Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

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…

Arbitration

A deeper consideration of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties must be left to an Arbitrator who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in detail after witnesses are cross-examined on the same – This Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court in so far as it conclusively finds that there is an Arbitration Agreement between the parties

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRAVIN ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GALAXY INFRA AND ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh…

Arbitration

A & C Act – S 2(1)(f) would show that whatever be the transaction between the parties, if it happens to be entered into between persons, at least one of whom is either a foreign national, or habitually resident in, any country other than India; or by a body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India; or by the Government of a foreign country, the arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration- This being the case, it is clear that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator

Mar 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRANATH RAO SINDHIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Arbitration

Presence of an arbitration clause within a contract between a state instrumentality and a private party has not acted as an absolute bar to availing remedies under Article 226 – If the state instrumentality violates its constitutional mandate under Article 14 to act fairly and reasonably, relief under the plenary powers of the Article 226 of the Constitution would lie.

Feb 24, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNITECH LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. TELANGANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION (TSIIC) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 12 – Time limit for arbitral award – Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject to the declarations made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended) Parties are directed to approach the Indian Council of Arbitration within a period of 2 weeks to fix the date of the arbitral proceedings.

Feb 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arb and C Act, 1996 – Ss 11 & 11(6) – Appointment – if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the manner in which the Arbitrator has been appointed and has entered reference, the contentions could be urged before the Arbitrator by way of objection or in such other proceedings – A petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of the Arbitrator in this situation, is not sustainable.

Feb 7, 2021 sclaw

1/3 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EUROBEARINGS INDIA PRIVATE. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. EUROBEARINGS R.I. — Respondent ( Before : S.A Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

Arbitration

Non-payment of stamp duty on commercial contract – Since the arbitration agreement is an independent agreement between the parties, and is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, the non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract, would not invalidate the arbitration clause

Jan 17, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. N.N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. INDO UNIQUE FLAME LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw