Supreme Court Monthly Digest-August 2025

[Citations 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 761 to 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 858]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) 800Advocates Act, 1961 - Enrolment Fees - Contempt Petition - Bar Councils can't collect any amount as “optional fee” during enrolment - Supreme Court closed a contempt petition after the Bar Council of India (BCI) affirmed its commitment to ensuring State Bar Councils (SBCs) comply with judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519 which prohibits charging enrolment fees beyond the stipulated amount under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 - Supreme Court clarified that no “optional” fees can be collected by any State Bar Council or the BCI, and fees must strictly adhere to the direction in the main judgment. [Paras 4-9] K.L.J.A. Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 786Alimony & Property Settlement – Held, alimony received after first divorce was not a relevant factor to determine the alimony payable after the divorce of the second marriage - The respondent's claim for Rs. 12 crores in permanent alimony and encumbrance-free ownership of the apartment as unjustified, considering that appellant-husband is an unemployed person and has responsibility of an autistic child - Appeal allowed. [Para 17, 20] A v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2025 INSC 926Animal 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 ('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 975Arbitration 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 971Arbitration 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 ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest-August 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags