Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitral proceedings – Resumption – It is the discretion vested with the Court for remitting the matter to Arbitral Tribunal to give an opportunity to resume the proceedings or not – Words “where it is appropriate” itself indicate that it is the discretion to be exercised by the Court, to remit the matter when requested by a party. Merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal

Jan 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  I-PAY CLEARING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Setting aside of arbitral award – At the same time when an order is passed without recourse to arbitration and in utter disregard to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 of the Act will not apply.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and R. Subhash…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Setting aside of arbitral award – Contract maintenance of road for a length of 31.17 kilometres – Award passed by the Arbitrator awarding the amount/compensation at Rs.45,000/ per km per month up to January, 2008 under claim Nos.1 and 8 is hereby confirmed – Award passed by the Arbitrator awarding the amount/compensation at Rs.45,000/ per km per month from February, 2008 to 31.05.2010 i.e. till the end of the contract is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal partly allowed.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. M/S. SHIV SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

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…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw