Legal & Judicial Updates (August 2025)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARBITRATION LAW

• M/s Activitas Management Advisor Private Limited v. Mind Plus Healthcare Private Limited
• Glencore International AG v. M/S Shree Ganesh Metals & Anr.
• State of U.P. and Ors. v. M/S Satish Chandra Shiv Hare-Brothers
• Kamal Gupta & Anr v. M/S Builders Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL LAWS

• Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra & Anr.
• M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Ors.
• Seeta & Ors. v. Smt. Laxmi Kom Nagesh Naik @ Smt. Beeramma

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

• Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
• Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh
• Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.
• Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India
• Yogesh Madhav Makalwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

CRIMINAL LAW

• Gainda Lal v. State & Ors. (NCT of Delhi)
• Azam v. State (NCT of Delhi)
• Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of Himachal Pradesh
• Rohit v. State of Haryana

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

• Vanashakti v. Union of India
• Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.
• Zoru Darayus Bhathena v. MSRDC & Ors.

REAL ESTATE LAW

• JOP International Ltd. v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
• Huges Real Estate Developers LLP v. Khernagar Adarsh Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
• P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Larsen & Tourbo Ltd.
• Saldanha Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. Bishop John Rodrigues

TAXATION LAWS

• ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
• Union of India v. Indian Medical Association and Another
• Umicore Autocat India Private Limited v. Union of India

WHITE COLLAR CRIMES

• Meena v. State
• Chet Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
• Venkatachapathy v. Union of India
• M/s C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. v. Adil Ansari & Ors.
• Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate

NOTABLE JUDGEMENTS AUGUST 2025

ARBITRATION LAW

1. Case Title: M/s Activitas Management Advisor Pvt. Ltd. v. Mind Plus Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 795

Court: Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 05.08.2025

Brief Facts:

• The appellant ("Activitas") entered into an agreement with the respondent ("Mind Plus Healthcare") dated 9 July 2023, which incorporated an arbitration clause.
• Clause 10 of the agreement provided that: "client hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Courts located in Mumbai" with respect to disputes arising under the agreement.
• A dispute arose, prompting proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, allowed the respondent's Section 11 application and appointed a sole arbitrator, despite Activitas's objection that the clause designated Mumbai as the exclusive forum.

Issues:

1. Whether the clause conferring "exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Courts" should be interpreted as designating Mumbai as the seat of arbitration, even though the terms "seat" or "venue" were not explicitly used.
2. Whether Activitas could invoke Section 11 before the Mumbai High Court, notwithstanding the appointment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Judgment:

• The Court determined that the expression "exclusive jurisdiction," while not expressly employing the words "seat" or "venue," must be understood in the context of arbitration. The clause is clearly related to dispute resolution under the arbitration agreement.
• By this interpretation, the exclusive jurisdiction clause effectively designates Mumbai as the seat of arbitration. Therefore, any Section 11 application should be presented before the High Court having jurisdiction over the designated seat.

[Click Here]>/a>

1. Case Title: Glencore International AG v. M/s Shree Ganesh Metals & Anr.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1036

Court: Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 26.08.2025

Brief Facts:

• The appellant, Glencore International AG, a Swiss commodities trading company, entered into four contracts with Shree Ganesh Metals, an Indian zinc alloys manufacturer (Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh), between 2011 and 2012. Each of these contracts included arbitration clauses stipulating LCIA arbitration with London as the seat.
• In March 2016, the parties negotiated a fifth contract for the supply of 6,000 metric tons of zinc, formalized as Contract No. 061-16-12115-S dated 11 March 2016, signed only by the appellant. It included an arbitration clause (Clause 32.2) stating that disputes would be resolved under LCIA rules, with London as the seat.
• Although the respondent did not sign this contract, it accepted delivery of 2,000 metric tons of zinc, honored a series of invoices referencing the contract number, and arranged two standby letters of credit (SBLCs) through HDFC Bank referring to the same contract.

Issues:

1. Whether a valid and binding arbitration agreement existed between the parties despite the contract not being signed by respondent No. 1.
2. If such an agreement existed, whether the Delhi High Court erred in refusing to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Procedural History:

• The Delhi High Court (single judge, Nov 2017) and subsequently a division bench (Nov 2019) held that, due to the absence of the respondent's signature, no binding arbitration agreement existed.

Judgment:

• The Court held that non-signature alone does not invalidate an arbitration agreement, so long as it is in writing and there is clear evidence of agreement by conduct.
• Relying on Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, the Court emphasized that while an arbitration agreement must be in writing (Section 7(3)), it need not be signed if acceptance is demonstrated through written communications such as emails, performance, invoices, or other documentary records.
• The Court invoked precedents including Govind Rubber Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pvt. Ltd. and Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Premier Sea Foods Exim Pvt. Ltd., affirming that conduct and documented acceptance can validate arbitration clauses.
• It underscored that Section 45 mandates a court to refer parties to arbitration unless the agreement is prima facie invalid, and that the Delhi High Court had improperly conducted a detailed scrutiny (a "mini-trial") rather than a prima facie assessment.

[Click here]

To view the full article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.