Supreme Court Weekly Digest: August 1 - 10, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 761 to 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 786Advocates Act, 1961 - Enrolment Fees - Contempt Petition - Bar Councils can't collect any amount as “optional fee” during enrolment - Supreme Court closed a contempt petition after the Bar Council of India (BCI) affirmed its commitment to ensuring State Bar Councils (SBCs) comply with judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519 which prohibits charging enrolment fees beyond the stipulated amount under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 - Supreme Court clarified that no “optional” fees can be collected by any State Bar Council or the BCI, and fees must strictly adhere to the direction in the main judgment. [Paras 4-9] K.L.J.A. Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 786Alimony & Property Settlement – Held, alimony received after first divorce was not a relevant factor to determine the alimony payable after the divorce of the second marriage - The respondent's claim for Rs. 12 crores in permanent alimony and encumbrance-free ownership of the apartment as unjustified, considering that appellant-husband is an unemployed person and has responsibility of an autistic child - Appeal allowed. [Para 17, 20] A v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2025 INSC 926Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Scope of - Arbitrability of disputes - Serious allegations of fraud - Arbitrability of disputes arising from agreements for custom milling of paddy, where allegations of massive fraud and criminal proceedings were initiated against rice millers – Held, mere pendency of criminal cases alleging simple fraud, no bar to arbitration - Since there existed a valid arbitration agreement, it would be impermissible at the referral stage to dive deeper into the dispute, instead referred the same to the arbitration for its adjudication. [Paras 21, 24-28] Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation v. Sanjay Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 778 : 2025 INSC 933Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 92 - Purpose of - Section 92 is a 'representative suit' intended to protect public trusts from harassment by frivolous suits - the Court must look at the 'dominant purpose of the suit' as discernible from the plaint's allegations to determine if leave should be granted - the suit must be of a representative character - instituted in public interest and not merely for the vindication of individual or personal rights - Held that a society, even if not an express trust, can be considered a 'constructive trust' under Section 92 CPC if it functions for a public charitable purposes and receives endowments for that purpose - That dominant purpose of the suit and representative character of plaintiffs are paramount for Section 92 actions. [Paras 34-38] Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 775Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 92 - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Public Charitable Trusts - Constructive Trust - Maintainability Suit – Held, a formal 'entrustment' of property or funds by a third party is not a necessary ingredient to deem a society for public charitable purposes, by its very nature, is intended for the benefit of those in need, thereby becoming property 'entrusted' to it, thus acquiring the character of a 'constructive trust' - A constructive trust arises by operation of law where a person holding title to property would profit by a wrong or be unjustly enriched - Appellant is engaged in a 'public purpose of charitable nature' given its principal activity of providing healthcare services to underprivileged sections - Supreme Court reiterated that the 'dominant purpose' of the suit, accessible strictly from the plaint's allegations, determines whether leave must be granted under Section 92 CPC, and that such suits are of a representative character for vindication of public rights, not merely personal rights - Entity won't lose character of public trust by mere registration under Societies Registration Act - There's no bar to a representative suit under Section 92 of CPC against a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, if it qualifies as a 'Constructive Trust' - Appellantentity was not a registered 'trust', it functions at par with a 'constructive trust' because its funds are meant solely for public benefit - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 42-55, 90, 107, 136] Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 775Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 389 - Suspension of sentence - Fixed term sentence v. Life imprisonment - Liberal approach – Held, when a convicted person is sentenced to affixed period of sentence and files an appeal, suspension of sentence should be considered liberally by the Appellate court unless there are exceptional circumstances or statutory restrictions - This approach differs from cases involving life imprisonment, where the consideration for suspension is different - The Appellate Court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and record...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest: August 1 - 10, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags