Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

718 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–400.

M/S SHREE RAM MILLS LTD.versusM/S UTILITY PREMISES (P) LTD .

2007 INSC 32621 March 2007Dismissed

Shree Ram Mills Ltd. and Utility Premises (P) Ltd. entered into two development agreements for a parcel of land, the first for 1.20 lakh sq.ft. of FSI and the second for a reduced area. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 19‑Jan‑2005 was later executed to settle all disputes, with the respondent receiving a parti

RAVI PRAKASH GOELversusCHANDRA PRAKASH GOEL AND ANR.

2007 INSC 32721 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, son and legal heir of a deceased partner in a partnership firm, sought appointment of an arbitrator under the arbitration clause of the partnership deed after the firm failed to render accounts. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitration agreement did not bind the he

PREMIER FABRICATORS, ALLAHABADversusHEAVY ENGINEERING CORPN. LTD., RANCHI

1997 INSC 30421 March 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Premier Fabricators entered into a contract with Heavy Engineering Corp. that contained an arbitration clause. Disputes over items 2‑5 of the claim were referred to two arbitrators, who agreed the items were arbitrable but could not agree on the merits, so they appointed an umpire. The umpire issued a non‑speaking awar

RAHUL VERMA & ORS.versusRAMPAT LAL VERMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 29621 February 2025Dismissed

The dispute involved a partnership firm where two of the three partners had died, and the legal heirs of one deceased partner sought to enforce an arbitration clause in the partnership deed to resolve a claim for rendition of accounts. The respondents argued that the heirs, being non‑signatories to the deed and without

MIS DAKSHIN SHELTERS PVT. LTD.versusGEETA S. JOHARI

2012 INSC 9621 February 2012Dismissed

Dakshin Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Geeta S. Johari entered into a Development Agreement containing an arbitration clause. On December 10, 2010 the respondent invoked the clause, nominated a former High Court judge as its arbitrator and asked the petitioner to nominate its own arbitrator. The petitioner replied on January 1

M/S. AMBICA CONSTRUCTIONversusUNION OF INDIA

2006 INSC 86820 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Ambica Construction entered into a works contract with the Union of India (Railways) which incorporated Clause 43(2) requiring a No‑Claim Certificate after the works were finally measured. The contractor could not complete the work on time, faced deductions and was denied payment and refund of its security deposit unle

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOL MIDDLE EAST LIMITEDversusBAKER HUGHES SINGAPORE PTE

2022 INSC 112320 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East Ltd entered into three oil‑field service agreements with Baker Hughes Singapore Pte. The respondent terminated the agreements and, when the petitioner invoked the arbitration clauses, raised a contention that the contracts were unstamped under the Maharashtra Stamp Act. The respondent p

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.versusM/S. AGARWAL STEEL

2009 INSC 118820 October 2009Disposed off

Grasim Industries Ltd. and another entered into a dealer and consignment agreement with Mis. Agarwal Steel. A dispute over a joint statement of account (Ex.D‑8) was referred to arbitration. The respondent claimed that his signature on Ex.D‑8 was merely a receipt and therefore made under mistake, leading the arbitrator

AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS.versusJYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.

2024 INSC 71020 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The AMP Group and the JRS Group entered into a Family Arrangement Agreement (FAA) containing an arbitration clause, and later sought to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition raised two questions: the scope of the referral court’s jurisdiction after the

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITEDversusTUFF DRILLING PRIVATE LIMITED

2017 INSC 96720 September 2017Dismissed

The dispute arose when an arbitrator, appointed with the parties' consent, terminated the arbitration under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because the claimant failed to file a statement of claim within the time prescribed under Section 23(1). The claimant later filed an application seeking

M/S EMKAY GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusGIRDHAR SONDHI

2018 INSC 72420 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose between M/s Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd., a broker on the National Stock Exchange (NSE), and its client Giradhar Sondhi over securities transactions. An arbitration under NSE bye‑laws was held in Delhi, resulting in an award rejecting Sondhi’s claim. Sondhi filed a Section 34 application in th

THE OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL M.V. "BALTIC CONFIDENCE" AND ANR.versusSTATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

2001 INSC 38020 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The owners of the vessel M.V. Baltic Confidence and the charterer (respondent No.2) issued five bills of lading that incorporated the terms of their time‑charter party, including an arbitration clause. The holder of the bills of lading (respondent No.1) sued them in admiralty court for negligence and breach of carriage

ADOR SAMIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPEEKA Y HOLDING LIMITED AND ORS.

1999 INSC 34820 August 1999Disposed off

The petitioner, Ador Samia Private Ltd., filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court that appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The central issue was whether such an appointme

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusNCC LIMITED

2022 INSC 73520 July 2022Disposed off

The dispute arose from a contract between Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and NCC Limited (NCCL) for civil and structural works at Paradip Refinery, where NCCL submitted a final bill including "Notified Claims" and sought an extension of time. IOCL released a payment of Rs.4,53,04,021/- and returned NCCL's bank g

RELIANCE CELLULOSE PRODUCTS LTD.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.

2018 INSC 62320 July 2018Disposed off

Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. and ONGC entered into a contract for supply of CMC. A dispute arose over the price, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator fixed a higher price and awarded pre‑reference, pendente‑lite and future interest at 18% per annum. The Civil Judge reduced the interest to 10% and the G

M/S. SMS TEA ESTATES PVT. LTD.versusM/S. CHANDMARI TEA CO. PVT. LTD.

2011 INSC 50820 July 2011

The appellant, SMS Tea Estates, entered into a 30‑year lease deed with the respondent, Chandmari Tea Co., which contained Clause 35 mandating arbitration of disputes. The lease deed was not registered, though registration was compulsory, and it was also not duly stamped. The appellant sought appointment of an arbitrato

HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITEDversusM/S. NICCO CORPORATION LTD.

2009 INSC 83620 May 2009Disposed off

Hindustan Copper Ltd challenged an arbitration award dated 28 September 2006 by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that it should have been filed before the appropriate court d

M/S. I.T.L. LTD.versusM/S. SIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK LTD.

2002 INSC 28220 May 2002Dismissed

MIS. I.T. Ltd. appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the 10th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, which dismissed its appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The central question was whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

PASL WIND SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusGE POWER CONVERSION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

2021 INSC 26420 April 2021Disposed off

PASL Wind Solutions and GE Power Conversion India, both Indian companies, entered a settlement agreement that provided for arbitration under ICC rules with the seat in Zurich and the substantive law of India. A dispute over warranty claims was arbitrated, the arbitrator held the seat to be Zurich (with hearings in Mumb

KINNARI MULLICK AND ANOTHERversusGHANSHYAM DAS DAMANI

2017 INSC 128120 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, joint owners of a property, entered into development agreements with the respondent which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and an arbitrator awarded in favour of the respondent, but the award was unreasoned. The appellants challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conc

ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. & ANR.versusM/S. PAMPA HOTELS LTD.

2010 INSC 22720 April 2010Disposed off

The dispute arose between Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (APTDC) and Pampa Hotels Ltd over lease and management agreements executed on 30‑March‑2002, which contained arbitration clauses. Pampa Hotels Ltd was incorporated only on 9‑April‑2003, so it did not exist when the contracts were signed. APTDC

CITATION INFOWARES LIMITEDversusEQUINOX CORPORATION

2009 INSC 56420 April 2009Case Allowed

Citation Infowares Ltd., an Indian company, entered into outsourcing agreements with US‑based Equinox Corp., the last of which (dated 25‑Jan‑2007) stipulated that the contract would be governed by California law and that any dispute would be referred to a mutually agreed arbitrator. After Equinox terminated the agreeme

M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITEDversusSNEHASIS NANDA

2025 INSC 37120 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Snehasis Nanda, bought a flat and entered into a sale agreement with a borrower, while Citicorp Finance (the appellant) granted a home loan to the borrower and transferred part of the loan amount to the bank to foreclose the borrower's existing loan. Nanda claimed that under a purported Tripartite Agree

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusSLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.

2019 INSC 24120 February 2019Dismissed

LMJ International Ltd. and Sleepwell Industries Ltd. entered into two separate contracts for the sale of Thai rice, governed by GAFTA 48 with disputes to be arbitrated under GAFTA 125 in London. Two foreign arbitral awards were rendered in favour of the respondent, who then filed execution petitions under Section 48 of

M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusT. THANKAM

2015 INSC 14120 February 2015Disposed off

Sundaram Finance Ltd. filed a suit for injunction to restrain the repossession of a vehicle financed to T. Thankam. The loan agreement contained an arbitration clause (clause 22) and a repossession clause (clause 14.6). The respondent filed the injunction suit in a civil court; the appellant moved an application under

M/S. BHANDARI UDYOG LIMITEDversusINDUSTRIAL FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANR.

2015 INSC 14020 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Bhandari Udyog Ltd., a cotton ginning business in Raichur, Karnataka, sold 750 bales of cotton to Respondent No.2, a spinning mill in Latur, Maharashtra. A dispute over the unpaid balance was referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and an award was made directing payment. Responde

NARYAN PRASAD LOHIAversusNIKUNJ KUMAR LOHIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 9020 February 2002Disposed off

The parties agreed to resolve their family business disputes by arbitration with two arbitrators and an award was rendered. The respondents later applied to the Calcutta High Court to set aside the award, arguing that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 forbids an even number of arbitrators, making the tribunal

HARYANA SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE (HARSAC) & ANR.versusM/S PAN INDIA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 3320 January 2021Disposed off

The Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC), a nodal agency of the Haryana government, awarded a GIS modernisation contract to Pan India Consultants and incorporated an arbitration clause in the service level agreement. HARSAC appointed the Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana as its nominee arbitrator, w

VENKATESH CONSTRUCTION COMPNAYversusKARNATAKA VIDYUTH KARKHANE LIMITED (KAVIKA)

2016 INSC 7020 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Venkatesh Construction Company sued Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd for Rs.30 lakh for extra work, stoppage of work, and loss of stocked material. The trial court awarded Rs.3,23,000 with 12% interest, finding that extra work was required and the respondent had directed a stoppage. The High Court reversed the decree, re

BALLI PETROCHEMICALS LIMITEDversusNATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.

2009 INSC 4820 January 2009Dismissed

Balli Petrochemicals Ltd, a London‑incorporated company, entered into a global tender with NALCO, a Government of India undertaking, and disputes arose over the tender and a purchase order. Clause 16 of the tender required the appointment of a sole arbitrator, initially a former Chief Justice of India, who later resign

M/S UNIBROSversusALL INDIA RADIO

2023 INSC 93119 October 2023Dismissed

M/s Unibros was awarded a construction contract by All India Radio, but the project was delayed by about 42.5 months due to the employer's failure to provide site and drawings. The arbitrator awarded the contractor Rs. 1.44 crore as loss of profit based on Hudson's formula, despite the contractor providing no credible

RUCHIR RASTOGIversusPANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC.

2023 INSC 94119 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ruchir Rastogi, filed an FIR alleging that his brother Pankaj Rastogi, a co‑partner in a family HUF, illegally removed gold, silver, diamonds and other assets from a jointly‑run shop in violation of an interim injunction ordered under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The High Court had quashed the F

JAYCEE HOUSING PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusREGISTRAR (GENERAL), ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK & ORS

2022 INSC 111919 October 2022Dismissed

Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. and others appealed against a notification by the Odisha Government that designated the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court to hear arbitration applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellants argued that Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration A

SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATIONversusPOWER MECH PROJECTS LTD.

2022 INSC 98119 September 2022Dismissed

The appellant SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corp. obtained an arbitral award of Rs 142 crore in favour of the respondent Power Mech Projects Ltd. The appellant filed a Section 34 challenge and, on the same day, a Section 36(2) application for a stay of the award. The respondent subsequently filed a Section 9 applic

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusTARSEM SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 99619 September 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, which excludes the Land Acquisition Act's provisions on solatium and interest, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that solatium is an integral part of compensation for compulsory acquisition and that the 1997 amendmen

M/S TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (PVT.) LTD.versusM/S BEACON SHIPPING LINES LTD. REPRESENTED BY MR. MOHAMMED S. ASLAM MANAGING DIRECTOR & OTHERS

2018 INSC 83119 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, an Indian shipping company, entered into an agency agreement with a Bangladeshi shipping firm. The petitioner alleged breach of the agreement and claimed a sum of USD 134,875.88. The agreement contained a clause stating that any dispute not settled amicably shall be resolved by arbitration governed by I

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusSANDEEP GURAV

2025 INSC 102119 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Geojit Financial Services Ltd. filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the three‑month limitation period began on the date the award was received because the appellant's earlier applicati

AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS.versusHSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED

2020 INSC 49819 August 2020Disposed off

Avitel Post Studioz Ltd and its promoters invested USD 60 million in HSBC based on alleged representations that Avitel would secure a lucrative BBC contract, which later proved to be fictitious. HSBC obtained interim awards and a foreign final award from a Singapore tribunal finding the appellants liable for fraudulent

COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERSversusM/S. MOHANLAL AND COMPANY

2016 INSC 118719 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into a construction contract containing an arbitration clause, and an award was rendered on 11 November 2010. The respondent later filed a Section 11 application in the High Court seeking appointment of an arbitrator, claiming the clause was invalid; the application was dismissed. Subsequently, on 2

JINOFER KAWASJI BHUJWALAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2020 INSC 44119 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a director of Aatash Norcontrol Limited (ANL), was arrested in connection with alleged financial irregularities in a Build‑Own‑Operate‑Transfer project for a Vessel Traffic and Port Management System (VTPMS) in the Gulf of Khambhat. While the dispute over capital costs was referred to arbitration, the Gu

M/S GLOCK ASIA-PACIFIC LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 56819 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Ministry of Home Affairs floated a tender for the supply of Glock pistols, which was awarded to Glock Asia‑Pacific Ltd. The tender’s conditions stipulated that any dispute be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, specifically an officer of the Ministry of Law. The

M/S TIRUPATI STEELSversusM/S SHUBH INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT & ANR.

2022 INSC 43919 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a micro‑enterprise, obtained an arbitral award of Rs.2.72 crore against the respondent. The respondent filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award. The appellant invoked Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006,

EVERGREEN LAND MARK PVT. LTDversusJOHN TINSON & COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ANR

2022 INSC 44519 April 2022Case Partly allowed

Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) leased premises from John Tinson & Co. and ran a restaurant/bar. The lease was terminated and a dispute over rental payments for March 2020‑December 2021 arose, leading the parties to arbitration. The owners filed applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act seeking ful

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. VARINDERA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. ETC.

2018 INSC 37519 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India contracted with M/s Varindera Constructions for residential construction, incorporating Clause 19 (no escalation reimbursement) and Clause 6.3 (no claim for excess wages) in the agreement. During performance, the Haryana government raised the minimum wages, and the contractor sought reimbursement for

INDUS MOBILE DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDATAWIND INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2017 INSC 36919 April 2017Disposed off

Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. appealed against a Delhi High Court order that had entertained interim relief applications, holding that the court had jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise in Mumbai. The parties' agreement designated Mumbai as the seat of arbitration and contained a clause stating

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEERversusM/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 19419 March 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when those appeals are governed by Articles 116, 117 of the Limitation Act or by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It overruled th

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.versusUJJAL KUMAR BURDHAN

2012 INSC 13919 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa directed its Vigilance Cell to investigate alleged irregularities in the procurement and milling of paddy by the respondent, a proprietary rice mill owner. The respondent filed multiple writ petitions; the High Court initially ordered the inquiry to be completed within twelve weeks, later stayed and

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THANESARversusVIRENDER KUMAR ETC.

2019 INSC 22719 February 2019Case Partly allowed

The Municipal Council Thanesar auctioned shop premises to the respondents, but disputes arose over completion and possession. An arbitrator awarded the council to complete the work and to pay interest on advance rent and non‑refundable security at 7% per annum, without specifying the mode of calculation. The executing

ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY & SEW. BOARDversusSUBASH PROJECTS & MARKETING LTD.

2012 INSC 4219 January 2012Dismissed

The Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewage Board and Subash Projects & Marketing Ltd entered into two water‑supply contracts that gave rise to disputes resolved by a sole arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator issued awards on 22 August 2003, which the appellants received on 26

MAHESH RATILAL SHAHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 4919 January 2010Dismissed

Mahesh Ratilal Shah filed a writ petition alleging that the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) had listed the shares of Presto Finance Ltd. despite fraudulent dealings, and that the BSE’s Rules and Bye‑laws, never published in the Gazette, were ultra vires the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. The petition sought d

SURESH SHAHversusHIPAD TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

2020 INSC 71118 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Suresh Shah, the landlord, sub‑leased a property to Hipad Technology India Private Limited. A dispute arose under the sub‑lease dated 14‑11‑2018, and the lease contained an arbitration clause. Shah issued a notice invoking the clause, nominated retired Justice Mukul Mudgal as sole arbitrator, and filed an arbitration p

M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.versusM/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD.

2019 INSC 139518 December 2019Disposed off

M/s Dyna Technologies entered into a contract with M/s Crompton Greaves for construction work on an aquaculture project, which was terminated prematurely, leading Dyna to claim compensation for loss of profit, idle charges and unproductive use of machinery. The arbitral tribunal awarded Rs 27,78,125 for the unproductiv

ANIL S/O JAGANNATH RANA AND OTHERSversusRAJENDRA S/O RADHAKISHAN RANA AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 89318 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The parties were partners in a firm and a civil suit was filed concerning partnership property. The partnership deed contained an arbitration clause, but the civil court, after hearing the parties, held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and declined to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Ar

M.M.T.C. LIMITEDversusSTERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.

1996 INSC 131818 November 1996Disposed off

M.M.T.C. Ltd. appealed against a High Court order directing it to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose after the 1996 Act came into force, so the Court examined whether the arbitration clause in a 1993 agreement, which provided for each party to nominate one arbitrat

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S. BOGHARA POLYFAB PVT. LTD.

2008 INSC 105718 September 2008Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether an insurance dispute could be referred to arbitration after the insured had executed an undated full‑and‑final discharge voucher. The insured claimed the voucher was signed under coercion and that the insurer had conditioned payment on its execution. The Court held that the existence

BRIJ RAJ OBEROIversusTHE SECRETARY, TOURISM AND CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT & ANR.

2022 INSC 84518 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Brij Raj Oberoi leased the Norkhill Hotel from the State of Sikkim for 24 years under a deed that contained a renewal clause (clause 4(xiii)) requiring the lessee to give notice and, if the parties could not agree on the rent or period, to refer the dispute to arbitration. Oberoi offered renewal on 12 November 2020, bu

BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV)versusEASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

2025 INSC 87418 July 2025Dismissed

The appellant and Eastern Coalfields Limited entered into a contract for transportation of goods that contained Clause 13, which the appellant claimed was an arbitration agreement. The appellant filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator,

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusKRISH SPINNING

2024 INSC 53218 July 2024Disposed off

SBI General Insurance issued a fire insurance policy to Krish Spinning, which settled the first fire claim by a discharge voucher and payment of Rs 84,19,579. Krish Spinning later disputed the quantum of the settlement, alleging coercion, and invoked the arbitration clause in the policy by filing a Section 11(6) applic

M/S B AND T AGversusMINISTRY OF DEFENCE

2023 INSC 54918 May 2023Rejected

The parties entered into a 2012 contract for the supply of sub‑machine guns, after which the Ministry of Defence encashed a bank guarantee and deducted liquidated damages in September 2016. The petitioner claimed the dispute should be resolved by arbitration and, after a series of bilateral discussions, issued a notice

BBR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITEDversusS.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 59118 May 2022Dismissed

BBR (India) Private Limited and S.P. Singla Constructions entered into a contract containing an arbitration clause that did not specify a seat. The first arbitrator fixed the place of proceedings at Panchkula, Haryana, which the Court treated as the jurisdictional seat under Section 20(2) of the Arbitration and Concili

DELTA MECHCONS (INDIA) LTD.versusM/S MARUBENI CORPORATION

2007 INSC 65718 May 2007Hearing Adjourned

The petitioner, Delta Mechcons, entered into four sub‑contracts for a power‑plant project with the respondent, Marubeni. The contracts contained an arbitration clause stipulating that each party would appoint one arbitrator and the two would jointly select a third arbitrator as chairman, who must not share the national

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.versusM/S. KMC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

2018 INSC 36018 April 2018Disposed off

The State of Chhattisgarh appealed against an order of the High Court that had directed the parties to approach the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolution of a dispute with M/S KMC Construction Limited. The Supreme Court examined whether the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (MP Act) c

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusTANTIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

2011 INSC 30818 April 2011Dismissed

The East Central Railways awarded a risk‑and‑cost tender to Tantia Construction for a rail over‑bridge. Subsequent design changes required an extended viaduct, increasing the work and cost. The contractor refused to undertake the additional work, which was not covered by the original agreement, and the Railways attempt

DISORTHO S.A.S.versusMERIL LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 35218 March 2025Case Allowed

Disortho S.A.S., a Colombian company, and Meril Life Sciences, an Indian company, entered an International Exclusive Distributor Agreement for medical products in Colombia. Clause 16.5 of the agreement states that Indian law governs the contract and Gujarat courts have jurisdiction, while Clause 18 provides for concili

MMTC LTD.versusM/S VEDANTA LTD.

2019 INSC 21818 February 2019Dismissed

MMTC Ltd., a consignment agent for Vedanta Ltd., supplied copper rods to Hindustan Transmission Products Ltd. (HTPL) under an amended agreement and failed to collect and remit payment, prompting Vedanta to invoke the arbitration clause of their 1993 agreement. The arbitral tribunal awarded Vedanta a sum of money, which

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S PAM DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.

2014 INSC 10618 February 2014Dismissed

The Union of India entered into a contract with PAM Development for constructing an industrial loco shed, which was later terminated for delay and inferior work. The contractor invoked an arbitration clause, and the Calcutta High Court appointed a former judge as sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration a

P.K. SINGHversusM/S. S.N. KANUNGO AND OTHERS

2010 INSC 11018 February 2010Disposed off

The case arose from an arbitration award directing the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to pay a contractor a sum with interest. The Executive Engineer (appellant) wrote letters to the contractor seeking to adjust the award by having the contractor accept only the principal amount and waive interest, invoking Order X

N. SRINIVASAversusM/S KUTTUKARAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD.

2009 INSC 21618 February 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellant, N. Srinivasa, entered into an agreement to purchase a plot of land from M/s Kuttukaran Machine Tools Ltd. After paying a large advance, the respondent failed to execute the sale deed, sought a higher price, and attempted to sell the property to a third party. The appellant filed an application under Sect

TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARDversusM/S. BRIDGE TUNNEL CONSTRUCTIONS AND ORS.

1997 INSC 15518 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TN EB) contracted Bridge Tunnel Constructions to build inter‑connecting tunnels for the Suruliyar Hydroelectric Project. After the contract was completed late, a dispute arose over additional payments. The respondent invoked the arbitration clause (clause 50) and appointed a sole arbit

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusM/S S.A. BUILDERS LTD.

2024 INSC 98817 December 2024Dismissed

The North Delhi Municipal Corporation (appellant) contracted with M/s S.A. Builders Ltd. (respondent) for construction work, which was not completed and led to a dispute. An arbitrator awarded Rs. 1,70,70,720.80 with simple interest and later issued a clarification on 15 March 2005 regarding post‑award interest, after

AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PTY LTD.versusMMTC LTD.

2020 INSC 70517 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved an international commercial arbitration under a Long‑Term Agreement for the supply of coking coal between Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd (appellant) and MMTC Ltd (respondent). The arbitral tribunal held that MMTC breached the contract by failing to lift 454,034 MT of coal at the agreed pric

INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT LIMITEDversusINDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION &ANR.

2014 INSC 87717 December 2014Dismissed

International Amusement Ltd (operator of "Appu Ghar") held a licence from the India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO) to occupy land in Pragati Maidan. Clause 28 of the licence agreement provided that any dispute would be referred to arbitration by the Chairman of ITPO or his nominee. After the licence expired, ITPO

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

2006 INSC 70517 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India entered into a construction contract with Shring Construction Company. After the contract was completed, a dispute arose and the High Court appointed an arbitrator who awarded a sum to Shring. The Union challenged the award by filing a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, and subsequ

BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGEversusJAYA I. SHAH AND ANR.

2003 INSC 56317 October 2003Disposed off

The Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) held the assets of a defaulting member, C.S. Shah, in its Defaulters' Committee, which is merely an association of persons and not a juristic entity. Ms. Indu Malhotra obtained an arbitration award against Shah, which was made a rule of court and a decree, and sought attachment of the fu

M/S. SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA

2009 INSC 114817 September 2009Disposed off

The contractor, Mis. Som Datt Builders Ltd., entered into a highway works contract with the State of Kerala and later claimed additional costs for extended time and equipment usage. The Engineer failed to decide on several claims, leading the contractor to refer the dispute to arbitration, where the tribunal awarded th

KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITEDversusCHENAB BRIDGE PROJECT UNDERTAKING

2023 INSC 74217 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (the appellant) entered into a lump‑sum contract with Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking (the respondent) for constructing a high‑altitude railway bridge. Disputes arose over increased entry tax and toll tax during execution, leading to a standing arbitral tribunal which rejected the r

M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.versusRAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 84117 August 2022Disposed off

The plaintiff, RAKHEJA ENGINEERS, filed a commercial suit for recovery of money without seeking urgent interim relief. The defendant, M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION, moved to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit violated Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre‑in

SHRI VIMAL KISHOR SHAH & ORS.versusMR. JAYESH DINESH SHAH & ORS.

2016 INSC 60817 August 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents are beneficiaries of a family trust created by a deed that contains clause 20, which purports to refer any disputes among beneficiaries to arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1996. The respondents filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.versusT. NATARAJAN

2018 INSC 61417 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) terminated the dealership of T. Natarajan for alleged breaches, leading to arbitration which upheld the termination but gave the dealer liberty to seek reconsideration. The dealer filed a representation for restoration, which IOC rejected; the dealer then filed a writ petition. The Sing

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusINDIAN COUNCIL OF ARBITRATION AND ORS. ETC.ETC.

2003 INSC 31817 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) entered into contracts with rice millers that contained a standard arbitration clause referring disputes to the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA). The ICA refused to proceed with arbitration unless the parties executed a fresh arbitration agreement, prompting FCI to approach the De

M/S. ARVIND CONSTRUCTIONS CO. PVT. LID.versusM/S KALINGA MINING CORPORATION AND ORS.

2007 INSC 61417 May 2007Dismissed

The appellant, Mis Arvind Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd., entered into a 1991 agency agreement and irrevocable power of attorney with Mis Kalinga Mining Corporation, a partnership firm originally registered in 1949 and later re‑registered in 2005 under the same name. After the agreement expired in 2006, disputes arose and

POWER MACHINES INDIA LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2017 INSC 35517 April 2017Dismissed

Power Machines India Ltd obtained an arbitral award under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 directing it to pay a sum to Lakshmi Engineering Industries. The State of Madhya Pradesh, invoking Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh MSME Facilitation Council Rules, 2006, sought recovery of the award amou

M/S. SOMA ISOLUX NH ONE TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITEDversusHARISH KUMAR PURI & ORS.

2014 INSC 29217 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s. Soma Isolux NH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd., entered into a BOT concession agreement with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to construct, operate and maintain a six‑laning of NH‑1. The High Court, while entertaining a public‑interest writ, cancelled the concession agreement, imposed heavy fin

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.versusROSE ADVERTISING

2003 INSC 23917 April 2003Dismissed

The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) entered into a 1993 agreement with Rose Advertising containing an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and the contractor sought appointment of an arbitrator in early 1996; the arbitrator was appointed on 4 July 1996, after the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had come into fo

INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusM/S NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION

2023 INSC 24817 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

IRCON entered into a construction contract with NBCC for a railway station‑cum‑commercial complex. NBCC failed to complete the work and the work was abandoned, prompting IRCON to terminate the contract under clause 60.1. NBCC invoked the arbitration clause; the Arbitral Tribunal held the termination under clause 60.1 i

BLACK PEARL HOTELS (PVT) LTD.versusM/S PLANET M RETAIL LTD.

2017 INSC 126617 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Black Pearl Hotels (Pvt) Ltd. entered into a "conducting agreement" with M/s Planet M Retail Ltd. and later sought arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court Judge, invoking s.33(2)(b) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, referred the matter to the Registrar to determine whether the instr

DEEPAK KUMAR BANSALversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2009 INSC 19917 February 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a contractor, entered into a 1996 construction contract with the Union of India that contained an arbitration clause (Clause 64). After receiving the original work order of Rs.32.17 lakh, several supplementary work orders raised the total contract value to Rs.42.60 lakh. The appellant sought appointment

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTDversusMAHESHBHAI TINABHAI RATHOD & ORS.

2021 INSC 90016 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd obtained an arbitral award on 28‑Feb‑2011 in its favour, which was dispatched by registered post on 15‑Mar‑2011 but was refused by the respondent, who finally received it on 23‑Mar‑2011. The appellant filed an execution petition on 27‑Jun‑2011; the respondent filed a petition

M/S. GOVIND RUBBER LTD.versusM/S. LOUIDS DREYFUS COMMODITIES ASIA PVT. LTD.

2014 INSC 104216 December 2014Dismissed

The appeal concerned a dispute between Govind Rubber Ltd. (appellant) and Louids Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pvt. Ltd. (respondent) over two sales contracts for natural rubber that contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to the Singapore Commodity Exchange. The appellant argued that no valid arbitration agreeme

M/S. SHAKTI TUBES LTD. TR. DIRECTORversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 144916 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Shakti Tubes Ltd., a contractor for the State of Bihar, entered into a contract for supplying black pipes that contained an escalation clause. Disputing the escalated price, the contractor filed a writ petition in 1994, which was partially admitted in 1995. After serving a notice under CPC s.80, it filed a money suit i

ALVA ALUMINIUM LTD. BANGKOKversusGABRIEL INDIA LIMITED

2010 INSC 78416 November 2010Case Allowed

The petitioner, a Thai joint venture, entered into a contract with the respondent, an Indian company, for the sale of aluminium ingots, which contained an arbitration clause. The respondent contested the petition for appointment of an arbitrator, arguing that the contract was not signed by an authorized person and that

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusM/S. V.S. ENGINEERING (P) LTD.

2006 INSC 85316 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India awarded a contract to M/s V.S. Engineering for supplying crushed stone ballast, but a dispute arose over penalties and performance. The contract’s General Conditions required the General Manager of Railways to appoint an arbitral tribunal, which was done, yet the contractor later filed an application

RITE APPROACH GROUP LTD.versusM/S. ROSOBORONEXPORT

2005 INSC 56816 November 2005Rejected

Rite Approach Group Ltd, a Singapore company acting as an agent for Russian Technologies (later merged into Rosoboronexport), helped procure a contract for six helicopters for India's Border Security Force and was entitled to a 16% commission. Rosoboronexport refused to pay the commission, prompting the petitioner to f

A.P. POWER COORDINATION COMMITTEE & ORS.versusMIS. LANCO KONDAPALLI POWER LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 103316 October 2015Dismissed

The dispute involved the A.P. Power Coordination Committee and related entities (appellants) and M/s. LanCo Kondapalli Power Ltd. (respondent) over capacity‑charge bills and a claim for reimbursement of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under their Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The key questions were whether the Limitation

SHAILESH DHAIRYAWANversusMOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA

2015 INSC 79616 October 2015Dismissed

The appeal arose from a dispute where the parties, after settling most issues in a suit, referred two remaining differences to arbitration before a retired Supreme Court judge. The arbitrator resigned, and the respondent sought a substitute arbitrator. The High Court appointed a retired judge as a substitute under Sect

M. ANASUYDEVI AND ANR.versusM. MANIK REDDY AND ORS.

2003 INSC 55416 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The parties, members of a joint Hindu family, referred a dispute over partition of family property to an arbitral tribunal, which delivered an award on 31 May 1998 (corrected on 10 June 1998). The respondents filed petitions under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside the awar

BALASORE ALLOYS LIMITEDversusMEDIMA LLC

2020 INSC 55016 September 2020Dismissed

Balasore Alloys Ltd filed an arbitration petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator based on Clause 7 of 37 purchase orders. Medima LLC contended that the parties were bound by an earlier ‘Umbrella’ (Pricing) Agreement dated 31‑03‑2018, which contain

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusU.P. STATE BRIDGE CORP. LTD.

2014 INSC 100616 September 2014Dismissed

The Union of India entered into a construction contract with U.P. State Bridge Corp. Ltd. that contained an arbitration clause under the General Conditions of Contract 2001, Clause 64. An arbitral tribunal of Railway officers was constituted in 2007 but failed to complete the proceedings for four years due to transfers

TERAPALLI DYVASAHATA KUMARversusS.M. KANTHA RAJU (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2017 INSC 74816 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar, filed a petition under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, seeking declarations and injunctions concerning the management of a society. The District Court allowed the petition, holding that "District Court concerned" should be interpreted using t

UNION OF INDIAversusSARASWAT TRADING AGENCY & ORS.

2009 INSC 91516 July 2009Case Partly allowed

The Union of India awarded a contract to Saraswat Trading Agency for handling goods at railway stations. The contract required the contractor to pay labourers at least the "fair wage" as notified at the time of tender, but statutory wage revisions later increased those rates. The contractor claimed enhanced payments fo

DANI WOOLTEX CORPORATION & ORS.versusSHEIL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2024 INSC 43316 May 2024Dismissed

The dispute involved Dani Wooltex Corporation (appellant) and Sheil Properties (respondent) arising from parallel arbitrations concerning a development agreement and a memorandum of understanding. While the arbitration concerning Marico Industries concluded with an award in 2017, the arbitration concerning Sheil's clai

M/S. BAKEMANS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusM/S. NEW CAWNPORE FLOUR MILLS AND OTHERS

2008 INSC 72716 May 2008

Bakemans Industries Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) defaulted on a loan from SICOM Ltd. under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. SICOM invoked Section 29 of that Act to take possession of the appellant's factory and sought sale of the assets, while the appellant and other creditors filed winding‑up applications befo

ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusM/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS

2025 INSC 50716 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondent No.1 formed an LLP governed by an agreement containing an arbitration clause (Clause 40). Disputes arose over the ITF project, and the appellant issued a Section 21 notice of arbitration only to respondent No.1 and filed a Section 11 application appointing an arbitrator, also only naming re

IBI CONSULTANCY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDSC LIMITED

2018 INSC 34916 April 2018Disposed off

The petitioners, IBI Consultancy India Private Limited and its parent IBI Group, entered into six contracts with DSC Limited for toll and traffic management systems on two highway projects. The contracts contained an arbitration clause stipulating that disputes be referred to an independent arbitrator in Delhi. After t

ASHAPURA MINE-CHEM LTD.versusGUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

2015 INSC 33016 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Ashapura Mine‑Chem Ltd. and Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2007 to set up a joint venture for an alumina plant. The MoU contained arbitration clauses (Clauses 26 and 27) requiring bilateral settlement first and, failing that, referral to a sole arbitra

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. AMBLCA CONSTRUCTION

2016 INSC 26516 March 2016Reference answered

The case concerned whether an arbitrator could award pendente lite interest when the underlying contract expressly barred interest on delayed payments. The dispute arose from a construction contract between the Union of India and M/s. Ambica Construction, which had undergone multiple arbitrations and court intervention

UNION OF INDIAversusTECCO TRICHY ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS

2005 INSC 14716 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India (Southern Railway) entered into a construction contract with TECCO Trichy Engineers, which later gave rise to arbitration. The arbitral tribunal delivered a copy of its award to the General Manager's office on 12 March 2001, but the Chief Engineer, who signed the contract and represented the Railways

VODAFONE IDEA CELLULAR LTD.versusAJAY KUMAR AGARWAL

2022 INSC 18916 February 2022Disposed off

Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. filed a consumer complaint alleging over‑charging for mobile services, which the consumer, Ajay Kumar Agarwal, pursued before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The appellant argued that Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which mandates arbitration for disputes concerning te

SANSHIN CHEMICALS INDUSTRYversusORIENTALS CARBONS AND CHEMICALS LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 9316 February 2001Dismissed

Sanshin Chemicals entered into a technical collaboration agreement with Orientals Carbons that contained Clause 8.4, providing that if the parties could not agree on the place of arbitration within 30 days, a Joint Arbitration Committee (JAC) would decide the venue. The JAC determined the venue on 15 July 1998. Sanshin

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION NO.ILL, PANVEL & ANR.versusATLANTA LIMITED

2014 INSC 3216 January 2014Disposed off

The State of Maharashtra, through its Executive Engineer, challenged an arbitral award dated 12 May 2012, filing applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Thane, while Atlanta Limited filed a petition before the High Court of Bombay on the same day. The High Court ordered the trans

M/S. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD.versusM. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY AND ANOTHER

2012 INSC 2916 January 2012Dismissed

Farmers who bought foundation seeds from National Seeds Corporation (NSC) alleged crop failure due to defective seeds and sought compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. NSC contended that the Seeds Act, 1966 was a special law that exclusively governed seed quality disputes, that the growers were not "cons

SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA & ANR.versusMADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ & ORS

2023 INSC 108115 December 2023Dismissed

The appellants, heirs of the late Shivkumar Daga, filed a civil suit seeking declaration that a conveyance deed of 17‑12‑2019 and several development agreements were void. The respondents moved a Section 8 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on arbitration clauses in two earlier Tripar

JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2021 INSC 89815 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, the successor to Jharkhand State Electricity Board, entered into a contract with M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd for supply of conductors. The supplier, claiming payment, approached the Rajasthan Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. The Council i

M/S CENTROTRADE MINERALS & METAL INC.versusHINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.

2016 INSC 121415 December 2016Hearing Adjourned

Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. and Hindustan Copper Ltd. entered into a contract containing Clause 14, which provided for a two‑tier arbitration: first before the Indian Council of Arbitration and, if dissatisfied, a second "appeal" arbitration in London under ICC rules. A dispute arose; the Indian arbitrator gave a

YOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.versusSSANG YONG ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

2011 INSC 84515 December 2011Disposed off

An interlocutory application was filed by SSANG YONG Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. seeking clarification and correction of several clerical errors in the Supreme Court's judgment dated 1 September 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 7562 of 2011. The applicant contended that paragraph 35 incorrectly stated that the SIAC Rul

M/S. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. LTD.versusM/S. LANCO KONDAPALLI POWER PVT. LTD.

2005 INSC 61915 December 2005Dismissed

The appellant Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. issued a show‑cause notice to the respondent Lanco Kondapalli Power Pvt. Ltd. seeking to re‑fix the capacity charges for a power purchase agreement, prompting the respondent to invoke the arbitration clause and seek a permanent injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitr

VINAY PRAKASH SINGHversusSAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS.

2019 INSC 125115 November 2019Directions issued

The petitioner sought enforcement of a Singapore arbitral award of about Rs.3,500 crore against respondents who owned Fortis Healthcare. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered a status‑quo on 11 August 2017, clarified on 31 August 2017 and modified on 15 February 2018, prohibiting any change in the shareholding of Forti

ANANTHESH BHAKTA REPRESENTED BY MOTHER USHA A.BHAKTA & ORS.versusNAYANA S. BHAKTA & ORS.

2016 INSC 102615 November 2016Dismissed

The dispute concerned benefits under a retirement deed and a partnership deed of a beedi‑manufacturing firm, both containing arbitration clauses. The defendants filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to refer the matter to arbitration, but did not attach the origin

LEELA HOTELS LTD.versusHOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

2011 INSC 80015 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Leela Hotels Ltd. entered into a sub‑lease with HUDCO for a hotel project, which was later cancelled, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded HUDCO to pay Leela Hotels a principal sum plus interest. HUDCO deposited Rs 89.78 crores, claiming it was towards the principal, while Leela Hotels argued it should first

SUMER BUILDERS PVT. LTD.versusNARENDRA GORAN!

2015 INSC 78315 October 2015Dismissed

Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd. entered into a development agreement and MoU with Narendra Goran for a land parcel in Indore. After disputes over payment and possession, the respondent terminated the agreements and invoked the arbitration clause. The developer applied to the Bombay High Court for interim relief under Section

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR.versusMOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD.

2008 INSC 103815 September 2008Dismissed

The appellant BSNL awarded a turnkey tender to Motorola and later imposed liquidated damages under clause 16.2 of the tender for alleged delay in delivery. Motorola contested the levy, invoking the arbitration clause, while BSNL claimed the matter was an "excepted matter" under clause 20.1 and therefore not arbitrable.

M/S INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTIONversusNATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.

2025 INSC 69915 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Interstate Construction, executed work orders for a power project for the respondent, NPCC, and later disputed certain recoveries, leading to arbitration. The arbitral tribunal awarded the appellant principal sum plus interest, distinguishing pre‑reference, pendente‑lite and future interest periods.

M/S GAYATRI PROJECT LIMITEDversusMADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

2025 INSC 69815 May 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Gayatri Project Ltd., entered into a works contract with the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation and invoked arbitration under Clause 67.4 of the contract, resulting in a 2011 award in its favour. The respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,

J&K ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCYversusRASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

2026 INSC 36815 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The Jammu & Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency (JKERA) engaged Rash Builders for four road projects in J&K, but contractual disputes led the contractor to invoke arbitration. The parties, with the arbitrator’s consent, fixed Srinagar as the seat of arbitration and New Delhi as the venue, later appointing a new sole

BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.versusSBI HOME FINANCE LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 30115 April 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Booz‑Allen & Hamilton Inc., sought to refer a mortgage suit filed by SBI Home Finance Ltd. to arbitration under clause 16 of a tripartite deposit agreement. The High Court rejected the application, holding that the dispute was not covered by the arbitration clause, that the appellant had waived its right

M/S. MODERN INDUSTRIESversusM/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. TH. M.D. & ORS.

2010 INSC 20815 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute between M/s Modern Industries (supplier) and Steel Authority of India Ltd. (buyer) concerning a balance payment and interest under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (as amended 1998). The buyer alleged breach of contract

SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARDversusM/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH & SONS

2021 INSC 18615 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board entered three contracts with M/s B. Ramachandraiah & Sons that contained arbitration clauses. After final payments were made in early 2003, the contractor sought reimbursement for price variations and, in November 2006, demanded the appointment of an arbitrator, reiterating the demand

BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIAversusKOCHI CRICKET PVT. LTD. AND ETC.

2018 INSC 23815 March 2018Dismissed

The Board of Control for Cricket in India filed a Section 34 challenge to arbitral awards dated June 2015, and the award creditors sought execution. The award debtor argued that the pre‑amended Section 36 imposed an automatic stay on execution until the Section 34 petition was decided, while the High Court applied the

GIRIRAJ GARGversusCOAL INDIA LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 21115 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a coal buyer, entered into several sale orders under Coal India Ltd.'s 2007 e‑auction scheme, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 11.12). After the appellant was deemed to have breached the scheme and his earnest money deposit was forfeited, he invoked the arbitration clause, but the respondent

PERRY KANSAGRAversusSMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

2019 INSC 21515 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned a custody dispute over a child born to Perry Kansagra and Smriti Madan Kansagra. After mediation failed, the High Court had held that the mediator’s and counsellor’s reports were confidential and could not be used, and later set aside that decision on review. The Supreme Court held that the High Co

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITEDversusABDUL SAMAD & ANR.

2018 INSC 14615 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Sundaram Finance Ltd. granted a loan to Abdul Samad, who defaulted, leading to arbitration under the loan agreement. An ex parte award of Rs.12.69 lakh was made, and Sundaram sought execution of the award in the Morena court, which dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, directing the appellant to first obt

STATE OF HARYANAversusM/S. SHIV SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION CO. & ANR.

2021 INSC 88814 December 2021Case Partly allowed

The State of Haryana awarded a road‑maintenance contract to M/s. Shiv Shankar Construction Co. for Rs 5.26 crore at a rate of Rs 1,000 per km per month, assuming traffic of 3,364 PCU/day. After the closure of a nearby road, traffic on the contract road surged to 24,418 PCU/day, causing additional maintenance costs. The

VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERSversusDURGA TRADING CORPORATION

2020 INSC 69714 December 2020Reference answered

The Supreme Court of India addressed two interconnected issues: whether landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable, and the scope of judicial review under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case arose from a tenancy agreement containing an ar

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.versusMIS HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

2017 INSC 97714 December 2017Disposed off

The State of Jharkhand appealed against an award made by an arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court, contending that the Court could not entertain an application to make the award a rule of court merely because it retained seisin over the arbitration. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 31(4) of the Arbit

MEARS GROUP INC.versusFERNAS INSAAT A.S.

2016 INSC 113414 December 2016Disposed off

Mears Group Inc., a US company, entered into a contract with Fernas Insaat A.S., a Turkish firm, to perform horizontal directional drilling for a pipeline project in Bangladesh. The work order contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent, with procee

GREAVES COTTON LIMITEDversusUNITED MACHINERY AND APPLIANCES.

2016 INSC 113314 December 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Greaves Cotton Ltd entered into a contract with United Machinery & Appliances that contained an arbitration clause. United Machinery filed a civil suit for loss and damage, and Greaves sought an eight‑week extension to file its written statement while invoking the arbitration clause. The respondent objected, arguing th

MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDIT PVT.LTDversusMODI RUBBER LTD.

2006 INSC 100614 December 2006Dismissed

Morgan Securities advanced an inter‑corporate deposit to Modi Rubber, which defaulted, leading to an arbitral award in favour of Morgan and a winding‑up petition. The High Court restrained Modi Rubber from dealing with its assets, but the company made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

M/S. SSPPL AND M/S. AIL WASversusSALMA DAM JOINT VENTURE & ANR.

2019 INSC 124914 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

WAPCOS Ltd entered into a contract with Salma Dam Joint Venture (SDJV), a 95%-5% joint venture of SSPPL and AIL, for the reconstruction of the Salma Dam. After the original contract’s arbitration clause, the parties executed an Amendment of Agreement (AoA) on 9 June 2015, which expressly stated that no further claims w

UNION OF INDIAversusPRADEEP VINOD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

2019 INSC 124114 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India (Railways) awarded civil engineering contracts to Pradeep Vinod Construction Company, which later claimed additional payments despite having signed final bills and supplementary agreements indicating full settlement. The contractor invoked the arbitration clause in Clause 64 of the General Conditions

P.E.C. LIMITEDversusAUSTBULK SHIPPING SDN BHD

2018 INSC 105314 November 2018Dismissed

P.E.C. Limited chartered a vessel from Austbulk Shipping and a dispute arose over freight and demurrage. The parties had an arbitration clause in the charter party, and a sole arbitrator awarded US$150,362.18 to Austbulk. P.E.C. filed a petition for enforcement of the foreign award in the Delhi High Court, objecting th

POWERTECH WORLD WIDE LIMITEDversusDELVIN INTERNATIONAL GENERAL TRADING LLC

2011 INSC 79914 November 2011Case Allowed

Powertech World Wide Ltd., an Indian company, entered into a purchase contract with Delvin International General Trading LLC, a UAE company, which contained an arbitration clause stating that disputes would be settled amicably or through an arbitrator in India/UAE. After the respondent failed to pay outstanding dues de

ONGC LTD.versusGARWARE SHIPPING CORPN. LTD.

2007 INSC 115314 November 2007Case Partly allowed

The appellant ONGC required offshore vessels (OSVs) from the respondent Garware Shipping and the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) under long‑term charters. Dispute arose over the computation of repair and maintenance (R&M) charges for the 11th to 16th years of operation, with the parties relying on recommendations o

ESSAR HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusARCELLOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED

2022 INSC 95714 September 2022Dismissed

Essar Steel deposited roughly Rs 35 crore and Rs 47 crore as refundable security deposits with Essar House Private and Essar Services respectively. After Essar Steel entered corporate insolvency resolution, the resolution applicant Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (Arcellor) sought repayment of those deposits and filed Sect

ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LTD.versusESSAR BULK TERMINAL LTD.

2021 INSC 47814 September 2021Case Partly allowed

Arcelor Mittel Nipp​on Steel India Ltd. and Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. entered into a cargo‑handling agreement containing an arbitration clause. The appellant invoked the clause, the respondent claimed the dispute was non‑arbitrable and filed Section 9 applications for interim relief in the Commercial Court. While the Hi

JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.versusINDUSTRY FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANR.

2006 INSC 61414 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Jay Engineering Works Ltd., a sick industrial company, was declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and a rehabilitation scheme was approved in 2003. Respondent No.2 (Diamond Wire Industries) claimed interest on delayed payments under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Sca

SANJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.versusSARDAR INDERJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 98814 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents, both claiming to be trustees of a charitable trust, were involved in a dispute that led the respondents to file a suit for perpetual injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit under Section 92 of the CPC, prompting an appeal during which the parties agreed to arbitration and later ac

K. KISHANversusM/S VIJAY NIRMAN COMPANY PVT. LTD.

2018 INSC 71014 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant (KCPL) challenged a Section 9 petition filed by the respondent (Vijay Nirman) which sought to treat an arbitral award as an undisputed operational debt. The award, favouring the respondent, was under challenge in a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Supreme Court held that

M/S DHANBAD FUELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR

2025 INSC 69614 May 2025Dismissed

The Union of India filed a money suit of over Rs 8.73 crore in a Commercial Court in August 2019 without first complying with the pre‑institution mediation requirement of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant, Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd., raised a preliminary objection and sought rejection of the pl

TDM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

2008 INSC 67714 May 2008Dismissed

The petitioners, TDM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, contending that the arbitration agreement was an international commercial arbitration because the company's central management and control were exercised in Malaysia. Th

SUKANYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTDversusJAYESH H. PANDYA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 23014 April 2003Dismissed

Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and J.H. Pandya entered into a partnership agreement that contained an arbitration clause. After the partnership fell into dispute, the respondent filed a suit for dissolution, accounts and other reliefs, including claims against purchasers of flats who were not parties to the partnership. Th

PRAKASH CORPORATESversusDEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED

2022 INSC 18014 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Prakash Corporates filed a money suit against Dee Vee Projects Limited on 21‑12‑2020. The defendant failed to file a written statement within the 30‑day period and sought extensions, which were granted up to 15‑04‑2021, but the 120‑day deadline fell on 06‑05‑2021. The trial court and the High Court refused further exte

M/S DHARMARATNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT NARAINSWAMY MUDALIAR CHATTRAM & OTHER CHARITIES & ORS.versusM/S BHASKAR RAJU & BROTHERS & ORS.

2020 INSC 19414 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a charitable trust, entered into a 38‑year lease deed with the respondents for development of trust land. The lease deeds of 1996 and 1997 were neither registered nor sufficiently stamped under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and the respondents failed to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty directed b

VOLTAS LTD.versusROLTA INDIA LTD.

2014 INSC 10214 February 2014Case Partly allowed

Voltas Ltd. and Rolta India Ltd. entered into civil construction contracts which later gave rise to disputes and termination. The appellant invoked the arbitration clause in 2006, after which the respondent filed a counter claim of Rs.333.73 crores in 2011. The key issue was whether the counter claim was barred by limi

ENERCON (INDIA) LTD. & ORS.versusENERCON GMBH & ANR.

2014 INSC 10014 February 2014Disposed off

The parties to a joint venture executed an Intellectual Property License Agreement (IPLA) containing an arbitration clause, but the appellants argued that the IPLA was not a concluded contract and therefore no arbitration agreement existed. The Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause is separable from the underl

NIRMA LTD.versusM/S. LURGI LENTJES ENERGIETECHNIK GHBH AND ANR.

2002 INSC 2314 January 2002Dismissed

Nirma Ltd. filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution seeking to appeal an order of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, which had decided an appeal under sub‑section (2) of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition raised the question of whether a second appeal is bar

IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899versus.

2023 INSC 106613 December 2023Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined whether an arbitration agreement embedded in an unstamped or insufficiently stamped contract is void, unenforceable, or merely inadmissible under the Indian Stamp Act. It held that such agreements are only inadmissible as evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act and that non‑stamping is a c

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.versusDICITEX FURNISHING LTD.

2019 INSC 123413 November 2019Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. issued a fire insurance policy to Dicitex Furnishing Ltd., which suffered a total loss of stock in 2012. After a protracted assessment process, the insurer eventually offered a settlement of Rs 7.16 crore, far less than the claim of over Rs 14 crore, and conditioned further payment on Dicitex

M/S SHRIRAM EPC LIMITEDversusRIOGLASS SOLAR SA

2018 INSC 81613 September 2018Dismissed

The parties obtained an ICC arbitral award in London ordering RioGlass Solar to pay Shriram EPC Ltd €4.36 million. Shriram filed a petition under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to enforce the foreign award in India, while RioGlass contended that the award was unenforceable because it had not b

M/S. CAUVERY COFFEE TRADERS, MANGALOREversusM/S. HORNOR RESOURCES (INTERN.) CO. LTD.

2011 INSC 68313 September 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a purchase contract for iron ore. The contract required a minimum 63% Fe content and contained a price‑adjustment clause and an arbitration clause mandating

B.S.N.L. AND ORS.versusM/S. SUBASH CHANDRA KANCHAN AND ANR.

2006 INSC 61013 September 2006

The appellant B.S.N.L. entered into a works contract containing an arbitration clause that designated the Chief Engineer (or administrative head) of the Telecommunication/Postal Department to appoint the arbitrator. After the appellant’s Managing Director failed to respond to the respondent’s notice, the respondent fil

KAMAL GUPTA & ANR.versusM/S L.R BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ETC.

2025 INSC 97513 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an oral family settlement reduced to a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) signed by Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG) but not by KG's son Rahul Gupta (RG). PG and others filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointme

ASIAN THERMAL INSULATION (I) P. LTDversusBRIDGE & ROOF CO. (I) LTD.

2007 INSC 82613 August 2007Disposed off

Asian Thermal Insulation (I) Ltd entered into a contract with Bridge & Roof Co. (I) Ltd that contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and the High Court, on the respondent's application, directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court for the appointment of an arbitrator und

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. BHARAT BATTERY MANUFACTURING CO. (P) LTD.

2007 INSC 82913 August 2007Dismissed

The Union of India and Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co. entered into a contract for supply of batteries that contained Clause 24 requiring any dispute to be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals from the Ministry of Law. A price‑variation dispute arose; the respondent

A.K. GHOSH & COMPANY AND OTHERSversusBIMAN BOSE AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 68413 July 2026Dismissed

The plaintiffs, A.K. Ghosh & Co., filed a commercial suit for unpaid dues and the defendants filed a counter‑claim. The defendants served the counter‑claim on 18 July 2023, but the plaintiffs sought leave to file a written statement only on 15 March 2024, well beyond the statutory period. The Calcutta High Court reject

HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusGWALIOR JHANSI EXPRESSWAY LIMITED

2018 INSC 60913 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) entered into a concession agreement with Gwalior Jhansi Expressway Limited (GJEL) to widen NH‑75. GJEL failed to complete the work, leading to arbitration. Both parties filed Section 17 applications before the arbitral tribunal seeking interim relief. The tribunal allowed

VELUGUBANTI HARI BABUversusPARVATHINI NARASIMHA RAO & ANR.

2016 INSC 52413 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landowner of 15.53 acres, disputed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 27‑05‑2013 that the respondents claimed required him to sell half the land. The respondents filed an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator

M/S. NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD.versusHEAVY ENGINEERING CORP. LTD. & ANR.

2016 INSC 51813 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Northern Coalfield Ltd., a government-owned corporation, entered into two contracts with Heavy Engineering Corp. Ltd. which contained an arbitration clause. Disputes were referred to the Government's "permanent machinery of arbitration" and awards were made, which Northern Coalfield challenged before the Law Secretary

HARYANA TELECOM LTD.versusSTERLITE INDUSTIRES (INDIA) LTD.

1999 INSC 27213 July 1999Dismissed

Haryana Telecom Ltd filed a winding‑up petition against Sterlite Industries before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The petitioner then moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to have the dispute referred to arbitration on the basis of an existing arbitration agreemen

M/S HARCHARAN DASS GUPTAversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 68913 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a MSME supplier based in Delhi, entered into a contract with ISRO for construction of staff quarters, which contained a clause fixing Bengaluru as the seat of arbitration. Disputes arose and the supplier invoked the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Development) Act, 2006, prompting the Delhi Facilita

EITZEN BULK A/SversusASHAPURA MLNECHEM LTD. & ANR.

2016 INSC 42013 May 2016Disposed off

Eitzen Bulk A/S and Ashapura Minechem Ltd entered into a charter party that contained an arbitration clause specifying London as the seat and English law as the governing law. A dispute arose and was arbitrated in London, resulting in an award against Ashapura. Ashapura sought to set aside the award in India under Sect

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusAJAY SINHA AND ANOTHER

2008 INSC 65413 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, owners of insured goods, claimed insurance reimbursement after a burglary, which the insurer denied. The dispute was taken to the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, despite a pending criminal case for the alleged non‑compoundable offence of burglary. The PLA held

M/S. INOX RENEWABLES LTD.versusJAYESH ELECTRICALS LTD.

2021 INSC 25113 April 2021Disposed off

Inox Renewables Ltd entered into a purchase order with Jayesh Electricals Ltd containing an arbitration clause that designated Jaipur as the venue of arbitration. The parties later mutually agreed to shift the arbitration venue to Ahmedabad, which the arbitrator recorded in the award. A Section 34 petition was filed in

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.

2017 INSC 34413 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India entered into a reconstruction contract with M/s. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd, which it later rescinded alleging delay. An arbitrator held the rescission illegal and awarded payment to the respondent. The Union filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set asid

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JABALPUR AND ORS.versusM/S. RAJESH CONSTRUCTIONS CO.

2007 INSC 41813 April 2007Disposed off

The Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur awarded a road‑construction contract to M/s Rajesh Constructions, which contained Clause 29 stipulating that any arbitration could only be initiated after the contractor furnished a security deposit and the corporation then constituted an Arbitration Board. A dispute arose and the

SHINHAN BANKversusCAROL INFO SERVICES LIMITED

2023 INSC 21713 March 2023Disposed off

Shinhan Bank entered a Leave and Licence agreement and a contemporaneous Amenities agreement with Carol Info Services for office premises. After termination, the parties disputed the refund of security deposits and alleged fees, and the bank invoked an arbitration clause contained in the Amenities agreement. The respon

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIAversusA.K. BALALJI AND ORS.

2018 INSC 23513 March 2018Disposed off

The Bar Council of India appealed against orders allowing foreign law firms and lawyers to operate in India, arguing that the Advocates Act, 1961 restricts the practice of law to advocates enrolled with the Bar Council, covering both litigation and non‑litigation work. The Supreme Court examined whether foreign entitie

ESCORTS LTD.versusUNIVERSAL TRACTOR HOLDING LLC

2013 INSC 15813 March 2013

The respondent, Universal Tractor Holding LLC, sold its 49% share in Beever Creek Holdings to Escorts Agri Machinery Inc., a subsidiary of the petitioner, for $1.2 million payable in four installments. After Escorts AMI defaulted on the last two installments, the respondent sued in a North Carolina court, which entered

GUJARAT URJA VIKASH NIGAM LTD.versusESSAR POWER LTD.

2008 INSC 35213 March 2008Disposed off

The Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd (GUVNL) filed an appeal against a Gujarat High Court order that appointed a retired Chief Justice as arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve a power‑purchase dispute with Essar Power Ltd. GUVNL contended that after the Electricity Act, 2003 c

BHATIA INTERNATIONALversusBULK TRADING S.A. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 13813 March 2002Dismissed

Bhatia International entered into a contract with Bulk Trading containing an ICC arbitration clause, agreeing that the arbitration would be held in Paris. Bulk Trading sought an injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in an Indian court to restrain the appellant from dealing with its as

VIJAY KARIA & ORS.versusPRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL & ORS.

2020 INSC 17813 February 2020Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Vijay Karia and others against the Bombay High Court’s order enforcing four LCIA awards arising from a joint‑venture dispute with Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL. The Court held that none of the grounds pleaded under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – inclu

OM CONSTRUCTION CO.versusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORP. & ANR.

2009 INSC 2613 January 2009Appeal(s) allowed

OM Construction Co, a contractor, completed stone‑paving work for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) but was not paid the full amount due. The contract contained Clause 30 of Form B‑1, which referred disputes to arbitration, but the arbitration clause did not specify a procedure for appointing an arbitrator. OM Cons

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search