Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

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…

Arbitration

A & C Act, 1996 – S 11 – Period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 would be governed by Article 137 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Period of limitation will begin to run from the date when there is failure to appoint the arbitrator.

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay…

Arbitration

A deeper consideration of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties must be left to an Arbitrator who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in detail after witnesses are cross-examined on the same – This Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court in so far as it conclusively finds that there is an Arbitration Agreement between the parties

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRAVIN ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GALAXY INFRA AND ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh…

Arbitration

A & C Act – S 2(1)(f) would show that whatever be the transaction between the parties, if it happens to be entered into between persons, at least one of whom is either a foreign national, or habitually resident in, any country other than India; or by a body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India; or by the Government of a foreign country, the arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration- This being the case, it is clear that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator

Mar 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRANATH RAO SINDHIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Arbitration

Presence of an arbitration clause within a contract between a state instrumentality and a private party has not acted as an absolute bar to availing remedies under Article 226 – If the state instrumentality violates its constitutional mandate under Article 14 to act fairly and reasonably, relief under the plenary powers of the Article 226 of the Constitution would lie.

Feb 24, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNITECH LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. TELANGANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION (TSIIC) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 12 – Time limit for arbitral award – Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject to the declarations made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended) Parties are directed to approach the Indian Council of Arbitration within a period of 2 weeks to fix the date of the arbitral proceedings.

Feb 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw