Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Setting aside of arbitral award – Contract maintenance of road for a length of 31.17 kilometres – Award passed by the Arbitrator awarding the amount/compensation at Rs.45,000/ per km per month up to January, 2008 under claim Nos.1 and 8 is hereby confirmed – Award passed by the Arbitrator awarding the amount/compensation at Rs.45,000/ per km per month from February, 2008 to 31.05.2010 i.e. till the end of the contract is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal partly allowed.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. M/S. SHIV SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Arbitration

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Section 19 – High Court’s power of revision – Revision Application to the High Court shall be maintainable only against the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal – Rejecting the reference petition as not maintainable.

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. K.P. DWIVEDI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Arbitration

A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 33, 34 and 37 – Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected -Order passed by the learned arbitrator in the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the 1996 Act – Therefore, both, the City Civil Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in dismissing the arbitration suit/appeal under Sections 34 and 37

Nov 22, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GYAN PRAKASH ARYA — Appellant Vs. M/S TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – General Conditions of Contract – Clause 16(2) – Pendente lite and future interest – – held that in view of specific bar contained in clause 16(2) of the GCC, the contractor shall not be entitled to any interest pendente lite or future interest on the amounts due and payable to it under the contract.

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. MANRAJ ENTERPRISES — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 6592…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 18, 19, 24, 25, 29A, 34 and 37 – Appointment of arbitrator for adjudication of disputes – A pragmatic and common-sense approach would invariably check any discord between the desire for expeditious disposal and adequacy of opportunity to establish one’s case – In the context of the present case, This Court agree with the High Court that there was unnecessary haste and hurry by the arbitrator, especially when the respondent had filed the affidavit by way of evidence

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. NARINDER SINGH AND SONS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER – II, NORTHERN RAILWAY, FEROZEPUR DIVISION, FEROZEPUR — Respondent…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitration Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court – Jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMESH KUMAR AND COMPANY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Setting aside of arbitral award – 2015 amendment to Section 34 will apply only to Section 34 applications that have been made to the Court on or after 23.10.2015, irrespective of the fact that the arbitration proceedings may have commenced prior to that date

Nov 13, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATNAM SUDESH IYER — Appellant Vs. JACKIE KAKUBHAI SHROFF — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – The Arbitrator has committed a jurisdictional error by travelling beyond the terms of reference. Further, the Arbitrator has committed an error in permitting the Appellants to retain the jewellery. According to item No.(iv) of the terms of reference, the Arbitrator had to decide the entitlement of all the seven parties to equal shares in the event of finding that the jewellery is not stridhana property. Therefore, we approve the conclusion of the High Court by upholding the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed.

Nov 13, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUSAPATI ASHOK GAJAPATHI RAJU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PUSAPATI MADHURI GAJAPATHI RAJU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 34(2A) and 37 – Setting aside of arbitral award – – HELD to state that the grounds available for setting aside an award under sub-section (2A) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act could not have been invoked by the Court on its own, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. Notably, the expression used in the sub-rule is “the Court finds that”. Therefore, it does not stand to reason that a provision that enables a Court acting on its own in deciding a petition under Section 34 for setting aside an Award, would not be available in an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.

Nov 9, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SAL UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli,…

Arbitration

Language used in Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006 and the object and purpose of providing deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit while preferring the application/appeal for setting aside the award, it has to be held that the requirement of deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit is mandatory.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. M/S ASKA EQUIPMENTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw