Supreme Court of India Judgements

46735 Judgements hosted as on 16/02/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

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. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) —Dispute over a contractual agreement — The main issue is whether the contract was breached and if so, what remedies are available —The petitioner argues that the respondent failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract —The respondent contends that they met all contractual requirements and that any issues were due to the petitioner’s actions —The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent breached the contract —The court based its decision on the evidence presented, which showed that the respondent did not meet the contractual terms —The court applied principles of contract law, focusing on the obligations and duties outlined in the agreement —The court awarded damages to the petitioner and ordered the respondent to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 710 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JYOTRINDRA S. PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) —Dispute over a contractual agreement — The main issue is whether the contract was breached and if so, what remedies are available —The petitioner argues that the respondent failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract —The respondent contends that they met all contractual requirements and that any issues were due to the petitioner’s actions —The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent breached the contract —The court based its decision on the evidence presented, which showed that the respondent did not meet the contractual terms —The court applied principles of contract law, focusing on the obligations and duties outlined in the agreement —The court awarded damages to the petitioner and ordered the respondent to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 710 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JYOTRINDRA S. PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Arbitration

Arbitration Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Appellant supplied paddy — Respondent returned less rice — Dispute over shortfall — Appellate Court set aside arbitral award — Appellant argued award based on evidence — Respondent contended award was erroneous — Supreme Court restored award, emphasizing limited interference under Sections 34 & 37 — Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction — Arbitral awards should not be interfered with unless violating public policy or fundamental principles — Appeal allowed, arbitral award restored — Respect for finality of arbitral awards.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 742 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SANMAN RICE MILLS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Arbitration

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 14 and 17 — Interest on interest for the post-award period — The case involves a contract from 1984-85 between petitioners and respondent with an arbitration award passed in 1997 — Whether the petitioner is entitled to compound interest or interest on interest for the post-award period — The petitioner argued that the 12% interest awarded for the pre-award period should be included in the principal sum for calculating the 15% post-award interest — The respondent contended that compound interest or interest on interest is not payable unless specifically granted by the award or court order — The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts’ decisions that only simple interest is payable — The court emphasized that neither the Arbitration Act nor the contract provided for compound interest or interest on interest — The court referred to various legal provisions and precedents, including Section 34 of the CPC and the Interest Act, 1978, which prohibit awarding interest on interest — The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 587 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY — Appellant Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

You missed

C P C

A suit in representative capacity (Order 1, Rule 8 CPC) is not maintainable if lacking locus standi, and a prior decree (res judicata) bars subsequent suits on the same subject matter, notwithstanding varying reliefs.

Feb 16, 2025 sclaw
Stamp Act State Laws

Agreement to sell immovable property incurs stamp duty as deemed conveyance via implied/symbolic possession transfer, with duty applying to the agreement (instrument), not the sale (transaction).

Feb 16, 2025 sclaw
Accident

The Supreme Court emphasized that the goal is to ensure just and fair compensation, even if it exceeds the claimed amount. It recalculated the compensation, considering the claimant’s monthly income, future prospects, 40% permanent disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment. The final compensation was determined to be Rs. 17,82,825, modifying the awards of the MACT and High Court. The Civil Appeal was allowed, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. This decision underscores the principle of providing fair compensation to accident victims based on comprehensive assessment of their losses and suffering.

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw
Child Custody

In child custody cases, the lawpoint is that the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration, and a Habeas Corpus writ petition is maintainable only when the child’s detention is proven illegal or without legal authority

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw