Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 17(2) – Award of Emergency Arbitrator – It is wholly incorrect to say that Section 17(1) of the Act would exclude an Emergency Arbitrator’s orders. HELD A party cannot, after it participates in an Emergency Award proceeding, having agreed to institutional rules made in that regard, that thereafter it will not be bound by an Emergency Arbitrator’s ruling.

Aug 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC — Appellant Vs. FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitral award – Ground of Patent Illegality – No evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality – Impugned Award would come under the realm of ‘patent illegality’ and therefore, has been rightly set aside by the High Court – Appeal Dismissed.

Aug 1, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PSA SICAL TERMINALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF V.O. CHIDAMBRANAR PORT TRUST TUTICORIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Arbitration

(i) Whether the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ?; HELD YES (ii) Whether, counter claim is maintainable in such arbitration proceedings ? HELD YES “MSMED Act, being a special Statute, will have an overriding effect vis-à-vis Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a general Act.”

Jun 30, 2021 sclaw

“18. With regard to first issue, namely, applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to the arbitration proceedings initiated under provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, we need…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – S 31(7) – Interest on delayed payment – Only difference between the situation contemplated in the provision and the facts of this case is that the agreement involved is not silent on interest entitlement of the appellants on delayed payment but the agreement contains provision for such payment – Appeal allowed.

Apr 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Apponitment of arbitrator – whether the dispute which had arisen at the first instance has been settled; if the dispute subsisted, whether the claim is within the period of limitation, the nature of relief if any and all other contention on merits are to be considered in the arbitral proceedings – Hence, keeping open all contentions on merits, sole Arbitrator is to be appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties

Apr 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH V. SREENIVASA REDDY — Appellant Vs. B.L. RATHNAMMA — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

Appointment of arbitrator – Section 11 court would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable, or when facts are contested – The court cannot, at this stage, enter into a mini trial or elaborate review of the facts and law which would usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal

Apr 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJIV PRAKASH — Appellant Vs. SEEMA KUKREJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Arbitration

A & C Act – Obviously, once time has started running, any final rejection by the Appellant by its letter dated 10.11.2010 would not give any fresh start to a limitation period which has already begun running, following the mandate of Section 9 of the Limitation Act – This being the case, the High Court was clearly in error in stating that since the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act were filed on 06.11.2013, they were within the limitation period of three years starting from 10.11.2020.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD — Appellant Vs. M/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH AND SONS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

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