SCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE

February 2026 Supreme Court Judgments: Key Rulings and Case Law

Read 21 LawLens analyses of Supreme Court judgments published in February 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.

← BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT DESK

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

February 2026 Judgments

21 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
### Doctrine of Commercial Wisdom Reaffirmed: Judicial Review of CoC Decisions Limited to Statutory Compliance and Procedural Fairness Analysis and Findings The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by unsuccessful resolution applicants challenging the approval of Sarda Energy and Minerals Limited’s (SEML) Resolution Plan. The Court held that clarifications sought by the Resolution Professional (RP) regarding bank guarantees and payment options, under the direction of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), did not constitute a "material irregularity" or a modification of the bid. The Court emphasized that the "commercial wisdom" of the CoC is paramount and non-justiciable. Judicial review by the NCLT or NCLAT is strictly confined to ensuring compliance with Section 30(2) and Section 61(3) of the IBC. The Court cautioned against "strategic litigation" by unsuccessful bidders, noting that excessive judicial interference erodes the value of the corporate debtor and undermines the IBC’s objective of time-bound insolvency resolution. Key Takeaways * Non-Justiciability: The CoC's assessment of a plan's viability, valuation, and feasibility belongs exclusively to its commercial domain; courts cannot substitute their own assessment. * RP Conduct: An RP acting on CoC instructions to seek clarifications from all applicants does not commit a material irregularity. * Predictability and Finality: Predictability in the insolvency process is essential for market stability, and finality must be protected to prevent value-destructive delays. * Appellate Limits: Appeals under Section 62 of the IBC are restricted to substantive questions of law arising from the limited grounds specified in Section 61(3).. Torrent Power Ltd. v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi & Others [2026 INSC 206]. Supreme Court. LawLens

Supreme Court·

### Doctrine of Commercial Wisdom Reaffirmed: Judicial Review of CoC Decisions Limited to Statutory Compliance and Procedural Fairness Analysis and Findings The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by unsuccessful resolution applicants challenging the approval of Sarda Energy and Minerals Limited’s (SEML) Resolution Plan. The Court held that clarifications sought by the Resolution Professional (RP) regarding bank guarantees and payment options, under the direction of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), did not constitute a "material irregularity" or a modification of the bid. The Court emphasized that the "commercial wisdom" of the CoC is paramount and non-justiciable. Judicial review by the NCLT or NCLAT is strictly confined to ensuring compliance with Section 30(2) and Section 61(3) of the IBC. The Court cautioned against "strategic litigation" by unsuccessful bidders, noting that excessive judicial interference erodes the value of the corporate debtor and undermines the IBC’s objective of time-bound insolvency resolution. Key Takeaways * Non-Justiciability: The CoC's assessment of a plan's viability, valuation, and feasibility belongs exclusively to its commercial domain; courts cannot substitute their own assessment. * RP Conduct: An RP acting on CoC instructions to seek clarifications from all applicants does not commit a material irregularity. * Predictability and Finality: Predictability in the insolvency process is essential for market stability, and finality must be protected to prevent value-destructive delays. * Appellate Limits: Appeals under Section 62 of the IBC are restricted to substantive questions of law arising from the limited grounds specified in Section 61(3).

SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by Bank of Baroda

2 MIN READ

### NCLT Lacks Jurisdiction to Challenge Benami Property Attachment Orders or Sovereign Forfeiture Actions The Supreme Court of India held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) does not have the jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to adjudicate challenges against attachment orders passed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Benami Act). The Court clarified that while the IBC is an exhaustive code for insolvency, it cannot override sovereign penal actions or determinations of title under public law. Furthermore, the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies to creditor recovery actions but does not interdict proceedings for the confiscation of "tainted" assets held in a benami capacity, as such properties do not form part of the liquidation estate. Aggrieved parties, including liquidators, must exhaust the specialized appellate remedies provided under the Benami Act.. S. Rajendran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) & Ors. [2026 INSC 187]. Supreme Court. LawLens

Supreme Court·

### NCLT Lacks Jurisdiction to Challenge Benami Property Attachment Orders or Sovereign Forfeiture Actions The Supreme Court of India held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) does not have the jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to adjudicate challenges against attachment orders passed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Benami Act). The Court clarified that while the IBC is an exhaustive code for insolvency, it cannot override sovereign penal actions or determinations of title under public law. Furthermore, the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies to creditor recovery actions but does not interdict proceedings for the confiscation of "tainted" assets held in a benami capacity, as such properties do not form part of the liquidation estate. Aggrieved parties, including liquidators, must exhaust the specialized appellate remedies provided under the Benami Act.

The Appellant-Liquidators challenged provisional attachment orders issued by authorities under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 ("Benami Act").

3 MIN READ