Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – S 11(6) – Appointment of sole arbitrator – HELD Parties have neither denied that there is no ‘arbitrable dispute’ between them nor have they challenged the existence of the arbitration clause(s) in the Construction Management Service Agreements – Considering that the primary twin-test envisioned under Section 11(6) of the Act has been satisfied by the Petitioner – Nature of disputes that have arisen between the parties, thus, can be adjudicated in the arbitral proceedings

Sep 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAJAPURA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 28 – Arbitration proceedings – Extension of time for making the award – Once the Sole Arbitrator continued with the arbitration proceedings and passed the award within the extended period of time, it cannot be said that he has misconducted himself as he continued with the arbitration proceedings.

Sep 23, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  M/S LAXMI CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 9(1) and 9(3) – Arbitration agreement – Of course it hardly need be mentioned that even if an application under Section 9 had been entertained before the constitution of the Tribunal, the Court always has the discretion to direct the parties to approach the Arbitral Tribunal, if necessary by passing a limited order of interim protection, particularly when there has been a long time gap between hearings and the application has for all practical purposes, to be heard afresh, or the hearing has just commenced and is likely to consume a lot of time – High Court has rightly directed the Commercial Court to proceed to complete the adjudication.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ESSAR BULK TERMINAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 75 81, 34 and 34(2)(b) – Setting aside of arbitral award – Disturbing tendency of courts – Disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards, after dissecting and reassessing factual aspects of the cases to come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention and thereafter, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award – Every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression ‘patent illegality’

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S.…

Arbitration

Payment of due amount – Construction and improvement of road – the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e., arbitration and not by the Writ Court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads.

Sep 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PUNA HINDA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

Bank guarantee – ICBC, which is a Scheduled Bank, carrying on business in India, with a Bank Guarantee of equivalent amount issued by a “Scheduled Indian Bank” – Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee allowed the appeal and Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian dismiss the Special Leave Petitions as not giving rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution – Appeal referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

Aug 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 17(2) – Award of Emergency Arbitrator – It is wholly incorrect to say that Section 17(1) of the Act would exclude an Emergency Arbitrator’s orders. HELD A party cannot, after it participates in an Emergency Award proceeding, having agreed to institutional rules made in that regard, that thereafter it will not be bound by an Emergency Arbitrator’s ruling.

Aug 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC — Appellant Vs. FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitral award – Ground of Patent Illegality – No evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality – Impugned Award would come under the realm of ‘patent illegality’ and therefore, has been rightly set aside by the High Court – Appeal Dismissed.

Aug 1, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PSA SICAL TERMINALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF V.O. CHIDAMBRANAR PORT TRUST TUTICORIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw