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 34 and 34(4) – Arbitral award – Legislative intention of providing Section 34(4) in the Arbitration Act was to make the award enforceable, after giving an opportunity to the Tribunal to undo the curable defects HELD that ordinarily unintelligible awards are to be set aside, while the challenge on inadequacy of reasons, has to be adjudicated based on the degree of particularity of reasoning required having regard to the nature of issues falling for consideration.

Dec 22, 2019 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and…

Arbitration

“………..the awards were signed in New Delhi, and not at Faridabad, would lead to the conclusion that both parties have chosen New Delhi as the “seat” of arbitration under Section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. This being the case, both parties have, therefore, chosen that the Courts at New Delhi alone would have exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the fact that a part of the cause of action may have arisen at Faridabad would not be relevant once the “seat” has been chosen

Dec 12, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BGSSGS SOMAJV — Appellant Vs. NHPC LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration

SC Strikes Down Section 87 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act Inserted By 2019 Amendment HELD “The retrospective resurrection of an automatic-stay not only turns the clock backwards contrary to the object of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and the 2015 Amendment Act, but also results in payments already made under the amended Section 36 to award-holders in a situation of no-stay or conditional-stay now being reversed”

Nov 27, 2019 sclaw

SC Strikes Down Section 87 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act Inserted By 2019 Amendment In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Section 87 of the Arbitration…

Arbitration

Issue Of Limitation Not To Be Examined While Considering Application Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator HELD “The issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would be required to be decided by the arbitrator under Section 16, and not the High Court at the pre¬reference stage under Section 11 of the Act”

Nov 27, 2019 sclaw

Issue Of Limitation Not To Be Examined While Considering Application Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator: SC [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI27 Nov 2019 8:35 PM “The issue of limitation is a…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 62 – Alteration of contract – As the very jurisdiction of the arbitrator is dependent upon the existence of the arbitration clause under which he is appointed, the parties have no right to invoke a clause which perishes with the contract.

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WAPCOS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SALMA DAM JOINT VENTURE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11 and 11(6) – Appointment of arbitrator – Settlement of the claim – Insurer’s objection about maintainability of the application on the ground that the respondent had signed the discharge voucher and accepted the amount offered, thus, signifying accord and satisfaction, which in turn meant that there was no arbitrable dispute, was rejected

Nov 13, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DICITEX FURNISHING LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Application for setting aside arbitral award – Learned Arbitrator and the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings that the appellant Contractor has failed in carrying out the work as per the terms and conditions of the contract and the learned Arbitrator has rightly allowed the detention and forfeiture of the equipments of the contractor and disallowed the counter claim No.4 of the appellant.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S VIJAY TRADING AND TRANSPORT COMPANY — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishiksh Roy,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11, 12 and 29A – Appointment of arbitrator – In the case of dispute arising upon or in relation to or in connection with the Contract between HB and the Entity, which has not been settled amicably, any Party can refer the dispute for Arbitration under (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. SHAF BROADCAST PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. DOORDARSHAN – A CONSTITUENT OF PRASAR BHARTI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh…

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