Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 9 is wide. A party may apply to a Court for interim measures before the commencement of Arbitral proceedings, during Arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the Arbitral Award, but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act.

Sep 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. POWER MECH PROJECTS LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 7 – Arbitration agreement – Section 7 of the Act does not mandate any particular form for the arbitration clause – – Deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies the intention of the parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise the annulment of arbitration clause

Sep 11, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BABANRAO RAJARAM PUND — Appellant Vs. M/S. SAMARTH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka,…

Arbitration

Arbitration Law – Unilateral determination of fees by Arbitrators – A unilateral determination of fees violates the principles of party autonomy and the doctrine of the prohibition of in rem suam decisions, i.e., the arbitrators cannot be a judge of their own private claim against the parties regarding their remuneration

Sep 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. AFCONS GUNANUSA JV — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and…

Arbitration

Respondent-claimant earlier initiated the arbitration proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act in the Court at Vishakhapatnam – Only the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati would have jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 11(6) of the Act – Appeal allowed.

Aug 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GENERAL MANAGER EAST COAST RAILWAY RAIL SADAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah…

You missed

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
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw