Supreme Court of India Judgements

46735 Judgements hosted as on 16/02/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration Contract Act Stamp Act

Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 35 – Contract Act 1872 – Section 2(g) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 8 and 11 – Arbitration – Enforceability of Unstamped Agreements – Unstamped Arbitration Agreements Not Void – Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act – Such agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio or unenforceable

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SEVEN JUDGE BENCH IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899 ( Before : Dr…

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 – Arbitration Proceedings – Applicability of Group of Companies Doctrine – Group of Companies doctrine is applicable to arbitration proceedings – Definition of “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration Act includes both the signatory as well as non-signatory parties

Dec 10, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH COX AND KINGS LTD. — Appellant Vs. SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Hrishikesh…

Arbitration

As to procedural unconscionability, the Court finds that this was a contract of adhesion. The terms of the contract were not negotiated and Plaintiff had relatively little economic strength in the transaction. As to substantive unconscionability, the arbitration clause is unreasonable insofar as it requires Plaintiff to travel to Okaloosa County, Florida for the arbitration. In many circumstances requiring a consumer to travel a substantial distance to arbitrate a claim has been found to be unreasonable

Nov 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Any award of an arbitrator or a tribunal that seeks to overreach a binding judicial decision, does conflict with the fundamental public policy and cannot, therefore, sustain – A judicial decision of a superior court, which is binding on an inferior court, has to be accepted with grace by the inferior court notwithstanding that the decision of the superior court may not be palatable to the inferior court – This principle, ex proprio vigore, would be applicable to an arbitrator and a multi-member arbitral tribunal as well

Oct 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S UNIBROS — Appellant Vs. ALL INDIA RADIO — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 12 – Arbitral award – Ground for challenge – Fee increase can be resorted to only with the agreement of parties; in the event of disagreement by one party, the tribunal has to continue with the previous arrangement, or decline to act as arbitrator – Yet, whether the breach of that rule, as in the present case, by insisting that the increase of fee should prevail does not in this court’s opinion, amount to a per se ineligibility, reaching to the level of voiding the tribunal’s appointment, and terminating its mandate

Oct 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING — Appellant Vs. M/S TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS (JV) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…

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.,…

You missed

C P C

A suit in representative capacity (Order 1, Rule 8 CPC) is not maintainable if lacking locus standi, and a prior decree (res judicata) bars subsequent suits on the same subject matter, notwithstanding varying reliefs.

Feb 16, 2025 sclaw
Stamp Act State Laws

Agreement to sell immovable property incurs stamp duty as deemed conveyance via implied/symbolic possession transfer, with duty applying to the agreement (instrument), not the sale (transaction).

Feb 16, 2025 sclaw
Accident

The Supreme Court emphasized that the goal is to ensure just and fair compensation, even if it exceeds the claimed amount. It recalculated the compensation, considering the claimant’s monthly income, future prospects, 40% permanent disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment. The final compensation was determined to be Rs. 17,82,825, modifying the awards of the MACT and High Court. The Civil Appeal was allowed, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. This decision underscores the principle of providing fair compensation to accident victims based on comprehensive assessment of their losses and suffering.

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw
Child Custody

In child custody cases, the lawpoint is that the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration, and a Habeas Corpus writ petition is maintainable only when the child’s detention is proven illegal or without legal authority

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw