11–21 October 2026
The Supreme Court of India sat for a short week before its Dussehra holidays (19–24 October 2026), delivering rulings on the seat of arbitration and contractual bars on interest, the write-down of YES Bank’s AT-1 bonds, proof of default under the IBC, arrest procedure under the PMLA, double compensation for homebuyers, children’s right to internet access, and the limits of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgments in this edition were delivered between 12 and 16 October 2026.
ARBITRATION LAW
ARCIS Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation – The Venue Named in an Arbitration Clause Is Not Automatically the Seat
Setting aside a Delhi High Court order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court held that a venue named for arbitral proceedings does not automatically become the seat. The franchise agreement referred to both Delhi and Goa and gave exclusive jurisdiction to the courts at Goa. Read as a whole, Goa was the seat and Delhi only a venue, so the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction.
Significance: Requires the seat to be found from the agreement as a whole, not from a single clause.
Cause Title: ARCIS Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation | 12 October 2026 | Coram: Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
ARBITRATION LAW
MS Sharma Enterprises v. National Building Construction Corporation – An “Or Otherwise” Bar on Interest Is Absolute
Upholding the Delhi High Court, the Court held that Clause 26 of the contract, which barred interest on withheld or delayed payments “or otherwise”, was a complete bar on pre-award interest. The arbitrator therefore exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding pre-reference and pendente lite interest. Post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b), which cannot be contracted out, was maintained.
Significance: Confirms that parties may exclude pre-award interest, but not post-award interest.
Cause Title: MS Sharma Enterprises v. National Building Construction Corporation | 15 October 2026 | Coram: Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
BANKING LAW • SECURITIES
YES Bank Ltd. v. Axis Trustee Services Ltd. – An Administrator Could Not Write Down AT-1 Bonds Outside the Reconstruction Scheme
Dismissing appeals by YES Bank, the RBI and the Union of India, the Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision setting aside the March 2020 write-down of AT-1 bonds issued for ₹8,415 crore. The final Reconstruction Scheme notified on 13 March 2020 had omitted the write-down clause found in the draft. An Administrator under Section 36ACA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 must act within the statute and could not assume the RBI’s regulatory role.
Significance: Confines a bank Administrator strictly to the powers the statute confers.
Cause Title: YES Bank Limited & Anr. v. Axis Trustee Services Limited & Ors. | 15 October 2026 | Coram: Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ.
INSOLVENCY LAW
Deepak Raheja v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. – Default under Section 7 IBC Is Proved on a Preponderance of Probabilities
Upholding the admission of two corporate insolvency processes, the Court held that Section 7 proceedings are summary. The NCLT need only be satisfied, on a preponderance of probabilities, that a debt and a default exist; it need not reconcile accounts or fix the exact amount. A record of default from an Information Utility carries a presumption of very high evidentiary value, and exact quantification belongs to the claims process.
Significance: Keeps the admission stage of insolvency summary and swift.
Cause Title: Deepak Raheja and Another v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Another | 15 October 2026 | Coram: Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ.
MONEY LAUNDERING • BAIL
Sanjay Sureka v. Directorate of Enforcement – Arrest Material Must Reach the Adjudicating Authority “Immediately”
Granting bail to an accused in custody for about 20 months, the Court read Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to require that the arrest order and material be forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority “immediately”, meaning expeditiously. A five-day gap did not invalidate the arrest, but bail was granted as the investigation was complete and the Section 45 twin conditions cannot override Article 21.
Significance: Balances procedural safeguards on arrest with the right to liberty.
Cause Title: Sanjay Sureka @ Sanjay Kumar Sureka v. Directorate of Enforcement | 14 October 2026 | Coram: Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
CONSUMER LAW • REAL ESTATE
Madhu Kudapa v. Lodha Healthy Constructions – No Rent on Top of Interest on a Full Refund
Modifying an NCDRC order, the Court held that a homebuyer who seeks a full refund for delayed possession cannot also claim rent for the same delay, as that would compensate one loss twice. It ordered a refund of ₹1,27,34,726 with 12 per cent simple interest, and ₹15 lakh as full and final compensation for rent, mental agony and litigation costs.
Significance: Guards against double compensation in homebuyer disputes.
Cause Title: Madhu Kudapa (Formerly Known as K. Madhusudhan Rao) v. M/s Lodha Healthy Constructions and Developer Private Limited & Anr. | 15 October 2026 | Coram: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW • CHILD RIGHTS
Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish – Children Too Have a Fundamental Right to Internet Access
Reviewing compliance with its 2024 directions on child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM), the Court held that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), and that children share it irrespective of age. It declined a blanket social media ban for children as disproportionate, proposing age-based safeguards and a national CSEAM reporting framework instead.
Significance: Pairs children’s digital rights with enforceable duties on platforms.
Cause Title: Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. | 15 October 2026 | Coram: J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
CRIMINAL LAW • ANTI-CORRUPTION
Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan – Section 17A Does Not Shield a Demand for a Bribe
Upholding the framing of charges against a police constable, the Court held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 protects only recommendations or decisions taken in discharge of official functions. Demanding a bribe is a purely criminal act with no link to any such decision, so prior approval under Section 17A was not required. The provision, it said, “cannot be viewed to have an omnibus application.”
Significance: Prevents Section 17A from becoming a shield for bribery.
Cause Title: Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan | 16 October 2026 | Coram: S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
Disclaimer: This roundup is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The judgments are cited by the neutral citations assigned by the Supreme Court of India. Readers should confirm each citation and holding against the official Supreme Court website before relying on them.