Supreme Court of India Judgements

47030 Judgements hosted as on 11/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 32(2)(c) – Termination of proceedings – The dispute revolves around the legality and validity of the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Act, 1996, involving a development agreement and a memorandum of understanding between Appellants and Respondent – The Appellant argued that the Respondent abandoned the claim by not taking steps for eight years and failing to attend meetings, justifying the termination – The Respondent argued that there was no abandonment and the proceedings could not be terminated without a positive finding that continuation was unnecessary or impossible – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that abandonment must be established and cannot be readily inferred – The court emphasized that the power under Section 32(2)(c) should only be exercised when proceedings have become unnecessary or impossible, not casually – The Court concluded that the Arbitral Tribunal committed illegality in terminating the proceedings, and the parties were directed to appoint a substituted arbitrator in accordance with the law – The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 433 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DANI WOOLTEX CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHEIL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.…

Arbitration

The power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible mere existence of a reason for terminating the proceedings is not sufficient. The reason must be such that the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.

May 26, 2024 sclaw

    2024 INSC 433 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) no.19301 of 2023)…

Arbitration National Highways Authority Act

National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 – Section 3 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – NHAI awarded a contract to Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. for the Allahabad Bypass Project, leading to disputes over additional costs – The main issues involved claims for increased rates of royalty, sales tax, forest transit fees, and payment for embankment work – NHAI argued that price adjustments should be based on the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) and that embankment construction was part of clearing and grubbing activities – Hindustan Construction argued that additional costs due to subsequent legislation were admissible separately – The Arbitral Tribunal awarded additional costs for increased royalty, forest transit fees, and payment for embankment work – The High Court confirmed the award, and the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings, stating that the interpretation of contract terms by the Arbitral Tribunal was reasonable – The Supreme Court dismissed appeals, finding no merit in the challenges to the Arbitral Tribunal’s award and the High Court’s judgments.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 388 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024:INSC:292 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,…

Arbitration

“Arbitration Clause Dispute Settled: Supreme Court Rules Against Appointing Sole Arbitrator in Weir Construction Contract” – The Court analyzed the applicability of the arbitration clause and found that a general reference to the tender documents does not incorporate the arbitration clause into the contract – The Court discussed the conditions under which an arbitration clause from one document can be incorporated into another contract, emphasizing the need for a specific reference to the arbitration clause – The Court concluded that the arbitration clause does not apply to the contract between NBCC and Zillion and set aside the High Court’s orders, directing that disputes be resolved through civil courts in Delhi.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

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…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Corporate

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw