Supreme Court · 2026

Held: Respondents are also right in pointing out that s.19(22A), even if it were to apply on its very terms, the Appellant-Bank is not entitled to any relief – The phrase “recovery certificate issued by … under … shall be deemed to be decree or order for … initiation of … insolvency proceedings … under any law for the time being force …” has been emphasised in support of the proposition that the stage of initiation of proceedings did not fructify because the notice of insolvency itself, issued u/s.9(2) of the Insolvency Act, stood quashed by the High Court. [Para 22] Relief – Rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of commencement of litigation: Held: The right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding – The right of a party H.D.F.C. Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs. 206 [2026] 8 S.C.R. is determined by the facts as they exist on the date the action is instituted – Granting the presence of such facts, then he is entitled to its enforcement – Later developments cannot defeat his right because, had the court found his facts to be true the day he sued he would have got his decree – The Court’s procedural delays cannot deprive him of legal justice or right crystallised in the initial cause of action – Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – s.9(2). [Para 16] Case Law Cited