Supreme Court of India Judgements

46800 Judgements hosted as on 29/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

However, the non-service of a S. 21 notice on a person does not, by itself, preclude the arbitral tribunal from impleading that person if they are found to be a party to the arbitration agreement — The primary purpose of S. 21 relates to commencement and time-related aspects, while other functions like informing about claims or potential arbitrators are incidental.

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 507 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Limited Scope of Judicial Interference in Arbitration Awards — The Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitration awards under Section 37 — The Court held that it could not interfere with the arbitral award unless there was a patent illegality or a violation of the terms of the contract — Since the arbitral tribunal had correctly applied Clause 49.5 and the appellant had accepted its terms, there was no ground for interference.

Feb 4, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 138 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. Vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Contractual clauses — Enforceability of Clause 49.5 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) — The Court upheld the validity and enforceability of Clause 49.5 of the GCC, which states that in the event of any failure or delay by the employer (respondent) in fulfilling its obligations under the contract, the contractor (appellant) is not entitled to claim damages or compensation — Instead, the contractor is only entitled to an extension of time to complete the work — The Court found that the appellant had repeatedly invoked Clause 49.5 to seek extensions of time and had accepted the terms of the clause by submitting undertakings not to make any claims other than escalation for the delays caused by the respondent — Therefore, the appellant was estopped from challenging the validity of Clause 49.5.

Feb 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 138 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. Vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

You missed

POCSO

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Section 376 (3) IPC — Rape — Conviction upheld — Evidence of victim’s mother and medical evidence — Reliability of victim’s mother’s testimony confirmed despite lengthy cross-examination, finding it natural and trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence — Medical evidence, though partially presented by defense, conclusively supported sexual assault, citing perineal tear and abrasions around anus

Jun 29, 2025 sclaw
Joint Family Property Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 6 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2005) — Retrospective application — Validity of pre-amendment sale deeds — The prohibition contained in the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not affect registered sale deeds executed prior to December 20, 2004 (date of introduction of the amending provision) — This principle aligns with the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.

Jun 28, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Cr P C

Judicial Process — Misuse of process — Challenging bail conditions previously offered voluntarily — Accused offering substantial deposits to secure bail and subsequently challenging the onerous nature of conditions or the counsel’s authority to make such offers — This practice is condemned for undermining the judicial process and preventing consideration of bail applications on their merits — Such conduct leads to setting aside of bail orders and remittal for fresh consideration.

Jun 28, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Social Media Posts — Content-Related Offenses — Retaliatory Action — Quashing of Proceedings — While the court made no final determination on the nature of the petitioner’s social media posts, it acknowledged the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that the tweets were ‘retaliatory’ and were made in response to an incident involving a social media influencer. This assertion formed part of the petitioner’s argument for quashing or consolidating the numerous FIRs, suggesting a motive beyond simple offensive content.

Jun 28, 2025 sclaw