This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 3 of Volume 10, embodies landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court on arbitrability of claims, Article 21 of the Constitution, two-pronged test in Designs Act, and more.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11 and 8 — Arbitrability of claims — Determination of: Mere execution of full and final settlement receipt or discharge voucher is not a bar to arbitration when validity thereof is challenged by the claimant on the ground of fraud, coercion or undue influence. Cases where there is bilateral negotiated settlement of pending disputes, distinguished from cases, where there is a “no-dues/claims certificate” or “full and final settlement discharge vouchers” insisted upon and taken, either in a printed format or otherwise, as a condition precedent for release of the admitted dues, [Arabian Exports (P) Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 10 SCC 388]
Constitution of India — Art. 21 — Prisoners/Convicts: Rights of prisoners/convicts, explained. Duty of State pertaining to treatment of prisoners and amenities to be afforded in case of physically challenged/disabled prisoners, explained and directions issued, [L. Muruganantham v. State of T.N., (2025) 10 SCC 401]
Constitution of India — Arts. 19(1)(a) & (2) and 21 — Freedom of expression and contempt of court: Law clarified re relevance and necessity of public observations, debates and criticisms, [Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media (P) Ltd., (2025) 10 SCC 353]
Copyright Act, 1957 — Ss. 2(c), 14 and 15 r/w S. 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 — Artistic works and designs vis-à-vis drawings and paintings — Distinguished between: Two-pronged test to determine if a work is qualified to be protected by Designs Act. Law clarified relating to extent of overlap between Copyright Act and Designs Act, [Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. v. Inox (India) Ltd., (2025) 10 SCC 317]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 372 proviso r/w S. 378 — Appeal under proviso: Right to appeal, held, accrues on the “victim” from the instance of a court acquitting the accused. Proviso to S. 372, held, agnostic to the factum of such acquittal being by the trial court or the first appellate court, [Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu, (2025) 10 SCC 372]
Family and Personal Laws — Guardians and Wards — Custody of Child/Minor — Change of custody/Removal of Guardian — Review of custody order — When warranted: Custody orders are always considered interlocutory orders and by nature of such proceedings, custody orders cannot be made rigid and final. Rather, courts are entitled to alter and mould custody orders in view of best interest of minor, [Neethu v. Rajesh Kumar, (2025) 10 SCC 436]