Supreme Court Monthly Digest October 2025

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 15 - Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) - Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution - Service Law - Recruitment Disputes - Alternate Remedy - Jurisdiction of High Court – Held, High Courts should not entertain Writ Petition in matters within domain of Tribunals - The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition challenging the provisional select list, as an efficacious alternative remedy was available before the KSAT - The Tribunal is the Court of first instance for all service disputes, and litigants cannot directly approach the High Courts, even to question the vires of statutory legislations - The present case does not fall under the recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, e.g., enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of the parent legislation - Appeals dismissed. [Relied on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261; T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N. and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 581; Paras 27-29, 32, 49-51] Leelavathi N. v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1013 : 2025 INSC 1242 Advocate - Procedure for Summoning an Advocate (in exceptional cases) - Status of in-house counsel - Supreme Court laid down procedure for summoning advocates in exceptional cases - i. An Investigating Officer (I.O.) can only summon an Advocate if the I.O. has knowledge of an issue that falls under the exceptions to Section 132 of the BSA (e.g., communication made in furtherance of an illegal purpose)- In such a case, the summons must specifically mention the exception under which the Advocate is being summoned; ii. Any summons issued against an Advocate by an I.O. must be with the prior approval and satisfaction of the hierarchical Superior, not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police (SP), and a reasoned order must be recorded; iii. In-house counsel are not entitled to the professional privilege under Section 132 of the BSA since they are not Advocates practicing in Courts as spoken of in the BSA- they would be entitled to the protection under Section 134 insofar as any communication made to the legal advisor of their employer- The protection under Section 134 cannot be claimed for the communications between the employer and the In-house counsel themselves. [Relied on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1; Paras 48-50, 59-67] In Re : Summoning Advocates, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051 : 2025 INSC 1275 Advocate - Treatment of Advocate's Digital Devices and Confidentiality- Supreme Court held that - i. While examining any digital device of an Advocate, care shall be taken by the Court not to impair the confidentiality with respect to the other clients of the Advocate; ii. The discovery shall be strictly confined to the information sought by the Investigating Officer, provided it is found to be permissible and admissible. [Paras 54 - 58] In Re : Summoning Advocates, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051 : 2025 INSC 1275 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1966 Act) - Section 11(6), 12(5) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 19 - Article 137 – Limitation - Arbitration Clause - Disqualification of Named Arbitrator - that the arbitration clause in the General Conditions of the Contract (GCC) named the Managing Director of Bharat Oman Refineries Limited or an officer nominated by him as the arbitrator - Subsequent amendments in the 1996 Act, specifically Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule (as amended by Act 3 of 2016 w.e.f. 23.10.2015), rendered the Managing Director and his nominee ineligible to act as an Arbitrator due to the legislative intent to secure neutrality of arbitrators – Held, merely because the procedure for appointment in the clause became inoperative due to statutory changes, the core agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration is not rendered nugatory - The arbitration agreement must be interpreted purposively, and the Court is vested with the power to appoint an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) - The amendment in the statute has been enacted with the legislative intent to enforce neutrality of the arbitrator and bring impartiality - It will not be justified to literally interpret the clause in the contract - Noted that the right to apply under Section 11 (6) accrues from the date when the final bill became due - Matter was referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, which was directed to appoint an arbitrator - Set aside order of High Court. [Relied on Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another v. HSCC (India) Limited (2020) 20 SCC 760; TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited (2017) 8 SCC 377; Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd (2020) 14 SCC 643; Paras 16-24] Offshore Infrastructures v. Bharat Petroleum, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 982 : 2025 INSC 1196 Arbitration...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest October 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags