeal No. 1524 of 2026 (T-RES)
The Court dismissed a Revenue appeal against an order directing refund of Rs 29,57,43,039 in IGST paid on export of services, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Goodluck India Limited and Another v. Union of India and others, which had applied the Constitution Bench ruling in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 536, to hold that proceedings under an omitted rule cannot continue absent a savings clause. Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 — on which the refund denial rested — was omitted by a notification of 8 October 2024 carrying no savings or sunset clause. The Bench quoted Goodluck India's reasoning that "the recommendation that the omission should be prospective is also advisory in nature and does not bind the rule making authority," and held: "we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order."
Key point: Exporters with pre-omission IGST refund claims denied under Rule 96(10), and still within limitation or already in litigation, now have a clear basis to argue the omitted rule cannot support the denial regardless of whether the underlying export predates the omission.
P&H HC Upholds Women's Quota Within Ex-Servicemen Roster in DDA Recruitment
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh | Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil | Date: September 15, 2026 | Case: Puneet Thukral v. State of Punjab and others, CWP-9808-2024 (O&M) (CNR No. PHHC010563292024)
The Court dismissed a male candidate's challenge to earmarking two of three Ex-servicemen-category vacancies for women in a 41-post Deputy District Attorney recruitment, holding that horizontal reservation attaches to the statutory roster point rather than to the vacancies arising in any single recruitment. It held that "if the roster point itself is earmarked as Ex-servicemen (Women), on failure of availability of an eligible Ex-servicemen woman candidate, the vacancy would necessarily travel to the General Category (Women) and not to the General (Male) category." Applying the Supreme Court's R.K. Sabharwal ruling that reservation is relatable to cadre strength rather than to vacancies occurring from time to time, and Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 4 SCC 542, the Court rejected the petitioner's proposed one-post-for-women arithmetic as "an invitation to this Court to redraw the statutory roster."
Key point: The ruling closes a recurring style of challenge that treats "General Category" as shorthand for "General (Male)." A challenge to roster-point allocation should be built on the roster register itself, not on an inference drawn from the final distribution of appointments.
Rajasthan HC: Unsigned GST Notice and Order Are "No Notice, No Order" in Law
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur | Bench: Justice Arun Monga and Justice Bhuwan Goyal | Date: September 15, 2026 | Case: Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner State Tax and others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8893/2024 (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:36956-DB)
The Court quashed a GST show cause notice, order-in-original and bank account attachment for want of any digital or physical signature, holding that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 imposes "two distinct and cumulative requirements" — electronic issuance and authentication — and that "mere electronic generation of a document on the portal satisfies only the first requirement." It rejected the Department's argument that officer login (itself requiring digital signature access) authenticates an uploaded document: "a login authenticates access. A signature authenticates content." Because "there is no notice and no order in existence to be saved," the defect could not be cured under Section 160 of the CGST Act, and the alternative-remedy bar under Section 107 did not apply because "an appeal under Section 107 presupposes an order."
Key point: Taxpayers should examine every show cause notice, order-in-original or recovery notice for a visible digital signature certificate, e-signature or physical signature; because the defect is jurisdictional rather than a curable irregularity, a writ petition remains available even outside the statutory appeal timeline.
Delhi HC: Two-Year Delay Alone Cannot Void a Rs 65-Crore Arbitral Award
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar | Date: September 16, 2026 | Case: Unison Hotels Private Limited v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 29/2026 (CNR No. DLHC010059632026)
The Court restored an arbitral award of Rs 65,12,97,874, overturning a Single Judge who had set it aside solely for a two-year gap between the award being reserved (6 March 2021) and pronounced (6 March 2023). Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Lancor Holdings, the Bench held delay vitiates an award "only if unexplained and shown to have affected the findings in the award," and found the Tribunal's explanation — COVID-19, delayed written submissions, and scheduling among three geographically dispersed arbitrators — sufficient. Critically, the Single Judge had "not held... that any finding in the arbitral award is affected by the delay," which "militates against the test laid down in Lancor Holdings and Velusamy." The matter was remanded for de novo merits review of the underlying Section 34 petition.
Key point: Even where delay is found unexplained, a Section 34 court must still identify a specific award finding the delay affected before setting the award aside. Counsel resisting a delay-based challenge should assemble a documented, tribunal-endorsed explanation and press the court to identify concretely which finding the delay corrupted.
Delhi HC Dismisses PIL Over Police X Post, Cites Pending SC Probe
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia | Date: September 16, 2026 | Case: Nitin Naresh v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors., W.P.(C) 13480/2026 (CNR No. DLHC010437762026)
The Court dismissed a PIL seeking a reply to a representation and preservation of records relating to a Delhi Police X post about a 20 July 2026 Jantar Mantar protest, finding the statement itself "appears to be a routine statement as a measure aimed at crowd control management" and that the petitioner relied on media reports alone with "no official statement by the central police forces." Decisively, the Court noted the broader question — alleged disproportionate police force against protesters nationwide — was "already engaging the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court" through a High Powered Enquiry Committee chaired by former Justice R. Subhash Reddy, constituted on 18 August 2026 in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, and held a parallel High Court inquiry "would serve no public purpose." The Bench invoked Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281 on PIL misuse by "busybodies, meddlesome interlopers and wayfarers."
Key point: Where a coordinate or higher forum is already seized of the broader controversy through a constituted committee whose terms of reference subsume a narrower petition, courts will defer to that process regardless of the individual petition's merits.
SC Voids Arbitration Over Unproven Consent and Tribunal Bias
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran | Date: September 17, 2026 | Case: Arth Micro Finance Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 13015 of 2026, 2026 INSC 1014
The Court held that an arbitration initiated without proven consent to the tribunal's appointment, and amid an unaddressed bias objection, is non est in law — void from inception — setting aside three Section 17 interim orders (account freezes across four banks, property takeover, fund transfer). The respondent bank had appointed the tribunal on the stated basis of party consent, but "nothing on record" demonstrated the appellants had actually consented, and their bias objection — that the arbitrators had close links to the respondent bank — went unaddressed before substantive orders issued. The Court directed any transferred amounts be remitted within one week, failing which 18% compound interest at monthly rests would apply, and appointed Ms. Mayuri Raghuwanshi, Advocate, as the new arbitrator, expressly leaving the merits open.
Key point: Procedural defects at the stage of constituting a tribunal are not cured by the tribunal proceeding to function — if consent cannot be shown and a bias objection is left unaddressed, the entire arbitration, including interim relief already granted, can be unwound. Parties relying on claimed consent to an appointment should document it contemporaneously and unambiguously.
Calcutta HC Denies Dock Pilots Regularisation, Applies Per Incuriam
Court: High Court at Calcutta | Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta | Date: September 17, 2026 | Case: Somnath Giri & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., WPA No. 24866 of 2025
The Court declined to order regularisation of long-serving contractual Dock Pilots at Kolkata Port Trust's Haldia Dock Complex, holding that the two-judge Supreme Court decision in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., relied on by the petitioners, "failed to notice the earlier three-Judge Bench decision" in Dayanand and should be treated as per incuriam on the regularisation question — its "persuasive value... before this Court stands correspondingly diminished." Applying Dayanand's reasoning that absorption outside prescribed recruitment procedure "would be detrimental to public interest," the Court held mere prolonged service "does not by itself ripen into a right to permanence." It nonetheless directed the Port Trust to consider the petitioners for future regular vacancies "on humanitarian grounds," citing their training, qualifications and performance record.
Key point: This is a rare, explicit instance of a High Court applying per incuriam to discount a Supreme Court precedent otherwise favourable to petitioners. Counsel for public-sector employers should be alert to raising the Dayanand per incuriam argument wherever Bhola Nath is cited.
Bombay HC: IBC's New Section 96(4) Ends Moratorium Misuse Retroactively
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay | Bench: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat | Date: September 18, 2026 | Case: Indian Bank v. Shabbir Abbas Patel and Others (lead matter, with connected petitions including RBL Bank, Godrej Finance, Asset Reconstruction Co. India and Apna Sahakari Bank), Writ Petition No. 2819 of 2026
The Court held that the newly inserted Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ending the automatic interim moratorium that Sections 94 and 95 applications trigger for personal guarantors, applies retroactively to applications already pending when the amendment took effect on 26 May 2026. The Bench had itself documented the underlying mischief in earlier rulings: borrowers "act as fence sitters" until "physical possession of the secured asset is about to be handed over," then "initiate collusive proceedings under Section 94 or Section 95 of the IBC" to freeze SARFAESI recovery. The Select Committee report underlying the amendment found the interim moratorium had become "the number one mechanism to siphon off crores of rupees by debtors." Applying the Mischief Rule (Heydon's Rule) as approved in Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar, the Court held the present-tense phrase "is filed" in Section 96(4) "necessarily include[s] applications/proceedings under Sections 94 or 95 of the IBC, that were pending on the date" of the amendment — rejecting the argument that only future filings were covered. Across the connected petitions, the Court quashed DRT orders restraining secured creditors from accepting auction proceeds or issuing sale certificates, in one case finding a borrower had "deliberately suppressed" an earlier 2022 filing across multiple later proceedings before invoking it "at the fag end" once auction purchasers had entered the picture.
Key point: Secured creditors whose SARFAESI recovery was stalled by a Section 94 or 95 filing, however old, now have a clear basis to resume enforcement — the interim moratorium shield is gone from 26 May 2026 for every application pending on that date, regardless of filing date. The judgment is the underlying adjudication behind IBBI's own Circular No. IBBI/II/106/2026 of 21 September 2026, which separately confirmed the retroactive-cessation position; practitioners citing the point should cite this ruling directly.
SC: CBDT Circulars Bind Revenue Officers, Not Courts — Export Quota Premium Not Eligible for Section 80HHC Deduction
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria | Date: September 18, 2026 | Case: Orient Crafts Limited & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 143-144 of 2013 (NON-REPORTABLE; no neutral citation appears on the judgment's own face)
The Court upheld a Commissioner of Income Tax's Section 263 revision denying a Section 80HHC deduction claimed on export quota premium, holding that a CBDT Office Memorandum equating quota premium with the specifically listed export-incentive categories under Sections 28(iiia)–(iiic) "created a legal fiction contrary to the Act's explicit statutory position." Applying the Constitution Bench decision in CCE, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1, it reiterated that departmental circulars bind subordinate Revenue authorities but not courts, whose function is statutory interpretation. On the merits, the Court held quota-sale proceeds fall under the residuary Section 28(iv), attracting the 90% exclusion under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, because the categories in Sections 28(iiia)–(iiic) share a common feature — earning foreign exchange — absent when quota is sold domestically. Following Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83, the Court found the Assessing Officer's failure to examine the Section 80HHC(3) turnover threshold made the original assessment both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.
Key point: Taxpayers cannot treat a favourable CBDT circular as a shield against a subsequent, statutorily grounded Section 263 revision once a court has pronounced on the correct interpretation. Receipts lacking a foreign-exchange element should be classified under the residuary Section 28(iv) and planned for accordingly.
SC: No Receiver for a Trust Suit Before Leave Is Granted Under Section 92 CPC
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan | Date: September 18, 2026 | Case: S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People's Education Trust (R) & Others, Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25577-25579 of 2025, 2026 INSC 1010
The Court held a civil court cannot appoint a receiver or pass other protective interim orders in a public charitable trust suit while a leave application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 remains pending — a suit under Section 92 remains "stillborn" until leave is granted. Applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, the Court held Section 92's specific leave requirement prevails over the general supplemental-proceedings power under Section 94 and the inherent powers under Sections 141 and 151 CPC: "inherent powers... cannot be exercised where jurisdiction itself has not yet arisen." A Principal District and Sessions Judge's order constituting an ad hoc trustee committee — effectively a receiver — under Order XL Rule 1(a) before leave was granted was accordingly without jurisdiction. The Court clarified a narrower exception survives: in genuinely urgent circumstances, notice may be dispensed with before granting leave itself, provided reasons are recorded in writing.
Key point: Filing a Section 92 suit together with a leave application no longer opens the door to an immediate receiver appointment or similar protective order. Litigants facing urgent dissipation of trust assets must front-load the urgency case at the leave-application stage itself.
SC Acquits Four in 25-Year-Old Murder, Cites Unreliable Dark-Night Identification
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale | Date: September 18, 2026 | Case: Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc. v. The State of Odisha, Criminal Appeal No(s). 1047-1048 of 2010, with Criminal Appeal No(s). 2223 of 2010, 2026 INSC 1015
The Court acquitted four men convicted of a 2001 murder — two of the original six convicted persons had died pending appeal — holding that eyewitness identification on a night lit only by torches the accused themselves carried was inherently unreliable, applying State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar, (1979) 3 SCC 1 and Tamilselvan v. State, (2008) 7 SCC 755. It found the six eyewitnesses' accounts internally inconsistent about who was present, and applied the panchsutra test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, holding that once the eyewitness testimony was discarded, the circumstances the High Court had relied on — which "rest substantially on the depositions" of the same discredited witnesses — collapsed with it. The prosecution's theory that a 53-kilogram laterite stone was the murder weapon had "absolutely no material" support: the stone was never recovered, and the medical officer testified no weapon was ever sent for examination. Finding the defence's alternative-suspect theory (the deceased had 13 prior criminal cases, and roughly 200-250 people were searching for him that night) a "reasonable possibility" the prosecution had not excluded, the Court granted benefit of doubt.
Key point: Once eyewitness testimony is discarded as unreliable, the same discredited depositions cannot be silently repurposed as the evidentiary foundation for circumstances said to establish guilt through circumstantial evidence. A weapon central to a cause-of-death theory must be recovered or its absence explained and tied to forensic examination.
Judicial administration
Centre Notifies 14 New Judges Across Delhi, Karnataka, Jharkhand, J&K High Courts
Category: judicial-administration | Date: September 19, 2026 | Instrument: Notifications issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice under Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India
The Central Government notified 14 judicial officers as Judges and Additional Judges across four High Courts, acting on Supreme Court Collegium recommendations cleared on 10 September 2026: Delhi (seven — Nivedita Anil Sharma and Nisha Sahay Saxena as permanent judges; Sanjay Sharma, Bharat Parashar, Dr. Aditi Choudhary, Dinesh Bhatt and Arun Bhardwaj as additional judges), Jharkhand (three — Manoj Prasad, Akhil Kumar, Ram Sharma), Karnataka (three additional judges — Usharani, K.S. Bharath Kumar, Nerale Veerabhadraiah Bhavani) and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (one — Yash Paul Bourney). Five of the fourteen are women; all are drawn from the judicial service rather than the bar. The Delhi High Court's working strength, 44 against a sanctioned 60 as of 1 May 2026, rises toward 51 with these appointments. The Collegium had recommended eight names for Delhi; only seven were notified, and whether the eighth remains pending or was declined was not independently verified against a primary gazette text.
Key point: An additional judge's tenure is not automatically permanent — confirmation depends on a further Collegium recommendation before the initial term expires — so litigants with matters likely to run beyond an additional judge's initial term should not assume continuity of a particular bench. The gap between the Collegium's eight-name recommendation and the seven names notified is a reminder that Collegium clearance is necessary but not sufficient for appointment.
Regulatory updates
CBDT Drops Arrest and Detention as Tax Recovery Modes Under Rule 225
Category: regulatory-updates | Authority: Central Board of Direct Taxes | Date: September 17, 2026 | Instrument: Notification No. 120/2026, Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2026, G.S.R. 822(E)
CBDT notified the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2026, removing arrest and detention as a mode of tax recovery under Rule 225 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026 — omitting sub-rule (4)(c), sub-rules (75) to (83) and (91), and the words "except arrest and detention" from sub-rule (87) — while leaving attachment and sale of property, receivership and other recovery mechanisms intact. The same notification extends the registration deadline for valuers and authorised income-tax practitioners under Rules 246(4) and 256(4) from 30 September 2026 to 31 March 2027, with revised application forms (Nos. 169 and 171), and makes a technical correction to Rule 160 and a communication-mode change to Rule 176 (replacing "affixing digital signature" with "electronic communication"). Rules 2 to 4 of the amendment are deemed to have come into force from 1 April 2026; Rules 5 to 8 — including the Rule 225 changes and the extended deadlines — take effect from 17 September 2026. CBDT's own notification PDF returned an access-denied response on every retrieval attempt, including a same-day re-check, so the rule-by-rule detail above rests on consistent corroboration across seven independent tax-compliance sources rather than a directly read primary text — a research gap disclosed rather than resolved.
Key point: The threat of arrest or detention as recovery leverage is no longer grounded in Rule 225 as amended; any recovery communication after 17 September 2026 that continues to reference it should be challenged on that basis. Practitioners citing Rule 225 in pleadings or advisories must work from the amended text, since pre-amendment sub-rule numbers such as former (75)–(83) or (91) have been omitted.
PFRDA Launches NPS Swasthya, Linking Pension Corpus to Health Cover
Category: regulatory-updates | Authority: Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority | Date: September 18, 2026 | Instrument: Circular No. PFRDA/2026/49/NPS-SWASTHYA/01
PFRDA issued Operational Guidelines for NPS Swasthya under Section 14 of the PFRDA Act, 2013 read with Regulation 4A of the Exits and Withdrawals Regulations, 2015 — a scheme pairing a dedicated National Pension System healthcare investment account with a mandatory super top-up health insurance policy. Enrolment requires the first-year insurance premium, a Rs 200 annual maintenance charge, and a minimum Rs 1,000 investment contribution; premiums are banded by entry age (18–40, above 40–60, above 60–70, with cover renewable to age 85); four Family Floater Sum Insured tiers run from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 30 lakh, each paired with a matching Annual Aggregate Deductible from Rs 10,000 to Rs 3 lakh. Partial withdrawals are capped at 25% of a subscriber's own contributions, with no limit on the number of withdrawals; where a single in-patient expense exceeds what a partial withdrawal covers, a subscriber may take premature exit, applying the corpus to that expense before the remaining balance is merged into an All Citizen Model NPS account. A policy already in force at exit continues on its existing terms independent of the investment account.
Key point: The premature-exit default — closure and merger into an All Citizen Model NPS scheme — converts what might look like a discrete health-event withdrawal into a pension-restructuring event with its own tax and withdrawal-rule consequences; advisers should model that outcome before recommending premature exit as a response to a large healthcare expense.
TRAI Adds AI-Based Spam Detection and A2P Call Regulation to Anti-UCC Rules
Category: technology-law | Authority: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India | Date: September 18, 2026 | Instrument: Telecom Commercial Communication Customer Preference (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2026, Press Release No. 119/2026
TRAI amended the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2018, inserting Regulation 21A requiring telecom service providers to identify and share, across operators, Calling Line Identities with a high probability of being used for unsolicited commercial communications using AI/ML-based detection; where five or more flagged CLIs attach to one sender within ten days, graded enforcement follows up to disconnection and blacklisting, with special series 140xx/1600xx/1601xx exempted. Application-to-Person calls — voice calls initiated by an application, software system or automated platform without direct human dialling — must now be pre-declared to the telecom service provider with the CLIs to be used; undeclared A2P calls are treated as UCC, and a termination charge of up to Rs 0.05 per minute applies as a deterrent. The amendment also adds a 15-day consumer appeal mechanism before the Appellate Authority under the Telecom Consumers Complaint Redressal Regulations, 2012, lowers the complaint-based action threshold to three complaints where corroborated by an AI/ML flag, requires suspension of a misused Header or Content Template within six hours, and bars Call Management Applications from blanket-blocking regulated or service-series numbers.
Key point: The A2P termination charge converts a compliance obligation into a direct cost line — businesses routing customer-facing voice communications through automated dialling platforms should pre-declare A2P usage and the CLIs involved before the five-CLIs-in-ten-days trigger catches an undeclared campaign. A sender relying on staying just under the old five-complaint threshold no longer has that informal margin once an operator's AI/ML system independently flags its CLI.
Securities market
SEBI Impounds Rs 28.12 Crore Over Cross-Segment F&O Manipulation
Category: securities-market | Authority: Securities and Exchange Board of India | Date: September 16, 2026 | Instrument: Ex-Parte Interim Order WTM/KV/ISD/ISD-TPD2/32723/2026-27
SEBI impounded Rs 28,12,08,542 and restrained Prrsaar Sampada Private Limited, Chaubara Eats Private Limited and four directors (Ved Prakash Gupta, Priti Gupta, Saroj Gupta and Gaurav Tomar) from the derivatives segment, on prima facie findings of coordinated cross-segment manipulation in stock futures and options between October 2025 and June 2026. An NSE surveillance alert flagged abnormal options profits offset by futures losses in Prrsaar Sampada's proprietary account; after NSE's scrutiny caused the pattern there to subside (gross traded value falling from roughly Rs 6,740 crore in February 2026 to Rs 746 crore in March 2026), a substantially similar pattern appeared in Chaubara Eats's trading from March 2026. SEBI examined 23 scrip-days in detail and found the two entities may also have engaged in coordinated trades between themselves, a head of potential wrongful gain not yet separately computed. Banks and depositories were directed to transfer the impounded amount into a fixed deposit with a lien in SEBI's favour; noticees must disclose a full asset inventory within 15 days.
Key point: SEBI's order treats an unexplained migration of a flagged trading pattern from one account to a related account as significant evidence in itself, independent of whether the new account's trades would look suspicious examined alone. Because the coordinated-trade head remains uncomputed, the interim Rs 28.12 crore figure is not necessarily the ceiling of eventual exposure.
SEBI Bars Kore Digital and Top Officials Over Rs 541 Crore Revenue Gap
Category: securities-market | Authority: Securities and Exchange Board of India | Date: September 17, 2026 | Instrument: Interim Order WTM/KV/CFID/CFID-SEC1/32724/2026-27
SEBI restrained SME-listed Kore Digital Limited and its managing director, CEO and CFO (Ravindra, Chaitanya and Kashmira Doshi) from the securities market and blocked its planned NSE mainboard migration, on prima facie findings that roughly Rs 541.3 crore — about 73% of reported FY25–FY26 revenue — was misstated through consolidation of three recently acquired subsidiaries (Franken Telecom, Wolter Infratech, KDL Realinfra) sharing a single registered address with little independent filing history. NSE site visits in June 2026 failed to establish the subsidiaries' physical presence, and a chartered accountant told SEBI she had certified only provisional, not audited, financial statements for one subsidiary. SEBI directed a forensic audit of Kore Digital's books from its June 2023 listing to 31 March 2026, and referred the auditors' role to the National Financial Reporting Authority.
Key point: Any acquisition made shortly before a mainboard-migration application, where the acquired entity contributes a large share of consolidated revenue, is now a heightened diligence flag rather than a routine consolidation exercise. Officers of SME-listed companies pursuing acquisition-led revenue growth ahead of migration should treat personal exposure, not just corporate exposure, as the operative risk.
Also this week
- RBI cancelled the Certificate of Registration of five NBFCs, under Section 45-IA(6) of the RBI Act, 1934, announced 17 September 2026: Dar's Financial Services (Kolkata), Rolta Holding and Finance Corporation (Mumbai), Vasudeo Securities (Mumbai), Parsoli Corporation (Mumbai) and A. C. Choksi Financial Services, now Deus Financial Capital (Mumbai). Each individual cancellation order predates the announcement by two to six weeks (3–31 August 2026); the announcement date governs coverage per CLAUDE.md §5.11, but the underlying order dates should be used for any historical-authorisation check. A separate RBI release the same day recorded eight further NBFCs voluntarily surrendering their registration — a non-enforcement filing not covered as a substantive development. Source
- RBI extended Section 35A restrictions on two co-operative banks by three months. The Valsad Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and The Gauhati Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., both under directions since 17 December 2025, had their lending freeze, deposit-acceptance freeze and withdrawal restrictions extended to 18 and 17 December 2026 respectively, by notices dated 17 September 2026. RBI's standard caveat applies: an extension "should not be construed as an indication that it is satisfied with either bank's financial position." Source
- The Union Cabinet approved raising the EPFO mandatory-coverage wage ceiling from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month, effective 17 September 2026 — a Code on Social Security 2020 / EPF Scheme change, not an OSH Code 2020 one, and a different figure from the ₹21,000 ESI Act wage ceiling. Veritect's OSH/WHS weekly tracker traced no gazette notification or amended Rule giving the ₹25,000 figure legal effect as at 23 September 2026; it is reported as Cabinet-approved policy, not yet a notified legal threshold. Source
- RBI extended the certified-copy KYC facility to Foreign Portfolio Investors via the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Know Your Customer) Amendment Directions, 2026 (RBI/2026-27/257, 18 September 2026) and five parallel directions for other bank categories, per Veritect's Digital Law weekly tracker. CERT-In issued thirteen vulnerability notes between 14 and 18 September 2026, with a CRITICAL cluster in Cisco identity and firewall infrastructure (Identity Services Engine, Secure Email Gateway, Secure Firewall) alongside Android, ConnectWise ScreenConnect, MikroTik RouterOS and Check Point.
- No CGST notification, circular, instruction or removal-of-difficulty order issued between 14 and 20 September 2026. Checked against CBIC's complete tax-information tables on 23 September 2026: the GST circular table (272 records) still ends at Circular No. 256/02/2026-GST of 25 July 2026, and the GST instruction table (43 records) still ends at Instruction No. 01/2026-GST of 3 August 2026. GSTR-3B for August 2026 fell due 20 September for taxpayers with turnover above Rs 5 crore under Section 39 of the CGST Act and Rule 61 of the CGST Rules. Source
By the numbers
- Rs 541.3 crore — Revenue SEBI found prima facie misstated at Kore Digital Limited across FY25–FY26, roughly 73% of reported revenue, driving an interim market ban ahead of a planned NSE mainboard migration.
- Rs 65,12,97,874 — Arbitral award the Delhi High Court restored, holding a two-year delay in rendition, standing alone, could not void it.
- ~271 — Union of India appeals and special leave petitions the Supreme Court dismissed in a single disability-pension batch, most barred by limitation.
- Rs 29,57,43,039 — IGST export-of-services refund the Karnataka High Court upheld after the Revenue's reliance on an omitted CGST rule failed.
- 8 years — Time a UAPA accused spent in custody before the Delhi High Court granted bail, with only 40 of 120 prosecution witnesses examined.
- Rs 28,12,08,542 — Combined amount SEBI impounded from Prrsaar Sampada, Chaubara Eats and four directors over alleged cross-segment derivatives manipulation.
- 14 — New Judges and Additional Judges the Centre notified across the Delhi, Karnataka, Jharkhand, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts.
- 25 years — Age of the murder case in which the Supreme Court acquitted four men, two of the original six convicted persons having died while the appeal was pending.
Looking ahead
- From 26 May 2026 (retroactively, per this week's ruling): Secured creditors whose SARFAESI recovery was frozen by a pending Section 94 or 95 IBC application can resume enforcement immediately, following the Bombay High Court's retroactivity finding on Section 96(4); expect a wave of DRT applications citing the judgment.
- By 31 March 2027: Valuers and authorised income-tax practitioners must complete registration under the Income-tax Act, 2025's transitional provisions, on revised Forms 169 and 171, per CBDT's extended deadline.
- By 4 October 2026: The Central Electricity Authority's draft technical-standards amendment remains open for comment, per the OSH/WHS weekly tracker.
- 7 October 2026 (reported): The 57th GST Council meeting, per non-government reporting cited in the GST Central Tax weekly tracker; gstcouncil.gov.in continued to carry no notice of the meeting, original or revised, as at 23 September 2026.
- Ongoing: SEBI's Kore Digital and Prrsaar Sampada/Chaubara Eats noticees retain the right to seek a hearing and apply for variation or vacation of the ex-parte and interim orders; neither matter has been adjudicated as proven.
- Pending verification: Whether an implementing gazette notification has given the Cabinet-approved ₹25,000 EPFO wage ceiling legal effect — Veritect traced none as at 23 September 2026, and employers should not treat the figure as enforceable until it is notified.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the Supreme Court's ruling mean methanol can now be sold in Maharashtra without any regulation?
No. The Supreme Court struck down the licence-verification mechanism under Rule 18A(1), the mandatory bitterant-and-colourant requirement under Rule 18A(2), and the confiscation-without-licence provision under Rule 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, holding all three disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026 INSC 1009, 18 September 2026), the Court did not question the legitimacy of regulating methanol as a poison under the Poisons Act, 1919, and set out a detailed list of alternative measures — including stricter licence-renewal conditions, mandatory return of unsold methanol, tamper-evident sealed transport, and periodic stock reconciliation — for States and Union Territories to consider. The rule failed specifically because Form A licences are issued to sellers, not to industrial manufacturers who buy methanol as a raw material, so the verification requirement wrongly barred lawful buyers from a legitimate market while leaving the actual diversion and pilferage channels untouched.
Does the IBC amendment ending interim moratorium for personal guarantors apply to applications filed before the amendment came into force?
Yes, according to the Bombay High Court. In Indian Bank v. Shabbir Abbas Patel and Others (18 September 2026), a Division Bench held, applying the Mischief Rule (Heydon's Rule), that the words "is filed" in the newly inserted Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 include applications under Sections 94 or 95 that were already pending when the amendment took effect on 26 May 2026 — so the automatic interim moratorium ceased to operate for such pending applications from that date, not merely for applications filed afterward. The Court found the Select Committee record underlying the amendment showed the interim moratorium had become, in its words, "the number one mechanism to siphon off crores of rupees by debtors," and quashed a batch of Debts Recovery Tribunal orders that had frozen secured creditors' SARFAESI recovery on the strength of the now-defunct protection.
Does removing arrest and detention from Rule 225 mean the Income Tax Department can no longer pursue tax defaulters?
No. CBDT's Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2026, notified 17 September 2026 as G.S.R. 822(E), remove the rule-level machinery for arrest and detention as a mode of tax recovery under Rule 225 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026, but other statutory recovery mechanisms — including attachment and sale of a defaulter's property and appointment of a receiver — continue to apply under the Income-tax Act, 2025 and the surviving parts of Rule 225. The same notification extends the registration deadline for valuers and authorised income-tax practitioners under the Act's transitional provisions from 30 September 2026 to 31 March 2027. CBDT's own notification PDF was not independently retrievable at the time of writing (it returned an access-denied response on every attempt, including a same-day re-check), so the rule-by-rule detail rests on consistent corroboration across multiple independent tax-compliance sources rather than a directly read primary text — a research gap disclosed rather than papered over.
This is the Veritect Weekly Legal Roundup for Week 38, 2026 (September 14–20). For daily updates, visit our legal news page. Subscribe to receive this roundup every Monday morning.
Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.