Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

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…

Arbitration

(i) Whether the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ?; HELD YES (ii) Whether, counter claim is maintainable in such arbitration proceedings ? HELD YES “MSMED Act, being a special Statute, will have an overriding effect vis-à-vis Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a general Act.”

Jun 30, 2021 sclaw

“18. With regard to first issue, namely, applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to the arbitration proceedings initiated under provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, we need…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – S 31(7) – Interest on delayed payment – Only difference between the situation contemplated in the provision and the facts of this case is that the agreement involved is not silent on interest entitlement of the appellants on delayed payment but the agreement contains provision for such payment – Appeal allowed.

Apr 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Apponitment of arbitrator – whether the dispute which had arisen at the first instance has been settled; if the dispute subsisted, whether the claim is within the period of limitation, the nature of relief if any and all other contention on merits are to be considered in the arbitral proceedings – Hence, keeping open all contentions on merits, sole Arbitrator is to be appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties

Apr 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH V. SREENIVASA REDDY — Appellant Vs. B.L. RATHNAMMA — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

Appointment of arbitrator – Section 11 court would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable, or when facts are contested – The court cannot, at this stage, enter into a mini trial or elaborate review of the facts and law which would usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal

Apr 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJIV PRAKASH — Appellant Vs. SEEMA KUKREJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Arbitration

A & C Act – Obviously, once time has started running, any final rejection by the Appellant by its letter dated 10.11.2010 would not give any fresh start to a limitation period which has already begun running, following the mandate of Section 9 of the Limitation Act – This being the case, the High Court was clearly in error in stating that since the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act were filed on 06.11.2013, they were within the limitation period of three years starting from 10.11.2020.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD — Appellant Vs. M/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH AND SONS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

A & C Act, 1996 – S 11 – Period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 would be governed by Article 137 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Period of limitation will begin to run from the date when there is failure to appoint the arbitrator.

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw