Supreme Court Weekly Digest: November 11 - 20, 2025

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7)(b) - Post-Award Interest is Mandatory – Held, the grant of post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) (pre-amended) is mandatory, and the only discretion vested in the Arbitral Tribunal is to decide the rate of interest to be awarded - Where the arbitrator does not fix any rate of interest, the statutory rate of 18% per annum shall apply - Clause (b) is in contrast with clause (a) and is not subject to party autonomy; it does not give the parties the right to "contract out" interest for the post-award period - The phrase "unless the award otherwise directs" relates to the rate of interest and not the entitlement of interest. [Relied on Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. (2022 INSC 898; R.P. Garg v. The General Manager, Telecom Department & Ors. (2024 INSC 743; Paras 37, 38, 41-44] Sri Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1118 : 2025 INSC 1327 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(2)(b)(ii) read with Explanation 1 and Section 34(2A) Proviso - Challenge to Arbitral Award - High Rate of Interest - Public Policy – Held, the imposition of an exorbitant interest rate in a purely commercial transaction, considering contemporary commercial practices, cannot be said to be against the fundamental policy of Indian Law or against the basic notions of morality or justice under the restricted meaning given to "public policy of India" post the 2015 amendments - A difference or controversy as to the rate of interest falls outside the scope of a challenge on the ground of conflict with the public policy of India, unless it is evident that the rate awarded is so perverse and so unreasonable as to shock the conscience of the Court - The proviso to Section 34(2A) explicitly prohibits re-appreciation of evidence - Where the learned Arbitrator's findings on the genuineness of the loan agreement and the interest rate (here, 24% p.a.) have been concurrently upheld by the courts below, a contrary view would amount to re-appreciation of evidence, which is barred - Appeal dismissed. [Relied on OPG Power Generation Private Limited v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2600; Paras 45-53] Sri Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1118 : 2025 INSC 1327 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 528- Quashing of FIR- Constitution of India - Article 142 - Inherent Power to Quash- The Supreme Court, exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quashed an FIR in its entirety, including the offence of Dacoity which the High Court had sustained despite an amicable settlement - Held that once the High Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR for the other offences there was no justification to sustain the FIR for the dacoity charge, as the factual matrix for all offences was inseparable and arose from a single transaction- Appeal allowed. [Paras 9 - 15] Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1114 : 2025 INSC 1323 Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu) – Section 10(2)(i) – Notice Not Mandatory - Held, issuance of a two-month notice under the Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) is not a mandatory condition precedent for a landlord to seek eviction- The Explanation merely provides an instance where default is presumed to be wilful- It does not take away the Rent Controller's discretion to determine wilfulness in the absence of such notice- Appeal dismissed. [Relied on S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman (1985) 1 SCC 591; Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1247; Paras 25-28] K. Subramaniam v. Krishna Mills Pvt.Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1098 : 2025 INSC 1309 Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu) – Section 10(2)(i) – Wilful Default– "Without Prejudice" Payments- Held, filing of appeal or revision against an order fixing fair rent does not operate as an automatic stay of execution – Failure to pay determined rent during the pendency of proceedings, without obtaining a specific stay order from the appellate/revisional forum, constitutes 'wilful default' warranting eviction- Mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree or order under appeal, as per the statutory ordainment in Order XLI Rule 5(1) of the CPC- Where a tenant challenges the fixation of fair rent but fails to seek or obtain a stay of its operation, the failure to pay the determined rent constitutes wilful default- The Court clarified that where a tenant pays arrears pursuant to a judicial order marked "without prejudice," such payment does not constitute a waiver of the landlord's right to seek ejectment for the prior wilful default- The payment merely saves the tenant from immediate adverse consequences...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest: November 11 - 20, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags