Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Arbitration

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…

Arbitration

Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 – Sections 4 and 6 – Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 17 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 23 – Execution of Award – Execution of an award can be only to the extent what has been awarded/decreed and not beyond the same – Arbitrator in its Award had only declared the price of land and nothing more – Thus, the question of execution of a sale deed of the land at the price so declared by the Arbitrator in its Award, could not be directed

Apr 26, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet…

Arbitration

The question involved in the present appeal is the enforceability of the foreign award, against NAFED. HELD the award is ex facie illegal, and in contravention of fundamental law, no export without permission of the Government was permissible and without the consent of the Government quota could not have been forwarded to next season. The export without permission would have violated the law, thus, enforcement of such award would be violative of the public policy of India.

Apr 23, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ALIMENTA S.A. — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and B.R.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Appointment of arbitrator – Arbitration agreement entered into between the parties provides Hong Kong as the place of arbitration – Agreement between the parties choosing “Hong Kong” as the place of arbitration by itself will not lead to the conclusion that parties have chosen Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration -HELD Section 11 has no application to “International Commercial Arbitrations” seated outside India – Words in Clause 17.1 “without regard to its conflicts of laws provisions and courts at New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction” do not take away or dilute the intention of the parties in Clause 17.2 that the arbitration be administered in Hong Kong

Mar 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MANKASTU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AIRVISUAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Arbitration…

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