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 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…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Levy of liquidated damages – the Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the order of the learned Arbitrator with regard to claim No.6 by holding that levy of liquidated damages/compensation is adjustable against the final bill payable to the appellant.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) COMPANY — Appellant Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 16 and 37 – Arbitration agreement – Counter claim – Jurisdiction-Arbitrator might reject the counter claim for CENVAT invoices as not arbitrable and the counter claim beyond the scope of reference to arbitration – But to reject the counter claim at the threshold on the ground that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction would not be proper

Oct 28, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GO AIRLINES (INDIA) LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitration proceedings – Termination of contract – Once it is held that the termination was illegal and thereafter when the learned Arbitral Tribunal has considered the claims on merits, which basically were with respect to the unpaid amount in respect of the work executed under the contract and loss of profit. Cogent reasons have been given by the learned Arbitral Tribunal – Cogent award

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S HSS INTEGRATED SDN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and M.…

Arbitration

Arbitrator—Appointment of—Enquiry by the Court must confine itself to the examination of existence of an arbitration agreement—No more and no less Arbitration Agreement—Non-signatory to Agreement—Cannot be made party to proceedings merely because it being constituent to group of companies to which one of the company of group is signatory

Oct 13, 2019 sclaw

2019(3) Law Herald |SC) 2110 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1336 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwiikar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Petition for Arbitration (Civil)…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 34(2), 34(5) and 34(6) – Permission to adduce evidence – The proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are summary proceedings and not a regular suit. When the order of the District Judge dismissing the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not suffer from perversity, the High Court, HC cannot interfere .

Sep 30, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, 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