Supreme Court Weekly Digest August 11 - 17, 2025

[2025 LiveLaw (SC) 787 - 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 810]

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) 800

Arbitration 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 975

Arbitration 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 971

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) – Held, after appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) and disposal of the proceedings, Court becomes functus officio and cannot issue further ancillary directions - Once arbitrator was appointed, Court lost jurisdiction to entertain new applications, such as the prayer for permission to intervene or remain present - 1996 Act is a self-contained Code and Section 5 restricts judicial intervention to only what is expressly provided -Invoking section 151 of the CPC was not permissible in this context - Applications set aside. [Paras 14- 22] Kamal Gupta v. L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 799 : 2025 INSC 975

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 & 21 - Appointment of arbitrator - Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause - Seat of Arbitration – Held, when an agreement contains an arbitration clause and also clause specifying exclusive jurisdiction of a particular High Court, this exclusive jurisdiction clause, even without explicitly using the terms 'seat' or 'venue' must be understood in the context of arbitration for dispute resolution, thereby establishing the specified location as the seat of arbitration – Then an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act must be filed before High Court having jurisdiction over the designated seat of arbitration. Set aside High Court's order - Appeal allowed. [Paras 7-10] Activitas Management Advisor v. Mind Plus Healthcare, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 795

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 92 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint – Held, respondents having agreed to resolve the dispute through arbitration and subsequently obtaining consent decree in their favor based on the arbitral award, could not later the award as a nullity due to non-arbitrability under Section 92 of CPC - Respondents conduct of “approbation and reprobation” to be impermissible and barred by the doctrine of estoppel by conduct and election - Appellants were granted liberty to revive their withdrawn execution proceedings to enforce the consent decree - The respondents were estopped by their conduct from raising the issue of non-arbitrability after having benefitted from the arbitration and the resulting consent decree. [Paras 14- 20] Sanjit Singh Salwan v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2025 INSC 988

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - Section 6, 70, 73, 74 - 'Initiation of any proceedings' and 'subject matter' – Held, CGST Act prohibit the initiation of “any proceedings” on the “same subject matter” - Term 'any proceedings' refers to the formal commencement of adjudicatory proceedings through the issuance of a show cause notice and it does not include the issuance of summons or conduct of a search or seizure - 'Subject matter' relates to any tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from a specific contravention that the department wants to assess or recover - Issuance of a summons cannot be equated with initiation of proceedings barred by the Act - Mere presence of an overlapping aspect under investigation does not automatically make the subject matter “same”. [Relied on K.P. Mohammed Salim v CIT 2008 11 SCC 573; G.K. Trading v. Union Of India & Ors. 2020 SCC Online All 1907; Paras 21, 23, 54-56, 86, 87] Armour Security v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 805 : 2025 INSC 982

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - Section 6(2)(b) - Two-fold test – Held, the bar under Section 6(2)(b) is attracted immediately when any two proceedings initiated by the Department aim to assess or recover an identical or partially overlapping tax liability, deficiency or obligation for a specific contravention - If proceedings involve distinct infractions, they do not constitute the 'same subject matter' and the bar under Section 6(2)(b) is not attracted - The two-fold test to determine if a subject matter is the 'same' involves - i. checking if an authority has already proceeded on an identical tax liability or alleged offence by the assesses based on the same facts; ii. Determining if the demand or relief sought is identical. [Paras 87, 88] Armour Security v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 805 : 2025 INSC 982

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Supreme Court issued guidelines to be followed in cases where, after the commencement of an inquiry or investigation by on authority, another inquiry or investigation on same subject matter is initiated by a different authority- i. An assessee must comply with a summons or show cause notice as its mere issuance does not confirm that an investigation has been formally initiated; ii. If an assessee discovers an overlapping inquiry, they must immediately inform the authority that started the subsequent investigation; iii. Tax authorities must communicate with each other to verify the assessee's claim to avoid redundant proceedings and optimize resources; iv. If the investigations are on different "subject matters," the authorities must inform the assessee in writing, explaining the reasons and specifying the distinct subjects; v. Authorities can proceed with their inquiry until it is confirmed that a duplicate investigation or show cause notice for the same liability already exists, in which case the subsequent show cause notice will be quashed; vi. When an overlap is confirmed, the authorities must decide which one will continue the investigation, and the other must forward all relevant materials, as the assessee has no legal right to choose; vii. If authorities cannot agree, the investigation will be handled by the one that started it first, and courts can order the transfer; viii. If authorities do not follow these guidelines, the assessee may file a writ petition with the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para 97] Armour Security v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 805 : 2025 INSC 982

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXXIX Rule 3 – Held, ex-parte injunction must be vacated if plaintiff fails to comply with mandatory conditions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC - This ensures that a party being restrained without a hearing is informed of the reasons and the applicant must satisfy the court about gravity of situation - It stressed that non-compliance with the proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX would vitiate the order, as Parliament prescribed a specific procedure for exceptional circumstances - Upheld order of High Court - Petition dismissed. [Paras 5-8] Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 791 : 2025 INSC 966

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 96 - Adverse Possession - Pleading & proof - cannot be raised for the first time in appeal without foundational pleadings, issues and evidence - Held that adverse possession is a factual plea requiring specific assertions and proof regarding the date possession began, its nature, knowledge to legal claimants, duration and whether it was open and undisturbed - Supreme Court allowed exceptions where an adverse possession plea might be allowed later if adequately supported by existing facts and without surprising the opposing party - the Court found that present case lacked such circumstances - A plea of adverse possession requires clear and specific foundational pleadings, an issue framed for trial and cogent evidence - Upheld order of High Court - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 19, 29, 30] Kishundeo Rout v. Govind Rao, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 790 : 2025 INSC 956

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Bail on medical grounds – Held, medical opinion is essential before granting medical bail, especially when claim lacks urgency or specificity - High Court erred in granting bail to accused on medical grounds without constituting a medical board to assess the genuineness of the claim, which was contrary to established law - Directed that Court must also consider the collective's cry for justice and societal concern, which should be given priority over individual liberty in a case involving a heinous crime - A court should not conduct a detailed examination of evidence or an elaborate documentation of the merits while passing bail orders - It should only be satisfied about a prima facie case - Post bail good conduct of the accused, while relevant to the question of continuation of bail, cannot retrospectively validate an otherwise unsustainable order. [Paras 20, 22] State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 801 : 2025 INSC 979

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 439 – Bail - Cancellation of bail - Annulment of bail – Principles - Held, considerations for granting bail and for its cancellation are not identical - Granting bail involves a preventive evaluation of the likelihood of misuse of liberty, the cancellation of bail entails a review of the prior decision - Cancellation can be due to supervening circumstances or if the original order was legally flawed - A bail order can be set aside even in the absence of subsequent misconduct if it is found to be perverse, unjustified or legally untenable - An order granting bail can be annulled in an appeal if it is perverse, unjustified or passed in violation of settled legal principles - An order can be considered perverse if it is founded on irrelevant considerations or a non-consideration of material facts - Cancellation of bail is a serious matter involving deprivation of personal liberty - Set aside order of High Court - Appeals allowed. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 22] State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 801 : 2025 INSC 979

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bail - Setting aside v. Cancellation of bail - Principles for setting aside bail orders - Supreme Court examines the correctness of the bail order itself, while latter pertains to the accused's conduct subsequent to the bail grant - Held that grant of bail is a discretionary judicial remedy that requires balancing the personal liberty of the accused and gravity of offence - Judicial discretion in bail matters must be informed by assessing the nature and seriousness of the charge - A superior court can set aside a bail order if it is found to be illegal, perverse, unjustified, arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations - The court should conduct threadbare analysis of prosecution evidence or adjudicate its merits at bail stage - An order granting bail must reflect application of mind - Conduct of accused subsequent to grant of bail is generally not considered when reviewing an appeal against the grant of bail but rather in an application for cancellation of bail - An appeal against bail should not be used as a retaliatory measure - Accused, being a celebrated wrestler and Olympian with societal impact could have a domineering influence over witnesses or delay trial proceedings - The fact that accused remained absconding after the FIR and nonbailable warrants were issued - High Court granted bail without considering grievous nature of the crime - Appeal allowed. [Paras 19-25] Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 797 : 2025 INSC 974

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to summon additional accused - Public Servant - Rule of highest standards – Held, the power of Court to summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is judicial in nature and independent of the investigating agency's opinion - Even if a person is not named in the FIR or chargesheet, they can be summoned to face trial if evidence recorded during the trial indicates their involvement in the offence - The opinion of investigating agency is merely tentative and does not override the Court's independent judicial assessment based on trial evidence - Summoning of appellant under section 319 CrPC was lawful - Supreme Court upholds Punjab jail official's conviction for helping undertrial's escape attempt -When public functionaries betray institutional trust, consequences are far-reaching, Custodial officers must be held to the highest standards of integrity. [Paras 12-15] Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 789 : 2025 INSC 957

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 432, 433, 433A - Life imprisonment - Fixed term sentence – Remission - Distinction between completion of fixed term sentence and remission of life imprisonment - High Court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without remission - Whether an accused who has completed “life imprisonment for a fixed term”, such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, is entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence, or if they must seek remission from competent authority – Held, 'life imprisonment' means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of convicted person's natural life and cannot be equated with any fixed term - Courts have the power to impose a fixed-term sentence exceeding 14 years, when commuting a death penalty or otherwise deeming it appropriate - 'Without consideration of remission' means that during that specific period, the convict cannot seek any remission of their sentence - On completion of such a judicially determined fixed term, the convict is entitled to be released from jail - There is no obligation for the appellant to make a fresh application seeking remission of his life sentence from sentence review board after completing the specified fixed term. Appeal allowed. [Paras 8,9, 10, 14.5, 15] Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : 2025 INSC 969

Constitution of India - Article 226 – Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Misuse of Public Funds - Naming of government schemes after political leaders - Supreme Court deprecated the practice of using courts to settle political scores between rival political parties, stating that political battles should be fought before the electorate - Held that writ petition challenging a government welfare scheme named “ungaludan Stalin” was misconceived in law and an abuse of the process of law - Petitioner rushed to High Court within 3 days of making the representation to the ECI, without giving the ECI an opportunity to decide on the matter - Previous judgments in Common Cause I, II, III, and IV dealt with the use of photographs of political leaders and heads of executive in public-funded advertisements, they do not prohibit a scheme from being names after a political leader - Supreme Court dismissed writ petition with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to be deposited with the State for implementation of welfare schemes for the underprivileged - Appeals allowed. [Paras 17-25] Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru. C.Ve. Shanmugam, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 796 : 2025 INSC 976

Constitution of India - Article 22 – Grounds of Arrest - Held, constitutional and statutory framework mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest but it does not prescribe a specific form or insist upon written communication in every case. [Paras 20, 23] State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 801 : 2025 INSC 979

Constitution of India - Article 233 - Appointment of District Judges - Reference to Constitution Bench - A person not already in the service of the Union of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if they have been for not less than 7 years an advocate or a pleader and are recommended by the High Court for appointment - Supreme Court referred two substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution to a Constitution Bench of five judges - Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years at the bar, recruited for subordinate judicial services, would be entitled to appointment as ADJ against a bar vacancy - Whether eligibility for appointment as a DJ is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both - Writ Petition was filed for review of decision passed in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, which held that an advocate who applies for the post of DJ by way of direct recruitment should continue to be a practising advocate until date of appointment and should not already be in judicial service of Union or State and held that rules framed by High Court debarring Judicial officers from staking their claim as against posts reserved for direct recruitment from Bar would not be ultra vires to the Constitution - Supreme Court directed registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for obtaining appropriate orders for Constitution of 5 judge bench. [Paras 17-22] Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 793 : 2025 INSC 965

Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16, 33 - Army Act, 1950 - Section 12 - Indian Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Branch - Short Service Commission (SSC) – Recruitment Policy - Gender Discrimination - Supreme Court quashes Army policy to reserve higher number of JAG posts for men than woman – Held, once the Union of India has permitted the induction of women into JAG branch under Section 12 of Army Act, it cannot restrict the number of women candidates through policy or administrative instruction - Reserving a double number of vacancies for males through a notification dated January 18, 2023, was unconstitutional and violated Articles 14, 15, 16 - The selection criteria and process for both male and female candidates in JAG are identical, with only minor differences in physical attributes and overall process is intended to be 'gender neutral' and merit based - A combined merit list should be prepared and any recruitment policy leading to indirect discrimination is unconstitutional - Fundamental rights, particularly the Right to Equality cannot be waived, especially when marks obtained by candidates were not in the public domain - True meaning of gender equality is that all meritorious candidates, irrespective of gender, should be selected - Directed Union of India and Indian Army to conduct recruitment in JAG in a manner that there is no bifurcation of seats for any gender that is if all female candidates are deserving, all of them should be selected - The practice of fixing a ceiling limit to recruitment of female candidates has the effect of perpetuating the status quo, which is discriminatory to women. Petition allowed. [Paras 83-98, 101, 105-108, 114] Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 788 : 2025 INSC 954

Constitution of India - Distinction between remission and release on completion - Held remission applies when the sentence is not yet complete and involves a reduction in sentence imposed - Release on completion occurs when the convict has served the full period of incarceration they were sentenced to undergo - In case of an indeterminate life sentence, remissions cannot lead to automatic release, a final order is required - For a fixed term sentence, completion of the term, especially one 'without remission' entitles release - If convict is detained beyond actual release date, it would violate Article 19(d) and 21 of Constitution of India. [Paras 8,9] Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : 2025 INSC 969

Contempt of Court - Lawyer's Duty - Transfer petition based on scurrilous allegations against a High Court Judge - A transfer petition was filed seeking transfer a criminal petition - Grounds for transfer petition included allegations that the High Court of Telangana's single Judge showed partiality and procedural discrimination by summarily curtailing the petitioner's argument to 5 minutes - Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice for contempt of court to the alleged contemnor no. 1, and the counsel who drafted the petition due to the “scandalous and scurrilous remarks” made against High Court – Held, a misconception exists among some lawyers who believe that their duty to the client supersedes their duty to the court - This misconception must be rooted out - Counsel who sign applications with 'matter scandalizing the court' without verifying the prima facie grounds are themselves guilty of contempt - A lawyer's duty is to advise their client against making such allegations - Supreme Court condemned the trend of lawyers criticizing judges without reason and practice of seeking transfers by alleging that a political figure's involvement will prevent a litigant from getting justice in a particular state - High Court judges are constitutional functionaries who are not inferior to Supreme Court judges and enjoy the same immunity - It is duty of Apex Court to protect them - Making scandalous allegations against them based on involvement of a political figure scandalizes the entire administration of justice - Alleged contemnors tendered an apology to the Supreme Court but court directed that it would have been more appropriate to apologize to that Judge. [Paras 7-17] In Re: N. Peddi Raju, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 806 : 2025 INSC 989

Doctrine of estoppel by conduct and election - Supreme Court applied principle that a party cannot “approbate and reprobate” or “blow hot and cold” by taking inconsistent positions in court proceedings - It was noted that respondents had initially pleaded that their suit was not barred by section 92 CPC, then willingly referred the dispute to arbitration and accepted the award, leading to a consent decree in their favor - Subsequent attempt by respondents to challenge the validity of the award was deemed an impermissible change of position - Held that there can be no estoppel against the law, the issue in this case was an “equitable hurdle of estoppel” based on respondents conduct, which had caused the appellants to alter their position to their detriment - Appeal allowed. [Paras 17-19] Sanjit Singh Salwan v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2025 INSC 988

Election Commission of India (ECI) - Voters List - Supreme Court has directed the ECI to take series of additional steps as an interim measure - i. ECI will display a list of approximately 65 lakhs voters whose names appeared on 2025 Voter List but were not included in Draft Roll dt. August 1, 2025; ii. The list will be displayed district-wise on the websites of the District Election Officers; iii. Information will be booth-wise and accessible by using the Electors Photo Identity (EPIC) number; iv. The displayed list must also include the reason for the non-inclusion of names in Draft roll; v. Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Bihar must also display soft copies of these district-wise lists on its website; vi extensive publicity will be given in vernacular and English daily newspapers with wide circulation in Bihar; vii. Aggrieved persons can submit their claims with a copy of their Aadhaar card; viii. ECI is to obtain a compliance report from all Booth Level Officers and District Election Officers and place it on record as a collated Status Report. [Para 3] Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Election Law - Recounting of Votes - Supreme Court directed recounting of all votes by a nominated Registrar - Following the orders, OSD (Registrar) submitted a report on August 6, 2025, which compiled the revised results - According to which appellant received 1051 votes and respondent received 1000 votes - Recounting was conducted by a Judicial Officer and saw no reason to doubt the report, it was video graphed and signed by the parties representatives - Held appellant as the elected Sarpanch - Supreme Court noted that other issues raised before the election Tribunal were still pending and allowed the parties to agitate these issues before the tribunal - Directed Election Tribunal to accept the report of OSD Registrar as final and conclusive result of the recount and declaration of appellant as the elected sarpanch is subject to the final judgment of the Election Tribunal. [Paras 7-10] Mohit Kumar v. Kuldeep Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Environmental Law - Supreme Court struck down a part of Centre's January 29, 2025 notification that had exempted construction projects related to industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels from obtaining prior environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 – Held, Education is now an industry and strikes down Centre's exemption for educational buildings from environmental clearance - This exemption, contained in Note 1 to Clause 8(a) of the amended schedule, was arbitrary and contrary to the purpose of the Environment Protection Act - Rest of the notification was upheld - Court applied a literal interpretation to 2006 notification and found that it did not provide for applicability of General Conditions to projects under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule - Wherever the General conditions were intended to apply, it was specifically mentioned in column 5 of the Schedule - SEIAA is a statutory body of experts and is better equipped to conduct environmental impact studies for projects within their respective states - 2006 notification itself outlines the composition and procedure for the SEIAA - Note 1 to Entry 8(a) of Notification dt. 29th January, 2025 was upheld - Petition partly allowed. [Paras 22, 26, 40, 42, 46] Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2025 INSC 961

Evidence Act, 1872 - Hostile Witness - Sole Eye-witness – Held, testimony of prosecution witness is not be discarded in its entirety merely because the witness has turned hostile - Courts are entitled to rely upon any portion of such testimony which is found to be credible and is corroborated by other evidence on record - Maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India - Conviction can be bases on testimony of a single eyewitness, if such testimony is found to be trustworthy and inspires confidence. [Paras 16] Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 789 : 2025 INSC 957

Fraudulent Settlement - Misrepresentation by Counsel - Supreme Court Ordered BCI inquiry after client denies engagement of advocates who settled his case - Directed BCI to conduct a detailed inquiry into an alleged fraudulent settlement agreement - Restored SLP after respondent claimed that he never authorized any counsel to appear on his behalf or enter into a settlement - Deemed it necessary to examine in detail the facts surrounding the disposal of SLP based on alleged settlement agreement - Supreme Court refrained from drawing conclusions at present stage but directed an inquiry into the role of advocates involved in preparation and filing of the settlement agreement and conduct of proceedings by the end of October 2025. [Paras 5-7] Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh v. Harish Jaiswal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 - Supreme Court recommends creation of appellate body of Orders of Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) for tariff determination, in place of current practice of filing appeals directly before Supreme Court - This will make remedy of appeal more effective and meaningful - Since fixation of tariff by expert bodies like TAMP is a highly technical procedure involving knowledge of law, engineering, finance, commerce, economics and management - Set aside order - Appeal allowed. [Paras 31-33, 48-54, 58] Paradip Port Authority v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 802 : 2025 INSC 971

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Held, insurer of registered owner liable to compensate third-party losses arising out of vehicle, if vehicle's registration was not changed after transfer - Agreement between the registered owner and the appellant clearly indicated that registration would only be transferred after full sale consideration was paid, which had not occurred - The registered owner remained the owner and thus liable to compensate the victims, a liability to be indemnified by the insurer - The insurer was not absolved of its liability- Appeal dismissed. [Paras 7-11] Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 787 : 2025 INSC 948

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Criminal Conspiracy – Held, conspiracy can be established through circumstantial evidence - Meeting of mind is essential, but it is not necessary for all conspirators to know every detail of the conspiracy or to actively participate - The agreement can be inferred by necessary implication from circumstances of the case and conduct of accused - The offence of criminal conspiracy continues until the termination of the agreement. [Paras 17, 18] Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 789 : 2025 INSC 957

Special Investigation Team (SIT) Report on Noida functioning & land compensation - Supreme Court appreciated SIT's efforts and acknowledged the fair and impartial opinion - Issued following directions - i. DGP (U.P.) is directed to constitute a new SIT with two IPS officers from different states to investigate issues involved; ii. New SIT is to immediately register an FIR and proceed with an inquiry into the points highlighted by previous SIT; iii. Any competent authority required to provide prior sanction to prosecute an officer under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is directed to do so within two weeks of the application; iv. Head of the new SIT, who must be an officer not below the rank of Commissioner of Police, shall place the outcome of the investigation on record via a Status Report; v. New SIT is to submit a copy of its report to the Chief Secretary, who will place it before the Council of Ministers to enable them to make a decision on policy recommendations such as formation of a Metropolitan Corporation; vi. Chief Secretary is directed to ensure a Citizen Advisory Board is constituted within 4 weeks; vii. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Environment, Forest & Climate change and CEO of Noida are directed to ensure project is implemented without environmental impact assessments and approval from Green Bench of the Court - Directed Status Report on the follow-up actions to be placed on record on next date of hearing on October 28, 2025. [Paras 7-10] Virendra Singh Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 807

Stray dogs - Supreme Court directs immediate pickup, shelter creation and no release back to streets - Warns of strict action against non-compliance and obstruction - Court emphasized the grim situation and the urgent need for action to combat dog bites and rabies, stating that the prevailing circumstances indicate a “systematic failure of the concerned authorities over the past two decades”- Directed government of NCT Delhi, MCD, NDMC and authorities of Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad to immediately start picking up stary dogs from all localities and relocate them to designated shelters - Held that there shall be no lethargy or compromise in this exercise and strict action will be taken against any individual or organization obstructing the forceful pickup of stray dogs - Directed to immediately create dog shelters across the NCR and report their creation to Court within 8 weeks - Shelters must have sufficient personnel to sterilize, deworm and immunize stray dogs and provide care - Dogs detained there are explicitly not to be released back onto the streets - Shelters will be monitored by CCTV to prevent unauthorized release of dogs - Directed that two responsible personnel must be present at shelters at all times with proper duty schedules - Helpline number to be created within 1 week for immediate reporting of dog bite cases - Directed Government NCT Delhi to provide detailed information on availability of genuine rabies vaccines - Rounding-up of stray dogs and creation of necessary infrastructure shall be undertaken simultaneously - Directed that the matter again be notified after four weeks with Status Report. [Paras 8-11] In Re : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 798 : 2025 INSC 977

Sustainable Development - Supreme Court reiterated the principle of 'sustainable development' which balances environmental protection with developmental activities – Held, any construction activity over 20,000 sq. mtr. would affect the environment, regardless of its purpose, and saw no rational basis for discriminating between different types of buildings - Supreme Court noted that education has become a flourishing industry and should not be exempt - Upheld Office Memorandum dt. 30th , January, 2025 stating that it was conducive to environmental interests as it clarifies that the 2025 notification also applies to State of Kerala. [Paras 22-24, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45] Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2025 INSC 961

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 2(1)(h) - Deceptively similar - Defined as those that so nearly resemble another mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion – Held, appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for an interim injunction and that there was no deceptive similarity between appellant's mark 'Blenders Pride', 'Imperial Blue' and 'Seagram's' and respondent's mark 'London Pride'- Supreme Court applied holistic comparison test, examining the visual, phonetic, structural and conceptual elements of marks on following grounds - i. It concluded that overall commercial impression of 'London Pride' is substantially different from the appellant's marks; ii. Anti-dissection Rule which requires a mark to be considered as a whole, it does not prevent a court from identifying the “dominant” element that influences consumer perception; iii. Publici Juris (common to trade) - The term 'Pride' was found to be a common, laudatory or non-distinctive term that cannot be monopolized - Noted that dominant components of appellants' marks were 'Blenders' and 'Imperial', while the respondent's dominant component was 'London', which introduces a distinct geographical identifier; iv. Consumer Perception - Products in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, suggesting that consumers are discerning and likely to exercise greater care in their purchases - This reduces likelihood of confusion - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 21- 35, 36, 45, 51] Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 803 : 2025 INSC 981