Lentis Legalis | 16 April 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav

New Delhi, April 29: In a significant hearing concerning the insolvency resolution of AVJ Developers (India) Private Limited, the Supreme Court of India on 16-04-2026 raised serious concerns over an alleged Rs. 85 crore financial claim described before it as “sham and bogus,” while also taking note of increasing delays in approval of resolution plans by insolvency tribunals across the country.

The matter came up in two connected appeals one filed by the AVJ Heightss Apartment Owners Association and another by a suspended director of the corporate debtor. Both appeals challenge a common judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had upheld the admission of the claim of India Infoline Finance Limited (IIFL).

Disputed Rs. 85 Crore Claim Under Scrutiny

The Bench noted that the Resolution Professional had earlier rejected IIFL’s claim on January 24, 2020, citing inability to verify the claim from the company’s records. However, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) later allowed the claim, and the NCLAT affirmed that decision.

During the hearing, counsel for the appellants argued that the entire claim was fraudulent. The Court was also informed of an arbitral award dated July 3, 2024, containing serious findings concerning the alleged loan transaction of Rs. 85 crores.

According to portions of the award referred to in court, the claimed loan amount was allegedly routed through multiple accounts instead of the sanctioned account, while certain documents relied upon to support the transaction were said to be tainted or inconsistent.

The arbitral tribunal reportedly questioned whether documents were backdated and whether signatures were genuine. It also made observations suggesting attempts to evergreen earlier loan accounts and avoid regulatory classification norms.

Court Concerned Over Delay in Resolution Plan Approval

Apart from the disputed financial claim, the Supreme Court expressed strong concern that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved a resolution plan on July 4, 2024, and an application for approval was filed before the NCLT on July 12, 2024, yet no final adjudication has taken place even after a prolonged period.

Calling the situation “very unfortunate,” the Court observed that many such approval applications are reportedly pending before the NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi, and other benches for years.

Directions to NCLT and IBBI

The Court directed the Registrar of the NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi, to furnish details on:

1. Number of pending resolution plan approval applications
2. Duration of pendency
3. Reasons for non-disposal

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) was also impleaded as a party respondent and directed to place  necessary figures and statistics across the country, within two weeks.

Senior Advocates Appointed as Amicus

The Court requested Gopal Jain and Navin Pahwa, senior advocates, to assist the Court as amici curiae.

Case Title: AVJ HEIGHTSS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. IIFL FINANCE LIMITED & OTHERS

Read Full Judgement – Click Heare

Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.

Lentis Legalis | 19 April 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav

By allowing a civil appeal, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a rent disputes and eviction matter reiterated the legal principle quoting Maganlal son of Kishanlal Godha Vs. Nanasaheb son of Udhaorao Gadewar, that  while dealing with a landlord-tenant dispute, it was held that the adjudication of bonafide need should be done as on the date when the suit for eviction was filed, unless some subsequent event materially changes the ground of relief. It was further held that subsequent events may be considered to have overshadowed the genuineness of the landlord’s requirement only if they are of such nature and dimension as to make it lose its significance altogether.

Facts of the case: On 5th December, 1994, suit for eviction came to be filed under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 by the legal heirs of Mr. Martins. The eviction of the sub-tenant was sought on the ground of bonafide need of the family of the principal tenant. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs required the suit premises for their bonafide need so as to occupy the same.

Before the Trial Court, the parties led evidence. By judgment dated 18th July 2001, the learned Judge of the Trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs had proved their bonafide need in respect of Room No.59 that was occupied by the defendants as the said premises was required for privacy of the widow of Mr. Martins, who was an old lady having 87 years of age and there were six daughters who used to visit her place. It was further held that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if the decree for eviction was not passed. The suit was, accordingly, decreed.

The defendants being aggrieved by the decree of eviction challenged the same by filing an appeal. The Appellate Court reversed the said decree on the reasoning that the plaintiff No.1, who was the widow of Mr. Martins had expired and, therefore, the bonafide need of the plaintiffs did not survive. Accordingly, the decree for eviction was set aside and the suit for eviction was dismissed.

The original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the reversal of the decree for eviction approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged the aforesaid judgment. During pendency of the petition, the original defendants placed on record an affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023, wherein it was stated that Room No.63 that was in occupation of the original plaintiffs was not being utilised by them and that the said room was occupied by some other persons. When the petition was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the original plaintiffs had not filed any rejoinder to the defendants’ affidavit. The High Court, thus, held that the plaintiffs had let out Room No.63 despite the same being available to them which indicated that they did not bonafide require the suit premises. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved, one of the original plaintiffs has filed the present appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Observations and Findings: Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documentary material on record, opined that the writ petition did not warrant dismissal solely on the ground that the original plaintiffs failed to file any rejoinder to the defendants’ affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023 and concluded on the point that all relevant material that was brought on record by both the parties ought to have been examined while deciding the writ petition. The affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023 could have been considered as additional material in opposing the claim for eviction on the ground of bonafide need. Dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of NON-TRAVERSE has, in our view, vitiated the impugned judgment.

Supreme Court further observed that the High Court failed to consider whether the subsequent event as urged by the defendants had material bearing on the right claimed by the plaintiffs. It has to be borne in mind that the Trial Court had passed a decree for eviction on the basis of the evidence on record which was reversed by the Appellate Court. It was, therefore, necessary for the High Court to have taken into consideration the entire material available on record including the affidavit dated 12th April 2023. Thus, by failing to do so, the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it while deciding the challenge to the reversal of the decree for eviction.

Accordingly, the order dated 4th February 2025 passed in Writ Petition No.1458 of 2003 was set aside. The proceedings in R.A.E. Suit No.70 of 1995 are remanded to the Small Causes Court, Mumbai for being decided afresh in accordance with law. The parties were given liberty to amend their pleadings and thereafter lead further evidence in accordance with law.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

Read Full Judgement: Click Here

Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.

Lentis Legalis| 04.03.2026
Chandrasen Yadav

The appellant in the present matter, Imran Pratapgadhi who was a Member of the Rajya Sabha. The 2^nd respondent Kishan Bhai Dipak Bhai Nanda was the first informant at whose instance a First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) was registered with Jamnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’).

In the complaint of the 2nd respondent, he stated that on 29th December 2024, on the occasion of the birthday of one Altaf Ghafarbhai Khafi, a member of the Municipal Corporation of Jamnagar, a mass wedding program was held at Sanjari Education and Charitable Trust. The said Municipal Councillor invited the present appellant to the function. A video of the event was made. The appellant posted the video on the social media platform ‘X’ from his verified account. The video has the recitation of a poem reproduced hereinbelow-

“ए खून (blood) के प्यासो (thirsty) बात सुनो  ग ़र हक्क़ (truth) की लडाई जुल्म (excesses/injustice) सही

  हम जुल्म (excesses/injustice) से इश्क़ (love) ननभा देंगे  गर शम- ए- नगररया (melting of a candle which resembles tears) आनतश (flame) है

  हर राह वो शम्मा (light) जला देंगे  गर लाश हमारे अपनोोंकी खतरा है तुम्हारी मसनद (throne) का

 उस रब (god) की ़सम हस्ते हस्ते नकतनी लाशे दफ़ना देंगे  ए खूनके प्यासोों बात सुनो”

The allegation in the complaint is that the spoken words of the poem incite people of one community against another, and it hurts a community’s religious and social sentiments. It is alleged that the song had lyrics that incited people of other communities to fight for the community’s rights. It is alleged that the video posted by the appellant created enmity between two communities at the national level and hatred towards each other. It was further alleged that it had a detrimental effect on national unity.

The appellant before coming to the Supreme Court had filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘the BNSS’) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the said FIR in the High Court. While issuing notice on the said petition, the learned Judge had directed the appellant to file an affidavit disclosing the poem’s source. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed by the appellant but could not disclose the specific origin of the source.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court by impugned judgment and order, rejected the petition by holding that as the investigation is at a very nascent stage, interference cannot be made in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC Online SC 315.  

Appellant in support of the appeal had taken following grounds-

1. That none of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant are made out on the plain reading of the complaint and the poem.
2. It cannot be said that the poem caused social disharmony amongst the people.
3.  the poem does not promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between the various religious, racial, language or regional groups and castes or communities.
4.  The plain reading of the poem indicated that it was all about sacrificing oneself to fight for rights and truth.
5. That registration of the FIR based on the said poem violates the appellant’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Supreme Court highlighting the role of dissent mentioned that Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy, civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected.

Supreme Court in the Judgement mounted a standard that The Courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes, we, the Judges, may not like spoken or written words. But, still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a). We Judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and respect its ideals. If the police or executive fail to honour and protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Courts to step in and protect the fundamental rights. There is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens. 

Supreme court not only set aside the impugned order of the High Court but also quashed the FIR which was registered against the Imran Pratapgaradhi.

Read full Judgement:

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/3511/3511_2025_4_1501_60508_Judgement_28-Mar-2025.pdf