Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Majority award – A dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside – When a majority award is challenged by the aggrieved party, the focus of the court and the aggrieved party is to point out the errors or illegalities in the majority award

Aug 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind…

Arbitration

HELD the scope of jurisdiction of a court, under Section 30/33 of the Act, never extended beyond discerning if the award disclosed an “error apparent on the face of the award” which is an “error of law apparent on the face of the award and not an error of fact. The error of law can be discovered from the award itself or from a document actually incorporated therein

Aug 27, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S S.D. SHINDE TR. PARTNER — Appellant Vs. GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Ss 34 & 37 – The scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction.[3] It is well-settled that courts ought not to interfere with the arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner. The mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract does not entitle courts to reverse the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal

Aug 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHENAB BRIDGE PROJECT UNDERTAKING — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Section 8 – Reference to Arbitration – Non-family shareholdings, in any event, cannot be bound by the terms of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) since they are not parties to the document – Order referring the suit to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 set aside – Appeal allowed.

Jul 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VINOD KUMAR SACHDEVA (DEAD) THR LRS. — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KUMAR SACHDEVA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.,…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11(6), 12 and 12(5) – Appointment of Sole Arbitrator – Arbitration clause which authorises the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, whose relationship with Union of India is that of an employee, to nominate an officer of the Ministry of Law and Justice to act as a Sole Arbitrator, clearly falls within the expressly ineligible category provided in Paragraph 1 of Schedule VII, read with Section 12(5) of the Act

Jun 11, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S GLOCK ASIA-PACIFIC LTD. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

Arbitration Limitation

Bank guarantee encashed in 2016 requisite amount stood transferred to Government account that was the end of the matter – This “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose – statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating

May 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S B AND T AG — Appellant Vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J. B.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – It is the duty of the referral court to decide the said issue first conclusively to protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when there does not exist any arbitration agreement and/or when there is no valid arbitration agreement at all.

May 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAGIC EYE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. GREEN EDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

You missed

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
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw