Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - 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

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw