Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitrator—Appointment of—Enquiry by the Court must confine itself to the examination of existence of an arbitration agreement—No more and no less Arbitration Agreement—Non-signatory to Agreement—Cannot be made party to proceedings merely because it being constituent to group of companies to which one of the company of group is signatory

Oct 13, 2019 sclaw

2019(3) Law Herald |SC) 2110 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1336 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwiikar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Petition for Arbitration (Civil)…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 34(2), 34(5) and 34(6) – Permission to adduce evidence – The proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are summary proceedings and not a regular suit. When the order of the District Judge dismissing the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not suffer from perversity, the High Court, HC cannot interfere .

Sep 30, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

Appointment of arbitrator – Appellant’s own default in sleeping over his right for 14 years will not constitute a case of ‘undue hardship’ justifying extension of time under Section 43(3) of the 1996 Act or show ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act . Held High Court’s observation that the entire dispute seems concocted so as to pursue a monetary claim against the respondents approved.

Sep 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S GEO MILLER & CO. PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan…

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