Supreme Court Weekly Digest August 25 - 31, 2025

Animal Welfare – Vantara - Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Supreme Court noted that present writ petition alleges unlawful acquisition of animals, mistreatment of animals, money laundering etc. with no material of probative worth or supporting evidence - Such petitions ordinarily be dismissed, but Supreme Court decided to call for an independent factual appraisal to verify the allegations, particularly given the accusations against statutory authorities - Directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) composed of respectable persons of impeccable integrity and high repute to assist the Court by conducting a factfinding inquiry - SIT is to report by September 12, 2025. C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 835Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 - Requirement of signature on arbitration agreement - An arbitration agreement can be inferred from the exchange of letters or other forms of communication that provide a record of agreement - Mere fact that a contract containing an arbitration clause was not signed by one party does not invalidate the agreement, particularly when the parties conduct clearly shows their acceptance of the contract's terms - When parties act in furtherance of a contract by fulfilling their obligations, such as supplying and accepting goods, furnishing letters of credit and referencing the contract in subsequent correspondence, this conduct demonstrates an unequivocal acceptance of the contract, including its arbitration clause. [Paras 14-15] Glencore International AG v. Shree Ganesh Metals, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 839 : 2025 INSC 1036Arbitration - Foreign Arbitration Agreement - Reference to Arbitration - Under Section 45 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a judicial authority must refer parties to arbitration if there is an agreement in writing for arbitration, unless it prima facie finds that agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed - Burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement lies with party seeking to rely on it and only prima facie proof is required before the referral court - The Court is not the appropriate forum to conduct a 'mini-trial' on existence or validity of agreement, as that is a matter for arbitral tribunal - The arbitration agreement in the contract was binding and that matter should be referred to arbitration if prima facie case for an agreement exists - Set aside order of High Court - Appeal allowed. [Paras 24- 28] Glencore International AG v. Shree Ganesh Metals, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 839 : 2025 INSC 1036Caste Certificate - Caste Certificate was issued while she was a minor - based on this certificate, she was admitted to the MBBS course on July 24, 2016, and completed her degree in 2021 - On July 7, 2022, Verification Committee declared that she did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) – Held, despite the fraud committed by her father, due to which a meritorious student would have her entire career ruined if the appeal was dismissed - While equity should follow the law, it found it appropriate to grant the appellant an opportunity to protect her career - Father was more responsible for creating this imbroglio due to his suppression of material facts - Regularized the appellant's MBBS admission, but held that she could not claim the status of 'Mannervarlu' ST in future - Degree certificate was to be considered final - Expressed concern that an eligible, meritorious candidate from ST category lost an opportunity due to appellant's admission - Supreme Court in order to compensate ordered the appellant's father to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs to the national Defence Fund within 2 months - If the Scrutiny Committee had verified the caste certificate earlier, the situation might not have occurred - Appeal was partly allowed. [Paras 20 - 33] Chaitanya v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 853Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 27(1) - Additional Evidence - Whether it is necessary for an Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating a prayer to lead additional evidence – Held, an Appellate Court must first examine the pleadings of the party seeking to introduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of CPC - This is to ensure that the case is supported by the party's pleadings - Without necessary pleadings, allowing additional evidence is an unnecessary exercise - Appellate Court must also consider the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence - High Court erred in allowing the defendant to present additional evidence without first examining whether that evidence was in line with the defendant's pleadings - Set aside order of High Court and instructed to re-examine the appeal and defendant's application to lead additional evidence - Appeal allowed. [Paras 8-10] Iqbal Ahmed v. Abdul Shukoor, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 831 : 2025 INSC 1027Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXI Rule 102 – Held, Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, which ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest August 25 - 31, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags