Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1447 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED (APGENCO) Vs. M/S TECPRO SYSTEMS LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) and (b) — Power of Arbitral Tribunal to grant interest — Party Autonomy — Pre-award (pendente lite) interest — Section 31(7)(a) mandates that the Arbitral Tribunal’s discretion to award interest on the sum awarded (from date cause of action arose till date of award) is subject to the agreement between the parties (“unless otherwise agreed by the parties”) — When parties specify a contractual rate of interest in the agreement, subject to no legal bar, this stipulation takes precedence over the Arbitrator’s discretion to deem a rate “reasonable” — Arbitral Tribunal is bound by the contractual terms regarding interest once agreed upon, and the borrower cannot later challenge the rate as unconscionable or against public policy, especially in commercial transactions between parties of equal bargaining power — Post-award interest is governed by Section 31(7)(b) (Paras 51, 53, 56, 64, 65, 70).

Dec 14, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1380 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BPL LIMITED Vs. MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 29A(1), 29A(4), 29A(6), 23(4) — Time limit for arbitral award — Termination of mandate — Substitution of Arbitrator — Section 29A aims for time-bound disposal of arbitration proceedings — An award in non-international commercial arbitration must be made within twelve months from completion of pleadings (Section 23(4)) — If the award is not made within the initial twelve months or the extended six months (by consent), the arbitrator’s mandate terminates unless the Court extends the period (Section 29A(4)). (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1409 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAN LAL FATEHPURIA Vs. M/S BHARAT TEXTILES AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(4) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — Non-Signatory/Third Party — The Referral Court (Appointing Authority) is required to inspect and scrutinize the dealings between the parties to prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, including whether a non-signatory is a “veritable party” to the agreement. (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 35)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1401 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs. BCL SECURE PREMISES PVT. LTD. ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…

Arbitration

rbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 32 and 38 — Interplay and Source of Power — Termination of Arbitral Proceedings (General) vs. Termination for Non-Payment of Fees — Section 32(1) stipulates termination of arbitral proceedings either by final award or by order under Section 32(2). Section 32(2) lists three specific scenarios: claimant withdrawal (unless legitimate respondent objection), party agreement, or continuation becoming “unnecessary or impossible” (the residual clause, Section 32(2)(c)). (Paras 94-96, 99, 107)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1400 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARSHBIR SINGH PANNU AND ANOTHER Vs. JASWINDER SINGH ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) and (b) — Power of Arbitral Tribunal to grant interest — Party Autonomy — Pre-award (pendente lite) interest — Section 31(7)(a) mandates that the Arbitral Tribunal’s discretion to award interest on the sum awarded (from date cause of action arose till date of award) is subject to the agreement between the parties (“unless otherwise agreed by the parties”) — When parties specify a contractual rate of interest in the agreement, subject to no legal bar, this stipulation takes precedence over the Arbitrator’s discretion to deem a rate “reasonable” — Arbitral Tribunal is bound by the contractual terms regarding interest once agreed upon, and the borrower cannot later challenge the rate as unconscionable or against public policy, especially in commercial transactions between parties of equal bargaining power — Post-award interest is governed by Section 31(7)(b) (Paras 51, 53, 56, 64, 65, 70).

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1380 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BPL LIMITED Vs. MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Arbitral Award — Excepted or Prohibited Claims — Contractual clauses barring certain claims (e.g., for idle labour, idle machinery, business loss) — Judicial review of awards involving prohibited claims — Applicability of such clauses primarily depends on the agreement between the parties, guided by the principle of party autonomy — Arbitral Tribunal and Courts must rely on the contract as the foundation of the legal relationship — High Court setting aside Civil Court order (under Section 34) and restoring award (under Section 37) solely based on precedent (Bharat Drilling) without independent contractual analysis is flawed — Reinstating claims (underutilised overheads, loss due to underutilised tools/machinery, loss of profit) barred by specific contractual provisions (Clauses 4.20.2, 4.20.4) is incorrect if based only on flawed precedent. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 8, 9)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1388 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. THE INDIAN BUILDERS JAMSHEDPUR ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, 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. (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.…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw