This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 5 of Volume 9, embodies landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court on seat of arbitration, appointment of members of Consumer Commissions, delimitation/reservation of constituencies, and more.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11 & 8 r/w Ss. 1(2) and 2(2) — Seat of arbitration: Principles for determination of seat of arbitration, explained. Explanation and limited applicability of Closest Connection Test, clarified, [Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, (2025) 9 SCC 750]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 21, 16 and 11 — Impleadment/joining a non-signatory to arbitration agreement as a party to arbitration proceedings: Scope and ambit of jurisdiction of arbitrator re impleadment of non-signatory to arbitration agreement as party to arbitration proceedings, [Adavya Projects (P) Ltd. v. Vishal Structurals (P) Ltd., (2025) 9 SCC 686]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 115 and Or. 9 R. 13 & Expln. thereto — Revision — Delay/Laches/Limitation — Condonation of — Ex parte decree — Revisional jurisdiction of High Court: When revisional jurisdiction of High Court is invoked only against order passed by trial court in condoning delay in filing application for setting aside ex parte decree, High Court has no jurisdiction to set aside ex parte decree, [C. Prabhakar Rao v. Sama Mahipal Reddy, (2025) 9 SCC 716]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Ss. 47, 60, 122, Or. 21 Rr. 11, 98 and Or. 11 R. 14 — Execution proceedings — Delay: Executing court must dispose of execution proceedings within six months from date of filing which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. This would mean that every effort should be made to dispose of execution petition within said time-limit and executing court should have reasons for not being able to dispose of execution petition. Executing court is duty-bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of matter within six months, [Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education & Welfare Society, (2025) 9 SCC 618]
Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary — Courts, Tribunals and Special Courts — Tribunals — Appointment of Members of Consumer Commissions — Criteria/ Eligibility: Consumer Commissions are quasi-judicial authorities empowered with adequate civil and criminal powers of court to discharge judicial functions. Hence, standards expected from members of Tribunal should be as nearly as possible as applicable to appointment of Judges exercising such powers, [Union of India v. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, (2025) 9 SCC 624]
Election — Delimitation/Reservation of Constituencies — Nature and Scope — Delimitation of constituencies: Non-inclusion of States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in delimitation process initiated through 2020 Notification, not arbitrary, [K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India, (2025) 9 SCC 722]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 31: Raising of demand notices and proceedings pursuant thereto by Government authorities, when dues are for a period before the management of the erstwhile Company was taken over by successful resolution applicant and not part of approved resolution plan, not permissible. Law clarified on bindingness and effect of approved resolution plan, [JSW Steel Ltd. v. Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal, (2025) 9 SCC 673]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — S. 141 r/w S. 138 — Proceedings against Director of Company for dishonour of cheque: General principles/conditions for applicability of S. 141 NI Act, summarised, [HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 9 SCC 653]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 139, 118 and 138: Reversal of acquittal by High Court, by raising statutory presumption and when there found no rebuttal evidence on part of the appellant-accused, justified, [Mohd. Ali v. Sharanappa, (2025) 9 SCC 620]
Service Law — Appointment — Eligibility conditions/criteria — Possession of higher qualification: Rejection of candidature on ground of possession of higher qualification, not proper, [Chandra Shekhar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 9 SCC 740]