Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 17/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

rbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 32 and 38 — Interplay and Source of Power — Termination of Arbitral Proceedings (General) vs. Termination for Non-Payment of Fees — Section 32(1) stipulates termination of arbitral proceedings either by final award or by order under Section 32(2). Section 32(2) lists three specific scenarios: claimant withdrawal (unless legitimate respondent objection), party agreement, or continuation becoming “unnecessary or impossible” (the residual clause, Section 32(2)(c)). (Paras 94-96, 99, 107)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1400 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARSHBIR SINGH PANNU AND ANOTHER Vs. JASWINDER SINGH ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) and (b) — Power of Arbitral Tribunal to grant interest — Party Autonomy — Pre-award (pendente lite) interest — Section 31(7)(a) mandates that the Arbitral Tribunal’s discretion to award interest on the sum awarded (from date cause of action arose till date of award) is subject to the agreement between the parties (“unless otherwise agreed by the parties”) — When parties specify a contractual rate of interest in the agreement, subject to no legal bar, this stipulation takes precedence over the Arbitrator’s discretion to deem a rate “reasonable” — Arbitral Tribunal is bound by the contractual terms regarding interest once agreed upon, and the borrower cannot later challenge the rate as unconscionable or against public policy, especially in commercial transactions between parties of equal bargaining power — Post-award interest is governed by Section 31(7)(b) (Paras 51, 53, 56, 64, 65, 70).

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1380 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BPL LIMITED Vs. MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

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.…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Essential conditions — If allegations in FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, quashing is justified — Vague and general allegations are insufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence in appeal — Appellate court can allow additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances as laid down in the rule, such as where the court needs it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause — Parties do not have a right to produce additional evidence and it cannot be introduced at their convenience — The provision is not meant to fill gaps in evidence or to pronounce judgment in a particular way — If the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment based on existing evidence, additional evidence is not required — The High Court rightly rejected the application for additional evidence as it was without merit and did not satisfy the conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Manifest Arbitrariness — Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 — Held, the Act is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as it involves complete vesting of property, dissolution of trust, absence of necessity or mismanagement, illusory compensation, and lack of guiding principles — State’s action was excessive, unreasoned and disproportionate to the stated object of better management and development.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw
Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 50 — Compliance with search provisions — Accused must be apprised of legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, not a Police Officer — Offering a third option to be searched before a Police Officer contravenes Section 50 and vitiates the entire trial — High Court correctly set aside conviction based on non-compliance with Section 50

Mar 17, 2026 sclaw