Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 47 and 49 — Enforcement of Foreign Award — High Court found no grounds to refuse recognition of the award and held it enforceable, subject to RBI approval — Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion and directed execution proceedings to proceed.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GPE (INDIA) LTD AND OTHERS Vs. TWARIT CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Petition(s)…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 — Works Contract — Concession Agreement for development of State Highway falls under ‘works contract’ as defined in MP Act, 1983 — MP Act, 1983 has overriding effect on Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for such contracts — Private arbitration under 1996 Act is inoperative and void ab initio where MP Act, 1983 mandates adjudication by Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal.

Aug 1, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 907 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UMRI POOPH PRATAPPUR (UPP) TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD. Vs. M.P. ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of arbitration agreement — High Court dismissed appellant’s application under Section 11 on the ground that no arbitration agreement existed — Clause 13 of contract relied upon as arbitration agreement — Clause stated that for parties other than Govt. Agencies, redressal of disputes “may be sought” through arbitration — Supreme Court held that use of “may be sought” indicates no subsisting agreement to use arbitration — Clause was an enabling provision if parties agreed, not a binding agreement.

Jul 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 874 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration

However, the non-service of a S. 21 notice on a person does not, by itself, preclude the arbitral tribunal from impleading that person if they are found to be a party to the arbitration agreement — The primary purpose of S. 21 relates to commencement and time-related aspects, while other functions like informing about claims or potential arbitrators are incidental.

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 507 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,…

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