Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 07/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined to existence of an arbitration agreement — Issue of res judicata not considered at Section 11 stage — Principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC apply to proceedings under Section 11 — A fresh application under Section 11 is not maintainable if the earlier application was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one.

Apr 6, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 302 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJIV GADDH Vs. SUBODH PARKASH ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2026 (@…

Arbitration

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 2(a), Sections 30 & 33 — Arbitration agreement — Validity — Held, a clause in a contract that refers disputes to the Collector for a final decision and allows for appeals within the government hierarchy does not constitute an arbitration agreement — For a valid arbitration agreement, there must be mutual consent between parties to resolve disputes through arbitration.

Mar 26, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 288 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BHARAT UDYOG LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S JAI HIND CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.) Vs. AMBERNATH MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 274 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ABS MARINE SERVICES Vs. THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and 37 – Challenge to arbitral award – Improper constitution of arbitral tribunal – Interpretation of Clause 8.3(b) of the agreement – Co-arbitrators’ power to appoint the presiding arbitrator after 30 days – High Court’s upholding of arbitral tribunal’s decision – Appeals dismissed.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 228 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI Vs. M/S R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) — Interest awarded by Arbitral Tribunal — Contractual bar — Where a contract expressly prohibits the award of pre-award and pendente lite interest, an Arbitral Tribunal cannot award such interest, even if termed as compensation, as the arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 203 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. LARSEN AND TUBRO LIMITED (L&T) ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A(4) — Application for extension of time to make arbitral award — Where an arbitral tribunal is constituted by the High Court under Section 11(6), any application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) would lie with the High Court. Where an arbitral tribunal is constituted by the parties themselves under Section 11(2), the application under Section 29A(4) would lie before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, which also includes the High Court in its ordinary original jurisdiction.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 92 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDEEP CHOWGULE Vs. SHEELA CHOWGULE AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s).Of…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Appeal against order under Section 34 — Scope of interference by appellate court — Appellate court under Section 37 should only determine if the court under Section 34 exercised its jurisdiction properly and without exceeding its scope — Re-working and re-calculating reasonable compensation by the Division Bench when the Single Judge had already determined it based on the agreement, was beyond the scope of Section 37. (Para 18)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 103 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SAISUDHIR ENERGY LTD. Vs. M/S NTPC VIDYUT VYAPAR NIGAM LTD. ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 34 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAN DE NUL DREDGING INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. TUTICORIN PORT TRUST ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 32 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REGENTA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S HOTEL GRAND CENTRE POINT AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…

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…

You missed

Acquittal

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374 — Appeal against dismissal of criminal appeal by High Court — Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act — Prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence — No eyewitnesses — Reliability of prosecution witnesses critically examined — Admission by key witness regarding darkness and identification by voice only, materially undermining credibility — Evidence found insufficient to meet standard of proof in criminal law and exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence — Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted.

Apr 7, 2026 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Conviction for uttering obscene words — Held, mere use of the word “bastard” is not sufficient to constitute obscenity, especially in heated conversations during the modern era — Conviction under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

Apr 7, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Medical negligence — Consent for surgery — Allegation of interpolation in consent form for Orchidectomy — Medical Board’s opinion that Orchidectomy was an appropriate procedure in cases of undescended testicle and that consent should have been obtained — No evidence of interpolation in consent form (different ink or handwriting) — Consent form indicated both Orchidopexy and Orchidectomy as options. Held, continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of court and liable to be quashed. Appeals allowed, impugned High Court judgment set aside, and proceedings quashed

Apr 7, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Extraordinary Jurisdiction of Supreme Court (Article 136) — Equitable relief — Not granted to litigants whose conduct is callous, lackadaisical, and in clear violation of applicable rules and regulations — Commercial decisions of State Government not substituted by court.

Apr 7, 2026 sclaw