Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

35 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC.versusKERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. ETC.

2021 INSC 31429 June 2021Dismissed

The case concerned disputes arising under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) where a supplier (Silpi Industries) claimed unpaid amounts from Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and the corporation raised counter‑claims. The issues before the Supreme Court were whether

UNION OF INDIAversusPARMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

2019 INSC 43829 March 2019Disposed off

The Union of India (appellant) and several contractors, including Parmar Construction Company (respondent), entered into railway construction contracts containing an arbitration clause (clause 64). After completing work, the contractors submitted final bills with a "No Claim" certificate, but later sought arbitration o

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.DIA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 128927 November 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of writ petitions filed by Hindustan Construction Company Ltd seeking to strike down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the deletion of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment, arguing that they revived an automatic‑stay of arbitral awards and removed th

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT LTDversusKAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED

2024 INSC 82724 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd entered into a dredging contract with Kamarajar Port Limited, a statutory undertaking, which later gave rise to disputes and arbitration. The arbitral tribunal awarded the appellant approximately Rs 21.07 crore with interest and costs, and the respondent sought correction under s.

M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITEDversusM. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 106823 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Canara Nidhi Ltd. advanced a Rs.50 lakh loan secured by mortgage and a demand promissory note, which the borrower M. Shashikala failed to repay, leading to an arbitral award of Rs.63.82 lakh. Shashikala filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award and sought

RAJASTHAN SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITEDversusM/S GANESH CONTAINERS MOVERS SYNDICATE

2019 INSC 8223 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a contract between Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd (RSIC) and M/s Ganesh Containers Movers Syndicate, which contained a clause appointing the Managing Director (MD) of RSIC or his nominee as the sole arbitrator. After several delays and changes of arbitrators, the MD acted as sole arbi

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITEDversusRAJAPURA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2021 INSC 52422 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

DLF Home Developers Ltd (DHDL) entered into share purchase agreements (SPAs) with Rajapura Homes Pvt Ltd and Southern Homes Pvt Ltd, and subsequently executed two Construction Management Service Agreements (RCMA and SCMA) to carry out post‑closing construction obligations. DHDL claimed that the respondents had unreason

DECCAN PAPER MILLS CO. LTD.versusREGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES & ORS.

2020 INSC 49719 August 2020Dismissed

Deccan Paper Mills entered into a development agreement with Ashray, which was later assigned to Regency Mahavir Properties containing an arbitration clause. Deccan alleged fraud by a partner of Regency and filed a suit under the Specific Relief Act, seeking cancellation of the 2006 agreement and a deed of confirmation

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

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

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

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

ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITEDversusBERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED

2024 INSC 68612 September 2024Directions issued

Rohan Builders sought an extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the statutory twelve‑month period (or the six‑month consent‑based extension) for making an arbitral award had expired. The Calcutta High Court had held that such an application was not maintainable, a view e

ARAVALI POWER COMPANY PVT. LTD.versusMIS. ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD.

2017 INSC 89412 September 2017Disposed off

Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) and M/s. Era Infra Engineering Ltd. (respondent) entered into a contract for constructing a township for a thermal power project, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 56) stipulating that disputes be referred to the Project In‑charge or, failing that, to a person app

M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITEDversusAFTAB SINGH

2018 INSC 118410 December 2018Dismissed

Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (appellant) entered into a buyer's agreement with Aftab Singh (respondent) that contained an arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Singh filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) invoking the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and

RATNAM SUDESH IYERversusJACKIE KAKUBHAI SHROFF

2021 INSC 71210 November 2021Dismissed

The dispute arose from a settlement deed between Ratnam Sudesh Iyer (appellant) and Jackie Kakubhai Shroff (respondent) concerning the sale of shares in Atlas Equifin Private Limited. The deed required the respondent to withdraw criminal complaints and, in return, receive US$1.5 million in escrow and US$2 million upon

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OFversusGAYATRI JHANSI ROADWAYS LIMITED

2019 INSC 74410 July 2019Disposed off

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and Gayatri Jhansi Roadways Limited entered into a 2006 contract that contained a detailed fee schedule for arbitrators. After a dispute arose in 2017, NHAI invoked a newer NHAI circular (dated 01‑06‑2017) that amended the fee amounts, while the arbitral tribunal, relying

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.versusDELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD.

2024 INSC 29210 April 2024Case Allowed

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Ltd (DAMEPL) entered into a 2008 concession agreement for the Delhi Airport Metro project. DAMEPL alleged safety defects, issued a cure notice, and later terminated the agreement; an arbitral tribunal awarded substantial sums to DAMEPL. The

NTPC LTD.versusM/S SPML INFRA LTD

2023 INSC 33410 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

NTPC Ltd. and SPML Infra Ltd. entered into a contract for installation services. After SPML completed the work, NTPC released the final payment but retained SPML's bank guarantees, linking their release to disputes in other projects. The parties settled the matter through a Settlement Agreement that released the guaran

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR.versusM/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 17510 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose when BSNL (appellant) withheld Rs.99.70 crore from Nortel (respondent) after completing a telecom tender. Nortel claimed the amount in May 2014, which BSNL rejected on 4 August 2014. After more than five years, Nortel invoked the arbitration clause on 29 April 2020 and sought appointment of an arbitra

SSANGYONG CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.versusNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI)

2019 INSC 6478 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) awarded a construction contract to Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., which included a price‑adjustment formula based on the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) old series. When the Ministry of Industrial Development stopped publishing the old series and introduced a

PRAVIN ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.versusGALAXY INFRA AND ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 1668 March 2021Case Partly allowed

Pravin Electricals alleged that no consultancy agreement dated 7 July 2014 existed with Galaxy Infra, while Galaxy claimed such an agreement, containing an arbitration clause, was executed and sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Delhi High Court

LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITEDversusUTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED

2023 INSC 9766 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Lombardi Engineering, a Swiss design consultancy, entered into a contract with Uttarakhand Vidyut Nigam Ltd for a hydro‑electric project, which was later transferred from UPDCC to the respondent. After the respondent terminated the contract, Lombardi invoked the arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract,

M/S MAYAVTI TRADING PVT. LTD.versusPRADYUAT DEB BURMAN

2019 INSC 10085 September 2019Dismissed

The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, introduced by the 2015 amendment and later omitted by the 2019 amendment. The appellant argued that the Supreme Court or High Court must still examine the existence of an arbitration agreement before appointing arbi

MANKASTU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITEDversusAIRVISUAL LIMITED

2020 INSC 2845 March 2020Dismissed

The petitioner, Mankastu Impex Private Limited, an Indian distributor of air‑quality monitors, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with AirVisual Limited, a Hong Kong company, appointing it as exclusive distributor in India. After AirVisual was acquired by IQAir AG, which refused to honour the MoU, the petitione

SP SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 11494 December 2018Disposed off

The appellant, a construction contractor, entered into a contract with the State of Himachal Pradesh that contained Clause 65, which stipulated that any dispute would be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Engineer‑in‑Chief. When a dispute arose, the Chief Engineer appointed the Superintendent Engineer, Arbi

M/S EMINENT COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusRAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ORS.

2026 INSC 1164 February 2026Disposed off

The appellant, a construction contractor, entered into a contract with the Rajasthan Housing Board for the construction of houses and later claimed non‑payment of escalation costs. Clause 23 of the contract provided for a Standing Committee to settle disputes, but the Board failed to constitute such a committee, prompt

S.V. SAMUDRAMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

2024 INSC 174 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a civil engineering contractor, entered into a contract with the Karnataka State Public Works Department and later sought arbitration for alleged delays and non‑payment, obtaining an award of Rs.14,68,239 with 18% interest. The Civil Judge, invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, red

ELLORA PAPER MILLS LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 114 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Ellora Paper Mills Ltd entered into a supply contract with the State of Madhya Pradesh and, after a dispute, the parties were referred to an arbitral tribunal called the Stationery Purchase Committee, which was composed entirely of state officers. The appellant sought termination of that tribunal under Section 14 of th

ASF BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 6162 May 2025Dismissed

The respondent, Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited (SPCPL), filed counter-claims in an arbitration initiated by Black Canyon SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (BCSPL) against BCSPL and two non-signatory entities, ASF Buildtech Private Limited (ABPL) and ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (AISPL), invoking the group of companies doctri

GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITEDversusA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.

2023 INSC 4701 May 2023Dismissed

Gujarat Composite Ltd. entered into a licence agreement with A Infrastructure Ltd. in 2005 that contained an arbitration clause, and later entered into a tripartite loan agreement with the same party and Bank of Baroda that lacked any arbitration provision. Disputes arose over possession, loan repayment, and conveyance

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