Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Substantive claims of petitioner whether time-barred i.e. issue of limitation requiring intricate evidentiary enquiry: While determining the issue of limitation in the exercise of powers under S. 11(6), the referral Court must only conduct a limited enquiry for the purpose of examining whether the S. 11(6) application has been filed within the limitation period of three years or not. Further, at this stage, it would not be proper for the referral Court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner are time-barred and such a determination must be left to the decision of the arbitrator, [Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids (P) Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 502]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(6) and 16 — Applicability of Group of Companies Doctrine for binding non-signatory: Determination of applicability of Group of Companies Doctrine for binding non-signatory, by Arbitral Tribunal, as opposed to by Court at referral stage, [Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP (India) (P) Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 611]
Consumer Protection — Consumer/Consumer Dispute/Locus Standi — “Commercial purpose”: What is “commercial purpose”, explained. Residential flat booked for one of its Directors and his family by respondent real estate development company, with the appellant developer did not amount to purchase/allotment for commercial purpose, [Omkar Realtors & Developers (P) Ltd. v. Kushalraj Land Developers (P) Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 527]
Consumer Protection — Consumer/Consumer Dispute/Locus Standi — “Commercial purpose”: Purchase of vehicle by Company for personal use of its Director would not amount to purchase for commercial purpose, [Daimler Chrysler (India) (P) Ltd. v. Controls & Switchgear Co. Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 534]
Education Law — Employment and Service Matters re Educational Institutions — Pay/Salary: In case of anomaly in pay of appellant-petitioners qua their juniors, stepping up of pay of government employee on basis of pay of his junior in terms of R. 21 of the 2002 Rules, not applicable, [Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 1 SCC 490]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 33 to 35 — Liquidation of corporate debtor — Auction-sale: Grant of extended time Grant of extended time to successful auction-purchaser to make balance sale consideration, in view of COVID Pandemic, permissible, [V.S. Palanivel v. Sri Lakshmi Hotels (P) Ltd. (Liquidator), (2025) 1 SCC 559]
Limitation Act, 1963 — S. 5 — Condonation of delay — “Sufficient cause” — Determination — Liberal/Justice-oriented approach — Necessity: Not length of delay but cause for delay relevant while considering application for condonation of delay. Where cause for delay falls within four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, where cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of period of delay same would not be condoned, [Mool Chandra v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 625]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 to 168 — Permanent disablement of school-going child — Manner in which compensation is to be quantified — Law clarified: Adoption of minimum wages payable to unskilled labour for computation of compensation in case of permanent disablement of school-going child, not proper. Adoption of minimum wages payable to skilled workman, is a better basis, [Rushi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 635]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 304 Pt. II r/w S. 149 — Acquittal — Liability of acquitted respondent: Acquittal confirmed in absence of proof of any assault/participation, [Union of India v. M.S. Mander, (2025) 1 SCC 520]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 342, 347, 504, 506, 116 and 384 r/w S. 34 — Quashing of FIR: Quashing of FIR, justified due to delay in lodging FIR and absence of allegations ascribing specific role, [Aruna Dhanyakumar Doshi v. State of Telangana, (2025) 1 SCC 485]