Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Top Tags

Latest Post

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) 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) 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 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) Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders etc. Act, 1986 — Section 3(2) — Preventive Detention — Grounds for Detention — Requirement of finding ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ — Detenu, a ‘drug offender’, was detained based on three criminal cases involving Ganja, with an apprehension that if released on bail, she would engage in similar activities — Held, mere apprehension that the detenu, if released on bail, would be likely to indulge in similar crimes would not be a sufficient ground for ordering preventive detention — Order of detention failed to indicate how the detenu’s activities were prejudicial to ‘public order’ as opposed to ‘law and order’ and was therefore unsustainable. (Paras 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
Corporate

Deferred Spectrum charges – Dismissal of Appeal for Refund – Centre’s Appeal against TDSAT order to refund of Rs 104 Crores to Reliance Communications – Order of the TDSAT does not call for any interference – The Union nowhere disputes that the respondent licensees’ liability toward payment of deferred spectrum charges, in May, 2018, was to the tune of Rs. 774.25 crores – The total amount realized upon encashment of the bank guarantees furnished by the respondents, however, was to the extent of Rs. 908.91 crores

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. F. Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

Rent

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) and 10(2)(iii) – Eviction – Subletting – There is no genuine partnership between respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 – Respondent no.1 has come out with a case of partnership only to get out from the allegation of subletting – The exclusive possession of the suit premises is with respondent no.2. Respondent

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A.MAHALAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 300-Exception 4, 302, 304, 304-Part-I, 304-Part-II – Death due to injury in quarrel – Alteration of sentence – It is true that the deceased died because of the injuries caused by the accused – However, as observed above, the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment and after some altercation the accused took the lathi which was lying there and caused the injury on the head of the deceased – The offence committed does not amount to murder.

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANANTA KAMILYA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M. R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Murder

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 302, 304, 304-Part II and 307 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32(1) – Murder – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – Act of pouring kerosene over a person and then putting him on fire by lighting a match stick has all the ingredients of doing an act with the intention of causing death of a person in a gruesome manner

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Army Act, 1950 – Sections 16, 16(2), 69 and 64(c) – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Sections 16 – Army Rules, 1954 – Rule 180 – Dismissal from service -Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to direct re-trial on any other ground except that mentioned in Section 16(2) – Non-compliance of Rule 180 cannot be a ground for ordering a re-trial – In addition, the Tribunal has competence only to order re-trial by the Court Martial – There is no power conferred on the Tribunal to direct the matter to be remanded to a stage prior to the Court Martial proceedings

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. EX. NO. 3192684 W. SEP. VIRENDRA KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 148, 120-B, 302 read with Section 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439(2) – Murder – Tampering with evidence – Bail Cancelled – Appeal against -Order of the Sessions Court by which the bail was granted to the Appellants cannot be termed as perverse as the Sessions Court was conscious of the fact that the investigation was completed and there was no likelihood of the Appellant tampering with the evidence

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MYAKALA DHARMARAJAM AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39 – Temporary injunction – Jurisdiction – Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere – Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest

Jan 6, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KS INFRASPACE LLP LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Punjab Civil Services Rules – Rules 4.22 and 4.23 – Grant of pension by adding interruption of service – It is clear that the case of the appellant was not covered by Rule 4.23 and further the request for granting relaxation by the Government from Rule 4.23 was not acceded to – When the State has refused to grant relaxation in the rule, the refusal by the respondent for adding the period of interruption for pensionary benefit cannot be faulted

Jan 6, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURINDER NATH KESAR — Appellant Vs. BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

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