Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration Act, 1940 – Arbitration proceedings – Contract agreement between Appellant and Respondent for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal (Punjab) HELD It is ordered that in addition to the Claim No.1 allowed by the High Court, the claimant is also entitled to the amount under Claim Nos.2, 3, 8 and 12

Feb 14, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDIGARH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 17 – Interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunal – Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 – Section 3 – Works contract – Whether the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 has jurisdiction to make interim orders in terms of Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Held, YES

Jan 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMBER BUILDERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Arbitration

General Conditions 64 (3)(a)(ii) and 64 (3)(b) of the Contract HELD -The appellant is directed to send a fresh panel of four retired officers in terms of Clause 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract within a period of thirty days from today under intimation to the respondent-contractor. The respondent-contractor shall select two from the four suggested names and communicate to the appellant within thirty days from the date of receipt of the names of the nominees.

Dec 23, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION — Appellant Vs. M/S ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna And Hrishikesh Roy,…

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…

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