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 – 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…

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.…

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