SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 12 | Issue 1

Volume 12 Issue 1 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! 

In this Issue, we cover five important decisions from last week: challenge to appointment of arbitration tribunal, objections in auction sales arising from a debt, finality of verdicts, jurisdiction for cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the bar on bail under grounds of parity. 

Find the judgements in a reader-friendly format on our SCO.LR page!

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 12 | Issue 1

24 November – 29 November 2025

**********

Waiver of Objections in Arbitration Proceedings

Hindustan Construction Company v Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam

24 November 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 1365 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(1)[1]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court held that any challenge against the appointment or the continuation of an arbitral tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, will be waived if the parties jointly apply for an extension of time under Section 29A of the Act.

Hindustan Construction Company and Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd (BRPNNL) were involved in an arbitration proceeding relating to claims arising from the extended period of a bridge project. The Patna High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act. Both sides participated in more than seventy sittings and jointly sought multiple extensions under Section 29A. After final arguments began, BRPNNL filed a review petition against the appointment of the arbitrator. The Patna High Court recalled the Section 11 Order, putting a stop to the arbitration proceedings.

The Supreme Court restored the arbitral process. It held that BRPNNL’s participation and its joint Section 29A applications amounted to a clear waiver of any objection to the arbitrator’s appointment. Since there was no claim of ineligibility under Section 12(5), the High Court had no basis to recall the earlier Section 11 order. The arbitration was directed to continue before a substitute arbitrator was appointed under the contract.

Key words/phrases: Section 29A—extension—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Challenge to the appointment of arbitrator—any challenges waived—joint application seeking extension. 

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map

********

Bar on Objection to Auction Sales

G.R. Selvaraj v K.J. Prakash Kumar

25 November 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 1353| 2025 SCO.LR 12 (1)[2]

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

The Supreme Court held that debtors cannot challenge an auction sale if they knew about the process to seize and sell their property and had a chance to raise objections before the final sale notice (sale proclamation) was issued. 

To fulfill a debt, property attached from K.J. Prakash Kumar and other debtors was scheduled for auction. Prakash Kumar and the other judgement debtors appeared before the executing court on multiple dates, sought adjournments, filed counters and later chose not to participate. The sale was confirmed in favour of G.R. Selvaraj. Both the executing court and the appellate court upheld the sale. The Madras High Court set it aside on the ground that selling a smaller portion of the property might have covered the debt. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Order and restored the sale. It held that any objection to selling only part of the property should have been raised by Prakash Kumar and the other judgement debtors before the proclamation of sale. Since they had full notice and failed to act at the appropriate stage, they were barred from challenging the sale belatedly under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Key words/phrases: Execution sale– Order XXI Rule 90 CPC–notice to judgement debtor—final sale proclamation—partial sale objection—bar on belated ground—High Court set aside sale—restoration of sale

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map

********

Sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts

SK. MD. Anisur Rahaman v The State of West Bengal

26 November 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1360 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(1)[3]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih

The Supreme Court held that it is fundamental to the rule of law to maintain the sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts. Public confidence in the judiciary is maintained if the finality of verdicts is upheld. 

In January 2025, the Supreme Court granted bail to SK. Md. Anisur Rahaman, who faced trial for the murder of his political rival. The bail conditions restricted him to Kolkata. In May 2025, his plea seeking a modification of the bail condition was rejected by the Supreme Court. Rahman subsequently approached the Court once again, seeking a modification of the bail condition. Another petition was filed seeking the cancellation of his bail by the brother of the deceased rival.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application and the plea seeking the cancellation of his bail. The Court noted that the condition requiring him to stay in Kolkata would be frustrated if it was modified. Moreover, the Court held that Rahaman’s fresh application was an attempt to acquire a new verdict from the Court as the presiding Judge who granted him bail and dismissed his application for modification had retired. 

Keyphrases: Finality of verdict—Plea to modify bail condition dismissed by Bench which granted bail—Judge who granted bail retires—Pleas seeking modification of condition and cancellation of bail—dismissed—sanctitiy of judicial verdicts—public confidence in the judiciary

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

 *********

Territorial Jurisdiction for Cases under Section 138 of the NI Act 

Jai Balaji Industries v M/s Heg 

28 November 2025 

Citation: 2025 INSC 1362 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(1)[4]

Bench: J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan 

The Supreme Court held that complaints of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be tried by the court within the territorial jurisdiction of the payee’s home branch. The Court ruled that even if a cheque is deposited at a different branch of the same bank, legally, it counts as being delivered to the customer’s home branch when determining which court has jurisdiction.

A Cheque drawn by Jai Balaji Industries Limited in the name of the complainant company, M/s HEG Limite,d was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The Cheque, drawn in Kolkata, was deposited in Bhopal. A statutory notice of dishonour was sent to the accused company, and subsequently, a complaint was filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. Later, the Court, upon request by the complainant, returned the case, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under Section 142 of the NI Act. Following this, a complaint was registered with the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhopal, which Balaji Industries objected to. The JMFC Court rejected the objection. This was challenged in a criminal revision application before the Sessions Court, Bhopal, pending adjudication. The matter was taken up by the Supreme Court under its Criminal Original Jurisdiction. 

The Supreme Court relied on Dashrath Rupsingh Rathord v State of Maharashtra and held that the question of jurisdiction must strictly arise from the lens of territoriality of the offence. The Court held that Section 142(2) of the NI Act confers jurisdiction to the Court within whose limits the payee’s bank is situated. 

Keywords/phrases: Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881—jurisdiction in cheque dishonour case under Section 138–Jurisdiction with the home branch of the payee

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

*********

Parity as a Ground for Bail 

Sagar v State of UP

28 November 2025 

Citation: 2025 INSC 1370 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(1)[5]

Bench: Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that a co-accused cannot seek bail solely on the basis that other accused persons were granted bail in the same offence. Bail based on parity should only be granted to co-accused who are suspected of committing similar actions.

The accused was charged with the murder, while his father, the co-accused, was charged with instigating the crime. The Allahabad High Court granted bail to his father after considering that he had a strong alibi. Subsequently, the High Court granted bail to the accused on the sole ground of parity since his father was granted bail by the same Court. The appellant-complainants prayed for his bail to be set aside. 

The Supreme Court stressed that bail based on parity must consider the specific circumstances of every individual accused of the alleged crime. The Court must examine the unique role each person played in the offence and not just treat the fact that they are involved in the same crime as a common factor. The bench also stated that no one has a right to claim bail based purely on parity.

Keywords/Phrases: Bail to co-accused–Ground for grant of bail–Grant of bail on parity–Grant of bail on parity for similar acts–Bail set aside. 

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map