Supreme Court of India Judgements

46915 Judgements hosted as on 02/11/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Section 19 – High Court’s power of revision – Revision Application to the High Court shall be maintainable only against the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal – Rejecting the reference petition as not maintainable.

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. K.P. DWIVEDI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 33, 34 and 37 – Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected -Order passed by the learned arbitrator in the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the 1996 Act – Therefore, both, the City Civil Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in dismissing the arbitration suit/appeal under Sections 34 and 37

Nov 22, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GYAN PRAKASH ARYA — Appellant Vs. M/S TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – General Conditions of Contract – Clause 16(2) – Pendente lite and future interest – – held that in view of specific bar contained in clause 16(2) of the GCC, the contractor shall not be entitled to any interest pendente lite or future interest on the amounts due and payable to it under the contract.

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. MANRAJ ENTERPRISES — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 6592…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 18, 19, 24, 25, 29A, 34 and 37 – Appointment of arbitrator for adjudication of disputes – A pragmatic and common-sense approach would invariably check any discord between the desire for expeditious disposal and adequacy of opportunity to establish one’s case – In the context of the present case, This Court agree with the High Court that there was unnecessary haste and hurry by the arbitrator, especially when the respondent had filed the affidavit by way of evidence

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. NARINDER SINGH AND SONS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER – II, NORTHERN RAILWAY, FEROZEPUR DIVISION, FEROZEPUR — Respondent…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitration Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court – Jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMESH KUMAR AND COMPANY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Setting aside of arbitral award – 2015 amendment to Section 34 will apply only to Section 34 applications that have been made to the Court on or after 23.10.2015, irrespective of the fact that the arbitration proceedings may have commenced prior to that date

Nov 13, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATNAM SUDESH IYER — Appellant Vs. JACKIE KAKUBHAI SHROFF — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – The Arbitrator has committed a jurisdictional error by travelling beyond the terms of reference. Further, the Arbitrator has committed an error in permitting the Appellants to retain the jewellery. According to item No.(iv) of the terms of reference, the Arbitrator had to decide the entitlement of all the seven parties to equal shares in the event of finding that the jewellery is not stridhana property. Therefore, we approve the conclusion of the High Court by upholding the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed.

Nov 13, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUSAPATI ASHOK GAJAPATHI RAJU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PUSAPATI MADHURI GAJAPATHI RAJU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 34(2A) and 37 – Setting aside of arbitral award – – HELD to state that the grounds available for setting aside an award under sub-section (2A) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act could not have been invoked by the Court on its own, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. Notably, the expression used in the sub-rule is “the Court finds that”. Therefore, it does not stand to reason that a provision that enables a Court acting on its own in deciding a petition under Section 34 for setting aside an Award, would not be available in an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.

Nov 9, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SAL UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli,…

Arbitration

Language used in Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006 and the object and purpose of providing deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit while preferring the application/appeal for setting aside the award, it has to be held that the requirement of deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit is mandatory.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. M/S ASKA EQUIPMENTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

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.…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 449, 376, 394 — Appeal against High Court’s upholding of conviction and sentence — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Absence of direct evidence connecting appellant to offense — Falsely implicated — Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt — No scientific evidence linking appellant — Important witnesses not associated in investigation or produced in court — Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw
Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Quashing of proceedings — Cheques issued as security and not for consideration — Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) clearly stated cheques were for security purposes to show banks and not for deposit — Complainant failed to read the complete terms of MOU in isolation and misinterpreted it to claim cheques were converted into debt — Court empowered to consider unimpeachable documents at pre-trial stage to prevent injustice — Complaints under Section 138 NI Act liable to be quashed.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw
General Insurance

Insurance Law — Fire Insurance — Accidental Fire — Cause of fire is immaterial if the insured is not the instigator and there is no fraud. The objective of fire insurance is to indemnify the insured against loss by fire.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw
Tenders

Tender Conditions — Interpretation — Ambiguity — The terms of a tender must be clear and unambiguous — If a tendering authority intends for a specific document to be issued by a particular authority, it must be clearly stated in the tender conditions — Failure to do so may lead to rejection of the bid being deemed arbitrary and dehors the tender terms.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw