Supreme Court Weekly Digest March 2025 [March 17 - 23, 2025]

Supreme Court Weekly Digest March 2025 [March 17 - 23, 2025][2025 LiveLaw (SC) 311 to 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 338]AdministrationJudicial Review - Administrative Decisions - Courts should be cautious in interfering with the administrative decisions of the Governing Board, particularly when such decisions are in furtherance of implementing a statutorily approved Master Plan. (Para 16) Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 313Advocates Act, 1961A right of an Advocate to appear for a party and to practice in the courts is coupled with the duty to remain present in the court at the time of hearing, and to participate and conduct the proceedings diligently, sincerely, honestly and to the best of his ability. Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin, and they are inherently connected with each other. (Para 18) Supreme Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 320Anticipatory BailCondition for Automatic Custody Upon Charge-Sheet Submission - Such a specific direction, mandating coercive steps for custody, was improper. When granting anticipatory bail, the court should leave it open for the trial court to decide on bail after the charge-sheet is filed and the accused appears. (Para 3) Ritesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 326Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996In the absence of an express law governing the arbitration agreement, the applicable law should be determined based on the parties' intentions, with a strong presumption in favor of the law governing the main contract (lex contractus). (Para 31) Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 317Section 34(2)(b) - An Arbitral Award upholding agreement to return acquired land is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b) as it is in conflict with the public policy of India. (Para 15) Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board v. Bhagwan Devi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 327Auroville Foundation Act, 1988Section 19 - Residents' Assembly's role is advisory and recommendatory. While it assists in formulating the Master Plan, it does not have the power to dictate the composition of committees constituted by the Governing Board. The Residents' Assembly or any individual resident of the Auroville Foundation cannot claim any right to be a part of a Committee or Council constituted by the Governing Board of the Foundation. (Para 15) Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 313Petition filed by disgruntled residents to hamper development of Auroville - Some disgruntled and discontented residents kept on filing the petitions one after the other, dragging the Foundation into unnecessary litigations. The writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was one of such ill-motivated petitions filed by her to abuse the process of law to hamper the development of Auroville and to cause obstructions to the smooth functioning of the Governing Board of the Foundation. Hence, the Appeal by the Auroville Foundation is allowed with cost of Rs.50,000/- (Para 19) Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 313Civil ProcedureExecution of Decree - Extension of Time - Limitation - Doctrine of Merger - Executing Court's extension for depositing the advance payment cannot be interfered with. Since the Appellate Court's ruling, which lacked a time limit, superseded the Trial Court's decision under the doctrine of merger, the Executing Court was not bound by the Trial Court's timeline. (Para 10) Raju Naidu v. Chenmouga Sundra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 331Constitution of IndiaArticle 32 - Plea to regulate private hospitals that compel patients to purchase medicines, devices, implants, and consumables from their in-house pharmacies at exorbitant prices. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing all State Governments to consider the issue of unreasonable charges and patient exploitation in private hospitals and take appropriate policy decisions. (Para 16 – 18) Siddharth Dalmia v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 324Consumer Protection Act, 1986Section 2(1)(d) – To qualify as a "consumer" under the Act, there must be a direct contractual relationship between the parties. A party having no privity of contract with the service provider cannot be regarded as a consumer as per the Act. (Paras 17, 20, 21, 23) Citicorp Finance v. Snehasis Nanda, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 332Criminal LawArrest - Defiance of Court Order - Grant of Bail - Police, with knowledge of the protection order, hastily added serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 leading to the appellant's arrest. The Court deprecated this conduct, emphasizing that the police should have sought leave from the Court before arresting the appellant. The Court, considering the mala fide nature of the arrest, allowed the appeal, directing the appellant's release on bail, and made the interim order of protection absolute. (Para 5 & 7) Manish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest March 2025 [March 17 - 23, 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags