SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

We bring you Volume 8, Issue 1 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR). In this first Issue of SCO.LR for August 2025, we bring you five significant Supreme Court judgements from 28 July to 2 August. 

These judgements cover topics such as the mode of arbitration in public-private contracts, the rights of employees while claiming compensation and seeking alternate employment and the timeline within which the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions in defection cases. 

Read them all in HTML format on our dedicated SCO.LR page. Happy reading! 

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 8 | Issue 1

28 July–2 August 2025

**********

Interpretation of Social Security Legislations 

Daivshala v Oriental Insurance Company 

28 July 2025 

Citations: 2025 INSC 904 | 2025 SCO.LR 8(1)[1] 

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan

The Supreme Court held that it is permissible for a court to determine the meaning of a provision by comparing its language with other enactments that serve a “common object”. 

The Bombay High Court had set aside an order of a Civil Court which granted compensation to a watchman’s family under Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act 1923, after his death due to a fatal accident while commuting to his workplace. The High Court held that the accident could not have “arisen out of and in the course of employment”. At the Supreme Court, the deceased watchman’s family relied on Section 51E of the Employees’ State Insurance Act,1948. This provision states that an accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment and vice versa shall be deemed to have “arisen out of and in the course of employment.”

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgement and restored the Civil Court’s order. It held that both Acts are distinct but beneficial legislations intended as social security measures to better employee conditions. They are statutes in pari materia i.e. on the same subject. The Court clarified that the phrase “arisen out of and in the course of employment” in Section 3 of the EC Act carries the same meaning as Section 51E.

Keywords/phrases: Section 51E of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948—Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923—accident of employee—arisen out of and in the course of employment—statutes in pari materia—same meaning—compensation granted

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

Statutory Arbitration in Public-Private Contracts 

Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v M.P. Road Development Corporation

30 July 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 907 | 2025 SCO.LR 8(1)[2]

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

The Supreme Court held that parties entering into a public-private contract must follow the statutory dispute resolution mechanism established under special statutes enacted in public interest. 

UPP Tollways Pvt. Ltd., a private contractor, and the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC), a State-owned entity, had a dispute over a Concession Agreement for a road project. UPP Tollways initially invoked the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, but simultaneously initiated private arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution. MPRDC challenged this parallel arbitration through a writ petition before the High Court. UPP Tollways argued that a writ was not maintainable against a private company. The High Court admitted the writ and quashed the private arbitration proceedings. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. It ruled that the 1983 Act provides the exclusive remedy for “works contract” disputes involving State entities. It held that writs under Article 226 are maintainable against private bodies discharging public functions and are subject to public law oversight. 

Key words/ phrases: Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Article 226—maintainability of writ against private party performing public function—exclusivity of statutory arbitration mechanism

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

Speaker’s Duty While Determining Disqualification Petitions 

Padi Kaushik Reddy v State of Telangana

31 July 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 912 | 2025 SCO.LR 8(1)[3]

Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih.

The Supreme Court held that the Speaker of a State Assembly does not enjoy constitutional immunity while acting as an adjudicating authority in disqualification petitions. 

In a petition by members of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), a Single Judge of the Telangana High Court had granted four weeks to the Speaker to notify a schedule for deciding pending disqualification petitions against ten members of the BRS who had defected from the party post the elections in December 2023. A Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Order. The members challenged the Division Bench Order in the Supreme Court, arguing that the members had violated the anti-defection clause under the Tenth Schedule. 

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgement. It reiterated that the Speaker ought to decide disqualification petitions expeditiously. The Bench directed the Speaker to decide the petitions within three months. Lastly, it held that setting timelines for expediting the Speaker’s decision in these matters is legal. 

Keywords/phrase: Constitution of India—Tenth schedule—anti-defection—speaker’s power to decide disqualification petitions—no constitutional immunity for speaker under tenth schedule

Read the Judgement here

Mind map

**********

Criminal Prosecution in Civil Disputes

S.N. Vijayalakshmi v State of Karnataka

31 July 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 917| 2025 SCO.LR 8(1)[4] 

Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings in a civil dispute cannot be initiated unless there is an “overwhelming element of criminality”. 

The complainant had initiated civil and criminal proceedings against S.N. Vijayalakshmi and three other members of her family after she allegedly breached a sales agreement of a property and gifted it to her relative. He alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appellants’ petition seeking the quashing of a First Information Report filed against her by the complainant. 

The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgement. The Court found that there was no breach of trust on the part of the appellants as they had rights over the property as its owner. Further, it is a settled question of law that a person cannot be charged simultaneously for breach of trust and cheating. 

Keywords/phrases: Indian Penal Code, 1860–criminal breach of trust under Section 406—cheating under Section 420—criminal proceedings in civil disputes—parallel proceedings—abuse of process

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map

**********

Reasonable Accommodation for Employees with Disability 

Ch. Joseph v Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

1 August 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 920 | 2025 SCO.LR 8(1)[5]

Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar

The Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the employer to provide reasonable accommodation to employees who acquire a medical condition during their service. 

Joseph’s employment as a driver was terminated by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) after he was diagnosed with colour blindness. The Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court had set aside a Single Judge order directing an alternate employment within the TSRTC. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgement. It directed the TSRTC to provide alternate employment for the appellant with the same pay grade. The Court observed that the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between him and TSRTC required the employer to offer alternate posts under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This was not done by the TSRTC.

Keywords/phrases: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—termination of employment due to medical condition—alternate employment—reasonable accommodation—disability during service—High Court judgement set aside

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map