Supreme Court Weekly Digest September 2025 [Sep 1 - 10, 2025]

Citation 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 859 - 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 882Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) - Section 31(7)(b) - Award of interest - Pendente Lite interest - Whether a clause in the agreement barring interest on 'delayed payment/disputed claim' also bars the arbitral Tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest – Held, clause restricting interest on delayed payments by itself won't bar pendente lite interest - An arbitral tribunal can only be stripped of its power to award pendente lite interest if the agreement between the parties is explicitly or by necessary implication worded to bar it - A clause that merely prohibits interest on 'delayed payment' by itself is not enough to infer an express bar on the tribunal's power to award pendente lite interest - The power of an arbitral tribunal to award interest for the period between the date of cause of action arose and the date the award is made is subject to the agreement between the parties and is statutorily governed - The power to award post-award interest under section 31(7)(b) is not subject to the agreement between the parties and is statutorily governed - Arbitral tribunal in this case awarded pendente lite interest from the date the claim was affirmed, not from date of cause of action arose - There is no error in the award of pendente lite interest or post-award interest - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 16- 24] Oil and Natural Gas Corp. v. G & T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 868 : 2025 INSC 1066Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2(1)(h) - Limitation for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award - When does the limitation period commence for a government department and whether the delivery of a signed xerox copy of the award to an authorized representative of the State constituted valid delivery under Section 31(5) of the Act, which would start the limitation period – Held, definition of 'party' under Section 2(1)(h) of the Act, which refers to a party to an arbitration agreement and for large government organizations, the award must be received by a person who has the authority and knowledge to understand the award and make decision to challenge it - An authorized representative, such as Assistant Engineer in this case, who did not have the decision-making authority to challenge the award, is not considered a 'party' for the purpose of receiving the award under Section 31(5) - Hence, the limitation period for filing an application to set aside the award under Section 34(3) does not begin to run from the date of such delivery - Limitation period commences only when the award is received by competent authority or person who is a 'party' and can decide whether to challenge the award - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 12 - 25] Motilal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 867 : 2025 INSC 1062Bail Cancellation - Grounds for cancellation – Held, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancelling bail that has already been granted - Grounds for cancellation include - i. misusing liberty by engaging in other criminal activities; ii. Interfering with the investigation or tampering with evidence; iii. Attempting to influence or threaten witnesses; iv. Evading court proceedings; v. any conduct by the accused after being granted bail that makes a fair trial no longer conducive. [Paras 55- 59] Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 872 : 2025 INSC 1074Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100(5) - Principles on framing additional substantial question of law - i. Substantial question of law must be grounded in parties' pleadings and findings of lower courts; ii. Jurisdiction to frame a new question of law is exceptional and should not be exercised routinely unless there is strong and convincing reason to do so; iii. The proviso allows the court to hear an appeal on any other substantial question law, which implies that at least one substantial question of law must have been formulated at the admission stage; the power to reformulate or add a question arises only if a substantial question of law has already been framed; iv. High Court must be satisfied that the new question is a substantial question of law and not a mere legal plea; v. Court is mandatorily required to record its reasons for framing an additional substantial question of law; vi. The opposite party must be given a fair and proper opportunity to contest the new question; framing a question while dictating the judgment without hearing the parties would be improper. [Para 18] C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 870 : 2025 INSC 1071Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Anticipatory Bail - Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) - Section 18 - Applicability of Section 438 of CrPC – Held, anticipatory bail is permissible under SC/ST Act only if prima facie offence isn't made out - The bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which excludes the...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest September 2025 [Sep 1 - 10, 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Weekly Digest September 2025 [Sep 1 - 10, 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers