Supreme Court's Judgments of Nov 2025 : Part 2

Supreme Court's Judgments of Nov 2025 : Part 2

Role of Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

In case of IRCTC v. Brandavan Food Products [2025] GCtR 1662 (SC) an arbitral award in context of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was considered and it was held that "Section 28(3) of the Act of 1996 mandatorily required the Arbitrator, while deciding and making the Award, to take into account the terms of the contract and the trade usages applicable to the transaction."

Effect of Non Disclosure by Candidates in Election

In case of Poonam v. Dule Singh [2025] GCtR 1661 (SC) candidate did not disclosed her conviction. It was held that "by failing to disclose her conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, the petitioner suppressed material information and thus failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 24-A(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994".

Property Transactions and Unregistered Partition Deed

In case of P. Anjanappa v. A.P. Nanjundappa [2025] GCtR 1660 (SC) it is held that "an unregistered partition deed, including the palupatti in certain cases, may be relied upon for the limited collateral purposes of proving severance of the joint family status and title, explaining the nature of possession, recording the arrangement made thereunder, and evidencing the parties’ subsequent conduct." Under Hindu law, severance of joint status can be brought about by an unequivocal declaration reduced to writing or otherwise, and a writing evidencing such disruption is admissible to prove the fact of disruption, the arrangement, and the character of subsequent possession. A family arrangement recorded in writing, when relied upon only to explain how the parties thereafter held and enjoyed the properties, does not require registration for that limited collateral use.  Daughters, who were not coparceners at the material time, do not obtain a coparcenary share by virtue of a disruption that took place before 2004. 

Tender Conditions and Their Interpretation

It was held at page 14 in Shanti Constructions Pvt Ltd v. State of Odisha [2025] GCtR 1670 (SC) that "when an authority acting under a tender misinterprets the tender condition that diminishes competition and deprives the State of its legitimate revenue, the constitutional duty of the court to interfere is beyond question."

Arbitration and Interpreting the Words used in a Contract

In case of Alchemist Hospitals Ltd v. ICT Health Technology Services India Pvt Ltd [2025] GCtR 1672 (SC) it was held that mere use of the word “arbitration” is not sufficient to treat the clause as an arbitration agreement when the corresponding mandatory intent to refer the disputes to arbitration and the consequent intent to be bound by the decision of the arbitral tribunal is missing. 

Part 1 of Judgments of November 2025 are available here at the link given below. Readers can read entire content free of cost :  

https://vishallegalghy.blogspot.com/2025/11/supreme-courts-important-judgments-of.html