Supreme Court of India Judgements

467750 Judgements hosted as on 06/05/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) —Dispute over a contractual agreement — The main issue is whether the contract was breached and if so, what remedies are available —The petitioner argues that the respondent failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract —The respondent contends that they met all contractual requirements and that any issues were due to the petitioner’s actions —The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent breached the contract —The court based its decision on the evidence presented, which showed that the respondent did not meet the contractual terms —The court applied principles of contract law, focusing on the obligations and duties outlined in the agreement —The court awarded damages to the petitioner and ordered the respondent to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 710 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JYOTRINDRA S. PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) —Dispute over a contractual agreement — The main issue is whether the contract was breached and if so, what remedies are available —The petitioner argues that the respondent failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract —The respondent contends that they met all contractual requirements and that any issues were due to the petitioner’s actions —The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent breached the contract —The court based its decision on the evidence presented, which showed that the respondent did not meet the contractual terms —The court applied principles of contract law, focusing on the obligations and duties outlined in the agreement —The court awarded damages to the petitioner and ordered the respondent to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 710 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JYOTRINDRA S. PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Arbitration

Arbitration Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Appellant supplied paddy — Respondent returned less rice — Dispute over shortfall — Appellate Court set aside arbitral award — Appellant argued award based on evidence — Respondent contended award was erroneous — Supreme Court restored award, emphasizing limited interference under Sections 34 & 37 — Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction — Arbitral awards should not be interfered with unless violating public policy or fundamental principles — Appeal allowed, arbitral award restored — Respect for finality of arbitral awards.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 742 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SANMAN RICE MILLS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Arbitration

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 14 and 17 — Interest on interest for the post-award period — The case involves a contract from 1984-85 between petitioners and respondent with an arbitration award passed in 1997 — Whether the petitioner is entitled to compound interest or interest on interest for the post-award period — The petitioner argued that the 12% interest awarded for the pre-award period should be included in the principal sum for calculating the 15% post-award interest — The respondent contended that compound interest or interest on interest is not payable unless specifically granted by the award or court order — The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts’ decisions that only simple interest is payable — The court emphasized that neither the Arbitration Act nor the contract provided for compound interest or interest on interest — The court referred to various legal provisions and precedents, including Section 34 of the CPC and the Interest Act, 1978, which prohibit awarding interest on interest — The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 587 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY — Appellant Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

Arbitration

Arbitral Award — Contractual Dispute — The court held that the date of the arbitral award’s enforceability is the date when the objections against it are finally decided, and this date should be used to convert the award amount — If the award debtor deposits some amount before the court during the pendency of proceedings, the date of deposit should be used for conversion — The court further clarified that if the award holder is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, even if it is conditional and subject to the final decision in the matter, the court must consider that the award holder could access and benefit from such deposit, and it is then the burden of the award holder to furnish security, as required by the court’s orders, to utilize the amount or to make an application for modification of the condition if it is unable to fulfill the same.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 593 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DLF LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF UNIVERSAL LTD) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KONCAR GENERATORS AND MOTORS LTD. — Respondent (…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties — Section 11(6) —The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 — The court held that the court’s role in appointing an arbitrator is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement and not to delve into the merits of the dispute or the validity of the agreement — The court further clarified that the issue of whether a claim is time-barred or not should be left to the arbitrator to decide, and the court should not conduct an intricate enquiry into the same — The court’s role is to ensure that the parties’ intention to resolve disputes through arbitration is upheld, and the legislative intention of minimum judicial interference in arbitral proceedings is given full effect — The court’s decision aims to streamline the position of law and avoid conflicts between different decisions in the future.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 532 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. KRISH SPINNING — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 32(2)(c) – Termination of proceedings – The dispute revolves around the legality and validity of the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Act, 1996, involving a development agreement and a memorandum of understanding between Appellants and Respondent – The Appellant argued that the Respondent abandoned the claim by not taking steps for eight years and failing to attend meetings, justifying the termination – The Respondent argued that there was no abandonment and the proceedings could not be terminated without a positive finding that continuation was unnecessary or impossible – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that abandonment must be established and cannot be readily inferred – The court emphasized that the power under Section 32(2)(c) should only be exercised when proceedings have become unnecessary or impossible, not casually – The Court concluded that the Arbitral Tribunal committed illegality in terminating the proceedings, and the parties were directed to appoint a substituted arbitrator in accordance with the law – The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 433 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DANI WOOLTEX CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHEIL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.…

Arbitration

The power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible mere existence of a reason for terminating the proceedings is not sufficient. The reason must be such that the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.

May 26, 2024 sclaw

    2024 INSC 433 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) no.19301 of 2023)…

Arbitration National Highways Authority Act

National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 – Section 3 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – NHAI awarded a contract to Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. for the Allahabad Bypass Project, leading to disputes over additional costs – The main issues involved claims for increased rates of royalty, sales tax, forest transit fees, and payment for embankment work – NHAI argued that price adjustments should be based on the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) and that embankment construction was part of clearing and grubbing activities – Hindustan Construction argued that additional costs due to subsequent legislation were admissible separately – The Arbitral Tribunal awarded additional costs for increased royalty, forest transit fees, and payment for embankment work – The High Court confirmed the award, and the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings, stating that the interpretation of contract terms by the Arbitral Tribunal was reasonable – The Supreme Court dismissed appeals, finding no merit in the challenges to the Arbitral Tribunal’s award and the High Court’s judgments.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 388 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024:INSC:292 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,…

You missed

Service

Under Rule 17, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, prior contractual service counts towards pension upon subsequent regularisation, subject to the employee opting to refund/forgo specified monetary benefits.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
I B C

Service of an IBC Section 8 demand notice upon Key Managerial Personnel at the Corporate Debtor’s registered office constitutes valid service on the company, emphasizing substance over technical form.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings precludes conducting a ‘mini trial’ by assessing evidence credibility; consistency requires acknowledging coordinate bench decisions involving co-accused.

May 5, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Quashing FIR under 482 CrPC impermissible when complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences; allegations accepted true, investigation not thwarted based on delay, civil suit, or witness status if complicity alleged.

May 5, 2025 sclaw