Supreme Court Weekly Digest October 16 - 23, 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 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 Proviso to Section 34(2)(a)(iv)- Held that the authority of a Court under Section 34 to set aside an arbitral award in part, by severing the invalid portion from the valid portion, is inherent in the Court's jurisdiction - The doctrine of omne majus continet in se minus (the greater power includes the lesser) squarely applies, holding that the power to set aside an award necessarily encompasses the power to set it aside in part - The proviso to Section 34(2)(a)(iv) is clarificatory in nature, confirming this pre-existing inherent power - Petition dismissed. [Para 128-130] Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1028 : 2025 INSC 1255 Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 37, 19(1)- Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3- Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order Vii Rule 11(D)- Held that A preliminary issue of limitation, even if decided by an Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of demurrer (where the opponent accepts the claimant's averments as true for argument's sake), cannot be final and cannot foreclose the issue for all future proceedings - The issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law which goes to the root of the claim - A decision on demurrer checks maintainability on the face of the pleadings, similar to a motion under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - A preliminary finding on maintainability on the point of limitation, decided solely on demurrer, does not preclude a final determination on the merits of the issue based on evidence and other materials that may be adduced later by the parties - The Arbitral Tribunal is under a positive duty, stemming from Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to adjudicate the question of limitation and dismiss the claim if found to be barred, even if limitation is not set up as a defence or if a preliminary issue on demurrer was decided against the bar of limitation - The procedure adopted by an Arbitral Tribunal that treats a decision on demurrer as final and foreclosed, particularly when the arbitrator noted that adducing evidence might lead to a contrary finding, is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and offends the most basic notions of justice. [Relied on Ramesh B. Desai and Others v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Others (2006) 5 SCC 638; Angelo Brothers Limited v. Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 7682; Paras 98, 100, 130, 134-137] Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1028 : 2025 INSC 1255 Arrest - Grounds of Arrest v. Reasons for Arrest – Held that there is a significant difference between the phrase "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest" - Reasons for arrest are purely formal parameters and are general in nature (e.g., to prevent further offense, proper investigation, prevent tampering with evidence) - Grounds of arrest must be personal to the accused and required to contain all basic facts in the hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest, to provide the accused an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Ahmed Mansoor v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1026 Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Absence of Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Value of Scientific Evidence – Principles - The Supreme Court reiterated the 'five golden principles' for sustaining a conviction on circumstantial evidence - the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, must exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt, and must form a complete chain of evidence leaving no ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest October 16 - 23, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags