Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: October 2025

Reports/JudgmentsEither Grant Or Deny Relief; Avoid Passing Adverse Orders Against Litigants On Issues Beyond Pleadings : Supreme Court To High CourtsCause Title: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 970The Supreme Court set aside certain directions issued by the Kerala High Court that had ordered the Cochin Devaswom Board to re-fix license fees and initiate a vigilance inquiry against Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust.A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the High Court's additional directions went beyond the scope of the writ petition filed by the appellants and were passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice.The Court was hearing an appeal filed by P. Radhakrishnan and another, trustees of the Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust, challenging portions of a Kerala High Court judgment dated August 9, 2023, in W.P.(C) No. 29089/2020.Tender Condition Requiring Past Supply Within One State Irrational, Violates Article 19(1)(g): Supreme CourtCause Title: Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 971The Supreme Court (October 6) struck down a Chhattisgarh Government tender condition that mandated bidders to show prior supply experience of at least ₹6 crores to state government agencies in the past three years, as a prerequisite for participating in bids to supply sports kits to government schools in the state.The Court observed that to confine eligibility for participation in a tender to entities operating within a single State is not only irrational but also disproportionate to the stated goal of ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of sports kits.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe rejected the State's contention that prior experience with the government was necessary since the supply of sports kits was to be made in Maoist-affected areas. The Court held that such a tender condition imposed an unreasonable restriction on trade and violated the doctrine of a level playing field, as it created an artificial barrier that excluded bidders lacking prior government supply experienceSupreme Court Grants Relief To Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd; Directs Essar Power To Reimburse Fixed Charges For Electricity DivertedCause Title: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited and AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 972The Supreme Court has granted relief to Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) by setting aside the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's (APTEL) March 2025 judgment and restoring the 2009 order of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) in its long-pending dispute with Essar Power Limited (EPL) over diversion of electricity in breach of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).The Court held that EPL was bound by the PPA to maintain the stipulated proportion of supply, 58% to GUVNL and 42% to Essar Steel Limited (ESL),and that the company's failure to do so amounted to a breach entitling GUVNL to restitution and compensation.A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe partly allowed the GUVNL's appeal, holding that “the finding of GERC and the APTEL that GUVNL is not entitled to reimbursement of fixed charges is, therefore, unsustainable.” It said that “once GUVNL did not receive the electricity for which such fixed charges had been computed and paid on a monthly basis, it was entitled to reimbursement thereof, not as compensation, but on the principle of restitution as such payment was not at all due from it.”For Valid Oral Gift (Hiba) Under Mohammedan Law, Public Possession Must Be Proved; Absence Of Mutation Raises Doubt: Supreme CourtCause Title: Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa ParveenCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 973The Supreme Court observed that an oral gift (hiba) under the Muslim law cannot be projected as a "surprise instrument" to stake claims over a property. To constitute a valid hiba, the Court said, all its necessary ingredients- declaration by donor, acceptance by donee and taking possession of land - are done publicly rather than secretly.Although oral gift (hiba) is permissible in Mohammedan law, the evidence of acting under the gift - such as collecting rent, holding title, or effecting mutation- is essential to substantiate the claim of possession. Lack of effecting mutation in revenue records can be a crucial factor invalidating such a claim of gift, in the absence of other evidence of possession, the Court said.It stressed that those claiming rights under a hiba must assert their ownership openly and without delay by mutating land records to reflect possession, an essential requirement for the validity of such a gift.Order XLI Rule 5 CPC | Deposit Not Mandatory For Stay Of Money Decree, Unconditional Stay Can Be Granted In Exceptional Cases : Supreme CourtCause Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v....

Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: October 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags