Supreme Court Weekly Digest August 11 - 17, 2025

[2025 LiveLaw (SC) 787 - 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 810] Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002 (Kerala) - Rule 9(2) - Ethyl alcohol content in coconut toddy - Supreme Court on May 1, 2024, directed the government to reassess the appropriateness of 8.1% v/v limit for ethyl alcohol in coconut toddy - Expert Committee was constituted who recommended that maximum allowed ethyl alcohol content for self-produced alcohol from coconut palm today be 8.89% v/v at 15.56°C - Relying on this report Supreme Court held that prosecutions based on earlier assumption of an 8.1% v/v maximum ethyl alcohol content could not be sustained - Quashed 2007 Kerala Govt. Order capping coconut toddy alcohol content at 8.1% v/v. [Paras 2-5] Komalan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 800 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act') - Held, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot be permitted to remain present in arbitration proceedings, as it would breach confidentiality and exceed the Court's jurisdiction after appointing an arbitrator - Section 35 of the 1996 Act states that an award binds only parties to the arbitration and those claiming under them - 'Party' is defined by section 2(h) as a party to an arbitration agreement - Permitting a non-signatory to be present in proceedings where the award would not bind them has no legal basis and is 'unknown to law' - Such a direction breaches the confidentiality principle enshrined in Section 42A of the 1996 Act, which requires the arbitrator, arbitral institution and parties to maintain confidentiality. Kamal Gupta v. L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 799 : 2025 INSC 975 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Held, an agreement between a Port authority and a private entity cannot override the provisions of the law, specifically the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - When a tariff revision dispute arises, and parties fail to agree, a competent authority must resolve the issue - An arbitrator's award is contrary to basic legal principles if it reads clauses of an agreement in isolation - Entire agreement must be read as a whole. [Para 26] Paradip Port Authority v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 802 : 2025 INSC 971 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) – Held, after appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) and disposal of the proceedings, Court becomes functus officio and cannot issue further ancillary directions - Once arbitrator was appointed, Court lost jurisdiction to entertain new applications, such as the prayer for permission to intervene or remain present - 1996 Act is a self-contained Code and Section 5 restricts judicial intervention to only what is expressly provided -Invoking section 151 of the CPC was not permissible in this context - Applications set aside. [Paras 14- 22] Kamal Gupta v. L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 799 : 2025 INSC 975 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 & 21 - Appointment of arbitrator - Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause - Seat of Arbitration – Held, when an agreement contains an arbitration clause and also clause specifying exclusive jurisdiction of a particular High Court, this exclusive jurisdiction clause, even without explicitly using the terms 'seat' or 'venue' must be understood in the context of arbitration for dispute resolution, thereby establishing the specified location as the seat of arbitration – Then an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act must be filed before High Court having jurisdiction over the designated seat of arbitration. Set aside High Court's order - Appeal allowed. [Paras 7-10] Activitas Management Advisor v. Mind Plus Healthcare, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 795 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 92 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint – Held, respondents having agreed to resolve the dispute through arbitration and subsequently obtaining consent decree in their favor based on the arbitral award, could not later the award as a nullity due to non-arbitrability under Section 92 of CPC - Respondents conduct of “approbation and reprobation” to be impermissible and barred by the doctrine of estoppel by conduct and election - Appellants were granted liberty to revive their withdrawn execution proceedings to enforce the consent decree - The respondents were estopped by their conduct from raising the issue of non-arbitrability after having benefitted from the arbitration and the resulting consent decree. [Paras 14- 20] Sanjit Singh Salwan v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2025 INSC 988 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - Section 6, 70, 73, 74 - 'Initiation of any proceedings' and 'subject matter' – Held, CGST Act prohibit the initiation of “any proceedings” on the “same subject matter” - Term 'any proceedings'...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest August 11 - 17, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags