TRIMEX INTERNATIONAL FZE LTD. DUBAIversusVEDANTA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, INDIA
2010 INSC 5722 January 2010Case Allowed
Trimex International FZE Ltd. sent a commercial offer by email on 15 October 2007 for the supply of bauxite, containing an arbitration clause. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. accepted the offer on 16 October 2007, confirming five shipments. A dispute later arose and Vedanta denied the existence of a concluded contract and the e…
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…
MESSER HOLDINGS LTD.versusSHYAM MADANMOHAN RUIA & OTHERS
2016 INSC 32619 April 2016Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined multiple Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) arising from a protracted dispute over the acquisition and transfer of shares in Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd. The dispute involved Messer Holdings GmbH (MGG), Goyal Gases Ltd (GGL), the Ruia family (RUIAS) and a joint venture company Messer Holdings L…
NBCC (INDIA) LIMITEDversusZILLION INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.
2024 INSC 21819 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed
NBCC (India) Ltd. issued a tender for the construction of a weir and awarded the contract to Zillion Infraprojects Ltd. The contract was governed by a Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) which incorporated the tender documents mutatis mutandis but also stipulated that disputes be resolved only in Delhi courts. Zillion invoked th…
M/S ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PVT. LTD.versusASHOK S DHARIWAL AND OTHERS
2023 INSC 5719 January 2023Dismissed
The dispute arose from an ex‑parte arbitral award dated 12‑03‑1998 in a matter concerning specific performance and land‑plot amalgamation. The respondents sought to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking the public‑policy ground and sought to adduce additional evidenc…
UNION OF INDIAversusMANRAJ ENTERPRISES
2021 INSC 75418 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India entered into a work contract with Manraj Enterprises that contained clause 16(2) of the General Conditions of Contract, which expressly barred any interest on earnest money, security deposit, or amounts payable to the contractor. An arbitrator awarded pendente lite and future interest on the contract…
DR. MANJU VARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
2004 INSC 65317 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed
Dr. Manju Varma filed a writ petition in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking promotion based on seniority. Respondent No.6 (Dr. Gauri Ganguli) applied to the Chief Justice for transfer of the petition to the Allahabad Bench under paragraph 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1…
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY & ORS.versusTRIPPLE ENGINEERING WORKS
2014 INSC 54313 August 2014Dismissed
The North Eastern Railway terminated two contracts awarded to the respondent contractor in 1994, after which arbitration proceedings were initiated in 1996 under a clause that required the arbitrators to be gazetted railway officers. Despite the passage of nearly two decades, no arbitral award had been rendered, and th…
SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusMARE SHIPPING INC.
2011 INSC 49013 July 2011Dismissed
The case involved a charter party for the carriage of crude oil from Ras Sukheir to a safe Indian port, where the charterers nominated Vadinar Single Berth Mooring (SBM) for discharge. The vessel arrived at Vadinar, tendered a Notice of Readiness (NOR) but could not moor at the SBM due to inadequate equipment. An adden…
GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITEDversusINDIAN CHARGE CHROME LIMITED
1998 INSC 23713 May 1998Appeal(s) allowed
GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) succeeded the Orissa State Electricity Board and sued Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. (ICCL) for non‑payment of electricity bills arising from ICCL's captive power plant supplying power to the board. Multiple proceedings were instituted: a reference before the Orissa Electricity Refor…
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.versusUTILITY USERS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.
2018 INSC 32912 April 2018Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 84(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 obliges a High Court Judge to be appointed as Chairperson of a State Electricity Regulatory Commission and whether a member of law is required on the Commission. By interpreting the statutory language, the Court held that Section 84(2) is mer…
ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKHversusASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
2024 INSC 8497 November 2024
The petitioner, a non‑resident Indian, claimed entitlement to 400,000 and 200,010 equity shares under a 2011 Shareholders Agreement and sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 after the respondents failed to issue share certificates. The respondents argued tha…
MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusSANTOSH CORDEIRO AND ANOTHER
2026 INSC 55 January 2026Dismissed
The dispute arose from a Leave and License Agreement between Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. and Santosh Cordeiro, which contained an arbitration clause in Clause 33. The respondent filed a Section 11 application under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, which the Hi…
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusCALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPN. LTD.
2001 INSC 5954 December 2001Dismissed
The West Bengal State Electricity Board (the Board) had initially consented to the establishment of a new thermal generating station at Budge Budge, but the project cost later escalated. The licensee, Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., sought further Board consent for the revised cost, which the Board approved …
M/S CONSOLIDATED ENGG. ENTERPRISESversusPRINCIPAL SECY. IRRIGATION DEPTT. & ORS.
2008 INSC 4473 April 2008Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which excludes time spent prosecuting a proceeding in a wrong court, applies to an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award. It held that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act…