The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the execution of a ₹1,087 crore arbitral award, ruling that a company’s allegation of fraud committed by its own officers (fraud on self) is not grounds to nullify a final award. The ruling restricts the scope of objections under Section 47 CPC to fraud vitiating the arbitral process itself, not internal corporate misconduct.
SC held that a cooperative bank was not employer of canteen workers engaged by a society within its premises. It laid down factors to determine employer–employee status, emphasising contractual and control analysis.
Supreme Court held that informing an arrestee’s spouse or recording diary entries is no substitute for directly informing the accused of grounds of arrest.
The Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award delivered nearly four years after hearings ended, holding that such unexplained delay violates fairness and public policy. A fresh arbitration was ordered before a new tribunal.
SC clarified that under Section 23(2) of RTE Act, teachers appointed before March 2015 could obtain TET qualification within four years of 2017 amendment. Since appellants did so, their termination after six years was unjustified.
SC reaffirmed that disqualification of bids must strictly follow tender terms, holding that Mandi Parishad acted beyond its powers by rejecting a technical bid based on an unstated requirement for DM-issued solvency proof.
Supreme Court ruled police cannot summon advocates regarding client criminal matters, upholding attorney-client privilege under Section 132 (BSA). Prior SP approval is now mandatory.
SC clarified that Delhi’s mixed-use policy cannot be exploited for unrestricted business expansion. Only ground floors approved as shops can operate commercially; upper floors require prior conversion approval. Judgment safeguards planned urban development under MPD-2021.
In a landmark ruling (Suo Motu W.P. (Crl.) No. 2 of 2025), Supreme Court held that lawyers cannot be summoned merely for offering legal advice or representing clients during investigations. The Court reaffirmed client-counsel privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, directing that such summons be issued only in rare cases with senior approval, thereby safeguarding professional independence and legal confidentiality.
Supreme Court ruled that the Chief Justice’s office falls under the RTI Act, affirming transparency while safeguarding judicial independence and privacy rights.
