In a significant ruling that stirred quite a bit of discussion in Court Room No. 13, the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday rejected a commercial suit filed by Senbo Engineering Limited against Bank of Maharashtra. The company had insisted that its negotiations for a one-time settlement (OTS) had matured into a binding contract. But the bench, after a detailed hearing, held that no borrower can force a bank to accept an OTS-not even when substantial payments have been made during negotiations.

The dispute traces back several years. Senbo Engineering had availed multiple credit facilities from Bank of Maharashtra and later slipped into default, leading to the account being declared a Non-Performing Asset. The bank initiated statutory recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act in 2017 and followed it up with proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and even the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

In a hearing that saw sharp exchanges and deep dives into decade-old construction transactions, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed contractor Rocky’s appeal seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from a long-pending business dispute with a Hyderabad-based builder. The bench-hearing the matter for over an hour-made it clear that the criminal case could not simply be brushed aside as a civil disagreement, despite the contractor’s repeated insistence that the allegations were nothing more than a business fallout.

The conflict traces its roots to construction work done between 2008 and 2010. Both sides had once signed a No-Dues Certificate in June 2010, but the relationship soon soured, leading to cross-allegations and, ultimately, an FIR in 2015 accusing Rocky of cheating, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.

On a slightly warm Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice J.B. Pardiwala delivered a judgment that had lawyers in Courtroom 4 quietly nodding some in agreement, others in concern over the ripple effects. The appeal filed by Poly Medicure Ltd. against Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed, with the Court ruling that the company could not claim the status of a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

As the order was read out, the bench remarked in a measured tone,