Among the earrings that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) Cases related to the private sector stand out, such as the amparo promoted by ELEKTRA related to a tax credit; A conflict for a property related to Mifel Banking and an issue in which it is involved Huasteca’s natural gas transporter.
The Plenary of the SCJN composed of the ministers who were elected for the first time through the popular vote on June 1, 2025, held its first public session last September 11. None of the 15 cases listed that date had to do with the private sector, although they only resolved three that were unconstitutionality actions.
Mifel bank
For the next sessionthat the Wednesday, September 17among the 16 cases listed to discuss is file 21/2025 that is in position number seven. It is an incident of inejecution of judgment issued on January 19, 2024, by the Tenth District Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City, in the indirect protection 684/2023, promoted by Banca Mifel, Financial Group Mifel, Fiduciary in Trust number 1644-2013.
The matter that was listed for the first time on December 8, 2025, is in the presentation of Minister Lenia Batres Guadarrama.
It is a Prize for the construction that is intended to be made on a land of forests in LomasCuajimalpa Mayor of Morelos, Mexico City.
The Bank demanded the protection and protection of justice against the Head of Government of Mexico City, for the issuance of the Internal Regulations of the Executive Power and the Public Administration of Mexico City, published in the Official Gazette of the City on January 2, 2019, particularly article 156, sections XVI, XXIX and XXX.
Also against the Director of the Registry of the Plans and Programs of the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing of Mexico City. Claims the issuance of the Single Certificate of Land Use Zoning With folio number 32720-151Pari22 dated February 10, 2023, for the property located in Paseo de los Laureles street number 278, Colonia Bosques de las Lomas, Cuajimalpa Mayor’s Office of Morelos, Mexico City.
By means of a ruling dated November 27, 2020, the Administrative Court of Justice of Mexico City acknowledged that the Seduvi is attended in its demand for the lesivity promoted in 2019, since that property corresponds only only the unifamiliary housing zoning exclusively of a house every 1,000 square meters, when the hill is found in the portion of the La Colina illegal.
Huasteca natural gas
For the September 18 sessionin which 15 issues are listed, in position five there is a case of contradiction of criteria identified with number 153/2023, also in the presentation of Minister Lenia Batres Guadarrama, which is related to the company Huasteca’s natural gas transporter.
The background of the case refer that by Office number 884/2023, sent by the Second Collegiate Court in Civil Matters of the Second Circuit, on May 31, 2023, the President Judge José Antonio Rodríguez Rodríguez, made knowledge of the complaint filed by Israel Herrera Rangel, in his capacity as a legal proxy of natural gas transporter of the Huasteca, a limited liability company of variable capital, of the possible capital of capital The criteria manifested by the first room of this SCJN in thesis 1a./j. 14/2012 (9a.), And the one held by the second room of the same SCJN in jurisprudence 2a./j. 85/2017 (10a.).
It must be determined whether article 75 of the Regulation of the Relative Law, when establishing a temporary limit to exercise the right of judicial validation of a voluntary, continuous and apparent servitude contract, regulated by article 105 of the Hydrocarbons Law itself, violates the principle of law reserve established in article 17 of the Constitution.
Elektra
While they are not known what will be the issues that will form the ordinary lists of issues for view after September 18other relevant issues related to the private sector are known that have already been referred to the presentations of the ministers.
Among these is the Direct Amparo in Review 3842/2024 in which the Secretary of the Treasury appears as a recurring and as complainant and recurring Adhesive Elektra.
The company, which was taxed under the fiscal consolidation regime, with the quality of controlled, promoted administrative contentious judgment against the resolution to the appeal that confirms a resolution through which a fiscal credit (fine) was imposed for declaring a fiscal loss greater than the really suffered, since the company omitted to declare cumulative income for accumulative inventory concepts.
Once the trial, the Metropolitan Regional Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justicerecognized the validity of the contested resolutions.
Undoubted with the determination, the controlled commercial company promoted a direct amparo trial, manifesting as a concept of violation, among others, which was incorrect that fiscal powers to a controlled company begin, since in terms of the Income Tax Law in force in the Fiscal Year 2012, the only ones obliged to respond for the consolidated tax before the tax authority are the controlling companies.
He Collegiate Court issued a judgment in which he granted the protection and protection of the justice of the Union, Under the consideration that the tax authority before exercising its powers to verify to the controlled commercial company, had to do so with the controller, since these are the only cause of the consolidated results.
Undoubted with the determination, the fiscal authority promoted a appeal for review in which medullary said that the interpretation given by the Court of Knowledge to various articles of the Income Tax Law in force in fiscal year 2012 is unconstitutional.
Total Play
Another case that has aroused interest is Direct Amparo in Review 2526/2025 where the Total Play complaint appears and as a third party interested the administrator of the contentious of great taxpayers “1” of the General Administration of great taxpayers of the Tax Administration Service.
It is a nullity trial against rejection of deductions by concept of distributors in the fiscal year of 2011.
He was also turned to the presentation of Minister Lenia Batres.
Puma
Puma Mexico Sport, It appears as complainant in protection 313/2025 according to which the claimed act is the promulgation of the decree by which provisions of the Federal Law of Rights published on November 13, 2025 are reinforced.
Specifically it is against the Application of fee fixed only to import operations from member countries of the Integral Treaty and Progressive Transpacific Association, in contravention of the principles of proportionality, legality and regulatory hierarchy established in international treaties such as the Agreement on Trade Facilitation and the General Agreement on Customs and Commerce Tariffs.
