SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 11 | Issue 2

Volume 11 Issue 2 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here, covering five most important judgements of the Supreme Court from the first week of November. 

This week’s issue includes cases concerning the execution of a decree under the Civil Procedure Code, registration of first information reports, communication of the grounds of arrests and the declaration by political candidates about their criminal records. 

What makes SCO.LR different? Three things: neatly formatted judgments, quick summaries for when you’re short on time and visual mind maps that simplify even the most complex cases. Check them out. You won’t want to go back to reading cases the old way.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 11 | Issue 2

3 November – 7 November 2025

**********

Validity of Objections Against Executing a Decree

MMTC Limited v Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt Limited

3 November 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1279 | 2025 SCO.LR 11(2)[11] 

Bench: Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan

The Supreme Court held that an objection petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)—against execution of a decree—should not be treated as the commencement of a new trial. 

The Anglo-American Metallurgical Coal Pvt Ltd (Anglo) invoked the arbitration clause in the Long Term Agreement entered into with MMTC for damages from unlifted quantity of coal contracted by MMTC. In the arbitration, Anglo was awarded $78.720 million with interest and costs. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed MMTC’s challenge to the Award. The Delhi High Court Bench allowed MMTC’s appeal and set aside the Award. The Supreme Court restored the award. Meanwhile, MMTC filed complaints against its ex-employees alleging fraud and collusion with Anglo. MMTC filed an objection against the award under Section 47 of the CPC and Order XXI Rule 29 CPC. The Delhi High Court, the Executing Court, dismissed the objections on the ground that there was no finding of fraud, cheating and collusion against the ex-officers of MMTC with the officers of Anglo. 

The Supreme Court held that MMTC could not successfully demonstrate fraud and found no good grounds to entertain its objections. The Court held that an Executing Court must not go beyond the decree and re-hear cases under the Section afresh. The scope under Section 47 must be limited.

Key words/phrases: Section 47 CPC & Order XXI Rule 29—execution of decree—MMTC–Anglo arbitration award (unlifted coal)—award restored by Supreme Court—MMTC later alleged fraud/collusion by ex-employees—objections filed in execution—Executing Court dismissed—Supreme Court held—Section 47 cannot become a new trial—no proof of fraud—executing court cannot go behind decree—objections rejected 

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Magistrate’s Power to Order an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC

Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v State of Karnataka

4 November 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1282 | 2025 SCO.LR 11(2)[12]

Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah 

The Supreme Court held that when allegations in a private complaint disclose the commission of a cognisable offence, the Magistrate may order the registration of an FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court clarified that such a direction is made before taking cognisance and does not qualify as “further investigation” under Section 173(8) of CrPC.

The appellant alleged that the accused forged a rent agreement on a fake e-stamp paper and used it in a property dispute. This attracted Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Judicial Magistrate directed registration of an FIR under Section 156(3), which was quashed by a Single Judge. Later, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court quashed the case on the ground that the Magistrate had not demonstrated application of mind.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders. It held that at the preliminary stage, the Magistrate is only required to ascertain whether the complaint discloses a cognisable offence. Once that threshold is met, the police must investigate and the High Court should not interfere under Section 482 CrPC to halt the process.

Key words/phrases: Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—cognisable offence threshold—direction to register FIR—Magistrate’s referral power—no merits review at referral stage—Section 482 CrPC interference unwarranted—Karnataka High Court orders set aside—FIR restored

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

********

Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents as Ground for Disqualification

Poonam v Dule Singh 

6 November 2025 

Citation: 2025 INSC 1284 | 2025 SCO.LR 11(2)[13]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar 

The Supreme Court held that the non-disclosure of criminal antecedents is not a ground for disqualification of an election, unless it materially affected the results. 

The Petitioner was disqualified from holding the post of Councillor due to the non-disclosure of a previous conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed her revision petition, stating that the election was rightly set aside under Rule 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no basis to disqualify her as the conviction was set aside. 

The Supreme Court held that while the disclosure of criminal antecedents for candidates is necessary for voters to make an informed choice, non-disclosure cannot result in disqualification unless the candidate has been convicted of offences involving moral turpitude. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to disclose her conviction without any justifiable reasons, she was not entitled to relief. 

Key words/ Phrases: Electoral disqualification—Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents—Conviction under Section 138 NI Act—Voters’ right to know—Need to prove material effect—SLP dismissed. 

Read the Judgment here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Communication of Grounds of Arrest

Mihir Rajesh Shah v State of Maharashtra

6 November 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1295 | 2025 SCO.LR 11(2)[14]

 Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that an arrest cannot be declared illegal if the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the arrestee immediately. A written copy of the grounds must be supplied within a reasonable time and not less than two hours before the arrestee’s appearance before a magistrate. 

The accused was arrested for a hit and run incident in July 2024. He approached the Bombay High Court arguing that the grounds of his arrest were not communicated to him as mandated under Article 22 and Section 50 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The Bombay High Court upheld his arrest. On appeal, the Supreme Court stated that it will only look into the validity of his arrest and limited itself to two issues: Whether grounds of arrest must be communicated in every offence under the IPC or BNS; would an arrest be declared illegal if the grounds are not communicated prior to or immediately after the arrest? 

The Court held that there can be no exceptions in communicating the grounds of arrest to an accused. It has to be supplied in a written format, in a language which is understandable to them. If immediate communication is not possible, it must be completed within a reasonable period of time. 

Key words/phrases: Article 22 of Constitution of India—Section 50 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—communication of the grounds of arrest—mandatory in all circumstances—written—language which is comprehensible for the accused—to be communicated within a reasonable period 

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Rejection of Tender for Public Project

Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v State of Odisha

7 November 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1295 | 2025 SCO.LR 11(2)[15]

Bench: Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that it is duty bound to interfere in a case where an authority acting as per the conditions of a tender, misinterprets a condition, diminishing competition and depriving revenue to states.

Shanti Construction participated in a bid for a sand quarry lease and submitted its Income Tax Returns from FY 2020-2021. At the time, the due date for filing returns for FY 2021-22 had not expired. The tender committee rejected the bid for not including the FY 2021-22 returns. The Odisha High Court upheld the tender committee’s rejection and directed the most successful bidder to match Shanti Construction’s higher quote.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment. It held that the Tender Committee’s interpretation of the requirement of the “previous financial year” under Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 was unduly restrictive and reduced competition. The Court directed a fresh tender, with refund of amounts deposited by the previously declared bidder.

Key words/phrases: Public procurement—misinterpretation of tender conditions—competition in bidding—maximisation of public revenue—Rule 27(4)(iv) OMMC Rules—judicial duty to intervene—fresh tender ordered

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP