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 — Sections 34 and 37 — Arbitral Award — Excepted or Prohibited Claims — Contractual clauses barring certain claims (e.g., for idle labour, idle machinery, business loss) — Judicial review of awards involving prohibited claims — Applicability of such clauses primarily depends on the agreement between the parties, guided by the principle of party autonomy — Arbitral Tribunal and Courts must rely on the contract as the foundation of the legal relationship — High Court setting aside Civil Court order (under Section 34) and restoring award (under Section 37) solely based on precedent (Bharat Drilling) without independent contractual analysis is flawed — Reinstating claims (underutilised overheads, loss due to underutilised tools/machinery, loss of profit) barred by specific contractual provisions (Clauses 4.20.2, 4.20.4) is incorrect if based only on flawed precedent. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 8, 9)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1388 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. THE INDIAN BUILDERS JAMSHEDPUR ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6), Section 11(12)(a), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(2) — Applicability of Part I, including Section 11, to International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) — Dispute arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) where Respondent No. 1 is foreign company (incorporated in Benin) — BSA stipulates arbitration “will take place in Benin” and is governed by laws of Benin — Held: Dispute is an ICA under Section 2(1)(f) — Under Section 2(2), Part I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India — Designation of Benin as the place of arbitration, coupled with choice of Benin law as governing/curial law, unequivocally establishes Benin as the juridical seat — Indian Courts lack jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration — Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator in India is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable. (Paras 2, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI STEEL TRADE Vs. FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Power of High Court to Review/Recall – Scope of Judicial Intervention — An order passed under Section 11 appointing an arbitrator is judicial in nature, but the High Court’s review jurisdiction over such an order is highly circumscribed and must be limited to correcting a patent or procedural error; it cannot be exercised to revisit findings of law or re-interpret the arbitration agreement based on a subsequent judgment. (Paras 11.7, 11.12, 11.15)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1365 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY YOGESH DALAL Vs. BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Execution of Arbitral Award — Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) — Maintainability — Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 — Order 21 Rule 22 — Execution proceedings against legal representatives — The Act is a self-contained code restricting judicial interference — An order passed by a Single Judge in the course of executing an arbitral award is traceable to the Act, not the CPC; therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is not maintainable — Where execution is sought against entities/persons arrayed as executors/legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor for limited execution purposes and cannot be treated as third parties to the arbitral award for the purpose of challenging maintainability of the appeal under the Act.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1334 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. Vs. CHETAN SURENDRA DALAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6), Section 11(12)(a), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(2) — Applicability of Part I, including Section 11, to International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) — Dispute arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) where Respondent No. 1 is foreign company (incorporated in Benin) — BSA stipulates arbitration “will take place in Benin” and is governed by laws of Benin — Held: Dispute is an ICA under Section 2(1)(f) — Under Section 2(2), Part I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India — Designation of Benin as the place of arbitration, coupled with choice of Benin law as governing/curial law, unequivocally establishes Benin as the juridical seat — Indian Courts lack jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration — Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator in India is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI STEEL TRADE Vs. FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 read with Section 34 — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings — Statutory prohibition against re-appreciation of evidence — Challenges to arbitral award upholding 24% interest rate based on loan agreement terms dismissed by Single Judge and Division Bench; Supreme Court upholds affirmation — Re-appreciation of evidence on genuineness of loan agreements or terms, including interest rate, is prohibited under Section 34(2A) proviso, particularly when Arbitrator’s findings are concurrently upheld.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1327 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI LAKSHMI HOTEL PVT. LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

Arbitration C P C

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Execution of Arbitral Award — Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) — Maintainability — Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 — Order 21 Rule 22 — Execution proceedings against legal representatives — The Act is a self-contained code restricting judicial interference — An order passed by a Single Judge in the course of executing an arbitral award is traceable to the Act, not the CPC; therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is not maintainable — Where execution is sought against entities/persons arrayed as executors/legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor for limited execution purposes and cannot be treated as third parties to the arbitral award for the purpose of challenging maintainability of the appeal under the Act.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1334 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. Vs. CHETAN SURENDRA DALAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Setting aside of arbitral award — Delay in pronouncement — While undue and unexplained delay in pronouncing an arbitral award is not a ground, in itself, to set it aside, it can lead to the award being vitiated if the delay adversely affects the final decision and reflects on the findings, making it conflict with public policy or be patently illegal.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1277 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2 JUDGES BENCH M/S. LANCOR HOLDINGS LIMITED Vs. PREM KUMAR MENON AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Setting aside of arbitral award — Scope of interference — Courts are prohibited from rewriting contracts and should not interfere with arbitral awards unless grounds under Section 34 are met, such as violation of public policy or patent illegality. Interference is justified when an award shocks the conscience or is contrary to basic notions of justice. The scope of appeal under Section 37 is narrower than Section 34.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1171 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION Vs. GMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LTD. ( Before : B. R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 45 — Reference to arbitration — Existence of arbitration agreement — Contract not signed by one party — Parties acted upon the contract, including lifting goods and issuing Letters of Credit — Emails confirming terms and modifications — Held, agreement to arbitrate is inferred from conduct and electronic communications, even without signatures — Mere failure to sign does not invalidate the arbitration agreement if parties’ conduct demonstrates acceptance of terms.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1036 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG Vs. M/S. SHREE GANESH METALS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

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