Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Arbitration

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.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – HELD – this is a case where the inferences drawn are a non-sequitur to the plain and simple words of the e-mails/communications read in evidence, which were before the Tribunal and which do not support the inferences drawn. In this view of the matter, clearly the approach of the majority of arbitrators is arbitrary and capricious; and therefore cannot pass judicial muster. (See : Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49)

Dec 20, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PTY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MMTC LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and K.M. Joseph, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 50 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1) – Foreign award – Enforcement of – A further appeal by a party aggrieved by an order of enforcement, even under the later enacted Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable

Nov 29, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NOY VALLESINA ENGINEERING SPA, (NOW KNOWN AS NOY AMBIENTE S.P.A) — Appellant Vs. JINDAL DRUGS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira…

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