Supreme Court of India Judgements

47200 Judgements hosted as on 28/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Petition under Section 9 at post-award stage by unsuccessful party — Maintainability — Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka High Courts held such petitions not maintainable — Telangana, Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana High Courts held such petitions maintainable — Supreme Court held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party, can invoke Section 9 at the post-award stage, overruling the former judgments.

Apr 27, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 415 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HOME CARE RETAIL MARTS PVT. LTD. Vs. HARESH N. SANGHAVI ( Before : Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Challenge to Arbitral Award — Legal Representatives — The Arbitration Act is a complete code for dispute resolution — Legal representatives of a deceased party are entitled to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act, as the Act envisions continuity of proceedings after a party’s death and makes awards enforceable by or against legal representatives — Denying this right would render legal representatives remediless while making them liable to fulfill the award, contradicting the Act’s purpose.

Apr 25, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 393 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.K. JOHN Vs. S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA AND HUF (DIED) REPRESENTED BY LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Clause 25 of Bill of Lading — Interpretation of “can” — A clause stating that disputes “can be settled by arbitration” does not create a mandatory arbitration agreement — It implies a future possibility and requires further agreement between the parties to refer disputes to arbitration, as opposed to a definitive commitment.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 384 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAGREEKA INDCON PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs. CARGOCARE LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36 — Enforcement of Consent Award — Construction of compromise deed and consent award — Promoters undertook to defend proceedings and ensure no liability recovered from Appellants by any forum — Deposit of an amount by Appellants to prevent execution of award against their properties constituted a liability that triggered Promoters’ obligation under the consent award — High Court erred in deferring enforceability of consent award until final confirmation by the highest court of appeal — Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 361 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VPS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. PRABHAT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and Prasanna B. Varale,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Inquiry — Limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement — Questions like ‘accord and satisfaction’, limitation, dishonesty, frivolity and arbitrability of subject matter are to be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, reflecting the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (MSEDCL) AND OTHERS Vs. R Z MALPANI ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S.…

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.…

You missed

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just Compensation — Award of compensation for prosthetic limb — No fixed guidelines for compensation amount — Courts can deviate from governmental notifications if they are too low — Emphasis on “restitutio in integrum” principle to restore the claimant as close as possible to their pre-injury state — Claimants are entitled to choose private centres for prosthetic limbs and renewal costs should be considered — Compensation can be awarded for periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw
Service

Dispute over cadre change versus mere transfer — A transfer is a change of posting within the same service without altering seniority or substantive status, differing from a cadre change which involves a structural shift between services with significant implications for seniority and promotional avenues, requiring specific authority.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Eyewitness testimony vs. Medical evidence — In case of conflict, eyewitness testimony, especially of an injured witness who is found to be reliable and has withstood cross — examination, is generally superior to expert medical opinion formed by an expert witness — Lack of independent witnesses does not automatically compromise the prosecution case, especially when societal realities suggest potential fear or hesitation

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Protracted Government Inaction and Third — Party Rights — Despite an initial timeline of two months for an inquiry and subsequent hopes for completion within six months, the government showed significant delay, stretching over six years without a final decision — During this period, extensive third — party rights were created through land sales and construction of villas and flats by innocent purchasers — The Court observed that it’s inappropriate for a welfare state to attempt to undo decades — old transactions, especially when innocent citizens have invested their hard — earned money, and basic amenities should not be denied to occupants of constructed properties.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw