Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 (State Act), which has the effect of annulling the awards which have become “Rules of Court”, is a transgression on the judicial functions of the State and therefore, violative of doctrine of “separation of powers”

May 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JAMES VARGHESE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 8 and 16 – Group of companies doctrine – An arbitration agreement which has been entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties.

May 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S DISCOVERY ENTERPRISES PRTIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 – Section 19 – While challenge to award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 – Pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is a mandatory requirement.

Apr 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TIRUPATI STEELS — Appellant Vs. M/S SHUBH INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Objections under Section 34 of the Act did require consideration and in-depth examination and should not have been dismissed without proper and full application of mind with reference to the provisions of the Limitation Act and the Act.

Apr 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARNAL — Appellant Vs. M/S. MEHTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Arbitration

Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 – Section 18 – Arbitration Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in making a reference. If there is no arbitration clause, the dispute arising between the parties to the contract must be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal.

Mar 19, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAMA KANT SINGH @ RESPONDENT ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Appointment of member of the Bar as the sole Arbitrator – Appeal against – – While dealing with petition under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable – In such case, the issue of non-arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal – No case for interference is made out – Appeal dismissed.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED MASROOR SHAIKH — Appellant Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator – Courts had very limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act. Courts are to take a ‘prima facie’ view, as explained therein, on issues relating to existence of the arbitration agreement. Usually, issues of arbitrability/validity are matters to be adjudicated upon by arbitrators. The only narrow exception carved out was that Courts could adjudicate to ‘cut the deadwood’. Ultimately the Court held that the watch word for the Courts is ‘when in doubt, do refer’.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw