Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11, 11(6) and 11(12)(a) – HELD the arbitration clause contained in in the main agreement would govern the parties insofar as the present nature of dispute that has been raised by them with regard to the price etc including recovery as against purchase order arbitration clause

Sep 17, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BALASORE ALLOYS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MEDIMA LLC — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI. A. S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 HELD It is clear that in case HSBC was to enforce the Foreign Final Award in India in accordance with section 48 of the 1996 Act, irreparable loss would be caused to it unless at least the principal sum were kept aside for purposes of enforcement of the award in India. Accordingly, we dismiss Civil Appeal No.5145 of 2016 filed by Avitel India and the Jain family, and allow Civil Appeal No.5158 of 2016 filed by HSBC.

Aug 20, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. F. Nariman and…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – S 8 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Ss 31 and 34 – Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed – But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal & not binding on him, executant can approach the Court u/s 31, non-executant file suit u/s  34, HELD anomalies only highlight the impossibility of holding that an action instituted under section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an action in rem.

Aug 20, 2020 sclaw

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – S 8 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Ss 31 and 34 – Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitral award – Construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes a contract in a manner which no fair minded or reasonable person would take i.e. if the view taken by the arbitrator is not even a possible view to take.

May 22, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. — Appellant Vs. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO) — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, Indu Malhotra and…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 27, 34 and 37 – Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 56 and 65 – Arbitral award – Interpretation of contract – High Court held that the interpretation of the terms of the contract by the Arbitral Tribunal is erroneous and is against the public policy of India HELD The interpretation of the Arbitral Tribunal to expand the meaning of Clause 23 to include change in rate of HSD is not a possible interpretation of this contract, as the appellant did not introduce any evidence which proves the same.

May 12, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SOUTH EAST ASIA MARINE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. (SEAMEC LTD.) — Appellant Vs. OIL INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana,…

Arbitration

Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Results In Waiver Of Right To Raise Objections On Jurisdiction After Award : SC HELD hat the specification of a “Venue” or “Place” of arbitration may not hold much significance in domestic arbitrations as against international commercial arbitrations due to the uniform applicability of the substantive & curial law.D/April 29, 2020.

Apr 29, 2020 sclaw

Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Results In Waiver Of Right To Raise Objections On Jurisdiction After Award : SC [Read Judgment] Sanya Talwar 29 April 2020 6:49 PM Court also pointed…

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