Supreme Court of India Judgements

47030 Judgements hosted as on 11/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

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.…

Arbitration

Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 28 – Arbitration proceedings – Extension of time for making the award – Once the Sole Arbitrator continued with the arbitration proceedings and passed the award within the extended period of time, it cannot be said that he has misconducted himself as he continued with the arbitration proceedings.

Sep 23, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  M/S LAXMI CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 9(1) and 9(3) – Arbitration agreement – Of course it hardly need be mentioned that even if an application under Section 9 had been entertained before the constitution of the Tribunal, the Court always has the discretion to direct the parties to approach the Arbitral Tribunal, if necessary by passing a limited order of interim protection, particularly when there has been a long time gap between hearings and the application has for all practical purposes, to be heard afresh, or the hearing has just commenced and is likely to consume a lot of time – High Court has rightly directed the Commercial Court to proceed to complete the adjudication.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ESSAR BULK TERMINAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 75 81, 34 and 34(2)(b) – Setting aside of arbitral award – Disturbing tendency of courts – Disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards, after dissecting and reassessing factual aspects of the cases to come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention and thereafter, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award – Every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression ‘patent illegality’

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S.…

Arbitration

Payment of due amount – Construction and improvement of road – the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e., arbitration and not by the Writ Court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads.

Sep 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PUNA HINDA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

Bank guarantee – ICBC, which is a Scheduled Bank, carrying on business in India, with a Bank Guarantee of equivalent amount issued by a “Scheduled Indian Bank” – Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee allowed the appeal and Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian dismiss the Special Leave Petitions as not giving rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution – Appeal referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

Aug 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Corporate

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw