Supreme Court of India Judgements

46915 Judgements hosted as on 02/11/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration Limitation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The court allows the petition and appoints a former judge of the Supreme Court as the sole arbitrator – The court also suggests that the Parliament should consider bringing an amendment to the Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1996

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S APTECH LTD — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitral award – Jurisdiction to modify – Any court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award – Any attempt to “modify an award” under Section 34 would amount to “crossing the Lakshman Rekha” – Arbitral proceedings are per se not comparable to judicial proceedings before the Court.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.V. SAMUDRAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Reference to Arbitration Clause – A plea of fraud – Two conditions which must be satisfied before the Court can refuse to refer the matter to the Arbitrator, a forum consciously decided by parties in an agreement – First is whether the plea permeates the entire contract and above all, the arbitration agreement, rendering it void or secondly, whether the allegation of fraud touches upon the internal affairs of the parties inter se having no implication in the public domain

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

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…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 449, 376, 394 — Appeal against High Court’s upholding of conviction and sentence — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Absence of direct evidence connecting appellant to offense — Falsely implicated — Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt — No scientific evidence linking appellant — Important witnesses not associated in investigation or produced in court — Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw
Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Quashing of proceedings — Cheques issued as security and not for consideration — Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) clearly stated cheques were for security purposes to show banks and not for deposit — Complainant failed to read the complete terms of MOU in isolation and misinterpreted it to claim cheques were converted into debt — Court empowered to consider unimpeachable documents at pre-trial stage to prevent injustice — Complaints under Section 138 NI Act liable to be quashed.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw
General Insurance

Insurance Law — Fire Insurance — Accidental Fire — Cause of fire is immaterial if the insured is not the instigator and there is no fraud. The objective of fire insurance is to indemnify the insured against loss by fire.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw
Tenders

Tender Conditions — Interpretation — Ambiguity — The terms of a tender must be clear and unambiguous — If a tendering authority intends for a specific document to be issued by a particular authority, it must be clearly stated in the tender conditions — Failure to do so may lead to rejection of the bid being deemed arbitrary and dehors the tender terms.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw