Supreme Court of India Judgements

46940 Judgements hosted as on 30/11/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6), Section 11(12)(a), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(2) — Applicability of Part I, including Section 11, to International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) — Dispute arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) where Respondent No. 1 is foreign company (incorporated in Benin) — BSA stipulates arbitration “will take place in Benin” and is governed by laws of Benin — Held: Dispute is an ICA under Section 2(1)(f) — Under Section 2(2), Part I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India — Designation of Benin as the place of arbitration, coupled with choice of Benin law as governing/curial law, unequivocally establishes Benin as the juridical seat — Indian Courts lack jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration — Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator in India is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable. (Paras 2, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI STEEL TRADE Vs. FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Power of High Court to Review/Recall – Scope of Judicial Intervention — An order passed under Section 11 appointing an arbitrator is judicial in nature, but the High Court’s review jurisdiction over such an order is highly circumscribed and must be limited to correcting a patent or procedural error; it cannot be exercised to revisit findings of law or re-interpret the arbitration agreement based on a subsequent judgment. (Paras 11.7, 11.12, 11.15)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1365 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY YOGESH DALAL Vs. BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Execution of Arbitral Award — Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) — Maintainability — Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 — Order 21 Rule 22 — Execution proceedings against legal representatives — The Act is a self-contained code restricting judicial interference — An order passed by a Single Judge in the course of executing an arbitral award is traceable to the Act, not the CPC; therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is not maintainable — Where execution is sought against entities/persons arrayed as executors/legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor for limited execution purposes and cannot be treated as third parties to the arbitral award for the purpose of challenging maintainability of the appeal under the Act.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1334 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. Vs. CHETAN SURENDRA DALAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6), Section 11(12)(a), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(2) — Applicability of Part I, including Section 11, to International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) — Dispute arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) where Respondent No. 1 is foreign company (incorporated in Benin) — BSA stipulates arbitration “will take place in Benin” and is governed by laws of Benin — Held: Dispute is an ICA under Section 2(1)(f) — Under Section 2(2), Part I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India — Designation of Benin as the place of arbitration, coupled with choice of Benin law as governing/curial law, unequivocally establishes Benin as the juridical seat — Indian Courts lack jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration — Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator in India is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI STEEL TRADE Vs. FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 read with Section 34 — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings — Statutory prohibition against re-appreciation of evidence — Challenges to arbitral award upholding 24% interest rate based on loan agreement terms dismissed by Single Judge and Division Bench; Supreme Court upholds affirmation — Re-appreciation of evidence on genuineness of loan agreements or terms, including interest rate, is prohibited under Section 34(2A) proviso, particularly when Arbitrator’s findings are concurrently upheld.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1327 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI LAKSHMI HOTEL PVT. LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

Arbitration C P C

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Execution of Arbitral Award — Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) — Maintainability — Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 — Order 21 Rule 22 — Execution proceedings against legal representatives — The Act is a self-contained code restricting judicial interference — An order passed by a Single Judge in the course of executing an arbitral award is traceable to the Act, not the CPC; therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is not maintainable — Where execution is sought against entities/persons arrayed as executors/legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor for limited execution purposes and cannot be treated as third parties to the arbitral award for the purpose of challenging maintainability of the appeal under the Act.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1334 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. Vs. CHETAN SURENDRA DALAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Setting aside of arbitral award — Delay in pronouncement — While undue and unexplained delay in pronouncing an arbitral award is not a ground, in itself, to set it aside, it can lead to the award being vitiated if the delay adversely affects the final decision and reflects on the findings, making it conflict with public policy or be patently illegal.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1277 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2 JUDGES BENCH M/S. LANCOR HOLDINGS LIMITED Vs. PREM KUMAR MENON AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Setting aside of arbitral award — Scope of interference — Courts are prohibited from rewriting contracts and should not interfere with arbitral awards unless grounds under Section 34 are met, such as violation of public policy or patent illegality. Interference is justified when an award shocks the conscience or is contrary to basic notions of justice. The scope of appeal under Section 37 is narrower than Section 34.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1171 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION Vs. GMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LTD. ( Before : B. R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 45 — Reference to arbitration — Existence of arbitration agreement — Contract not signed by one party — Parties acted upon the contract, including lifting goods and issuing Letters of Credit — Emails confirming terms and modifications — Held, agreement to arbitrate is inferred from conduct and electronic communications, even without signatures — Mere failure to sign does not invalidate the arbitration agreement if parties’ conduct demonstrates acceptance of terms.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1036 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG Vs. M/S. SHREE GANESH METALS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 47 and 49 — Enforcement of Foreign Award — High Court found no grounds to refuse recognition of the award and held it enforceable, subject to RBI approval — Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion and directed execution proceedings to proceed.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GPE (INDIA) LTD AND OTHERS Vs. TWARIT CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Petition(s)…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) (prior to amendment by Act 18 of 2017) — Manufacture — Exemption Notification No.5/98-CE, Entry No.106 — Eligibility for exemption — Manufacture includes series of processes; entire chain of activities must be considered — Where multiple units undertake distinct processes which are ‘integrally connected’ and form a ‘continuous chain’ to convert raw material (grey fabrics) into final excisable product (cotton fabrics), the entire activity constitutes ‘manufacture’ — Distinct ownership or separate bills between the units is irrelevant if the processes are interconnected and essential for producing the final product — Use of power in any intermediate, integrally connected process denies the exemption under Entry 106 (cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam). (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw