Supreme Court of India Judgements

467750 Judgements hosted as on 06/05/2025 - 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

Service

Under Rule 17, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, prior contractual service counts towards pension upon subsequent regularisation, subject to the employee opting to refund/forgo specified monetary benefits.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
I B C

Service of an IBC Section 8 demand notice upon Key Managerial Personnel at the Corporate Debtor’s registered office constitutes valid service on the company, emphasizing substance over technical form.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings precludes conducting a ‘mini trial’ by assessing evidence credibility; consistency requires acknowledging coordinate bench decisions involving co-accused.

May 5, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Quashing FIR under 482 CrPC impermissible when complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences; allegations accepted true, investigation not thwarted based on delay, civil suit, or witness status if complicity alleged.

May 5, 2025 sclaw