Landmark Arbitration Judgments Supreme Court of India

Landmark Arbitration Judgments – Supreme Court of India

1. Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. (BALCO case – 2012)

• Key Issue: Scope of Indian courts’ intervention in arbitration proceedings, particularly on allegations of fraud.
• Landmark Ruling: The Supreme Court emphasized party autonomy in arbitration and limited the scope of judicial intervention. Even allegations of significant fraud must be resolved through arbitration unless the arbitration agreement itself or the grounds for referring the dispute to arbitration are found invalid. This ruling reinforced India’s pro-arbitration stance.

2. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) (2019)

• Key Issue: Power of arbitral tribunals to grant interim relief (orders for protection during the arbitration).
• Landmark Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the broad powers of arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This clarified that arbitral tribunals have powers similar to courts for interim protection, strengthening the arbitration process.

3. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Others (2021)

• Key Issue: Whether an arbitration agreement requires stamp duty (a government tax on legal documents) to be considered valid.
• Landmark Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document containing an arbitration clause does not nullify the arbitration agreement itself. This decision overturned previous rulings making arbitration more accessible.

4. Centrotrade Minerals and Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2017)

• Key Issue: Whether Indian courts can be the legal ‘seat’ of an arbitration even if the governing law of the contract is foreign.
• Landmark Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Indian Courts could be the seat of an arbitration even if the governing law of the contract is foreign. This reinforced India’s position as a desirable arbitration hub.

5. Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (2023)

• Key Issue: Enforceability of arbitration agreements under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
• Landmark Ruling: The Supreme Court held that agreements containing arbitration clauses are enforceable even if unstamped or insufficiently stamped. This decision further solidified the pro-arbitration stance of the courts.

Important Note: The field of arbitration law in India is dynamic and evolving. It’s essential to be aware of the latest judgments and legal developments for the most accurate information.

1. Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service: This case, commonly known as the BALCO case, is a landmark judgment that clarified the law relating to arbitration in India. The Supreme Court held that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which deals with domestic arbitrations, would not apply to arbitrations seated outside India.
2. BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd.: This case dealt with the issue of whether an arbitral award can be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the grounds of violation of public policy of India. The Supreme Court provided clarity on what constitutes a violation of public policy and set aside an arbitral award in this case.
3. Shayara Bano v. Union of India: While not a typical arbitration case, this judgment is significant for upholding the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalizes triple talaq. It indirectly touches upon the aspect of resolving disputes through alternative mechanisms like arbitration.
4. ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd.: This case laid down principles regarding the appointment of arbitrators and the role of courts in such appointments. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of party autonomy in arbitration and limited the court’s intervention in the appointment process.
5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.: In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of interference by courts in arbitral awards. It emphasized the limited grounds on which courts can set aside arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

These judgments have significantly contributed to the development of arbitration law in India and have provided guidance on various aspects of arbitration proceedings and enforcement of arbitral awards. It’s essential to keep in mind that there may have been additional significant judgments after my last update.

1	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA & ANR. Vs MADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ & ORS – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 9092023 INSC 1081 Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,SUDHANSHU DHULIA to Arbitration and the said decision was upheld by the High Court. Whether the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly referred the matter to Arbitration or the dispute is of such a nature that it is not liable to be referred to Arbitration , as there was no Arbitration clause in Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 or if there was, yet the matter in any case is such that it is not arbitrable. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A civil suit was fi led by the appellants-plaintiff s herein seeking declaration that the conveyance deed dated 17.12.2019 was Decision Date : 15-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1854/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
2	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899 Vs . – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 10812023 INSC 1066 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,SANJIV KHANNA,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,SURYA KANT,J.B. PARDIWALA,MANOJ MISRA 15 S.C.R. 1081 : 2023 INSC 1066 1081 CASE DETAILS IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN Arbitration AGREEMENTS UNDER THE Arbitration AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899 (Curative Petition (C) No. 44 of 2023) In (Review Petition (C) No. 704 of 2021 ) In (Civil Appeal 1599 of 2020) DECEMBER 13, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, SANJIV KHANNA, B R GAVAI, SURYA KANT, J B PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The issue at hand arose in the context of three statutes; the Arbitration and Decision Date : 13-12-2023 | Case No : CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL)/44/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Matters to be placed before appropriate Bench
3	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer COX AND KINGS LTD. Vs SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 6212023 INSC 1051 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HRISHIKESH ROY,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,J.B. PARDIWALA,MANOJ MISRA 15 S.C.R. 621 : 2023 INSC 1051 621 COX AND KINGS LTD. v. SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. ( Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 38 of 2020) DECEMBER 06, 2023 [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J B PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, for consideration: The primary issue for consideration of the present Constitution Bench of Five Judges was determination of the validity of the ‘Group of companies doctrine’ in Indian Arbitration jurisprudence and its applicability to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Decision Date : 06-12-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION/38/2020 | Direction Issue : Referred questions of law answered
4	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED Vs UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED – [2023] 13 S.C.R. 9432023 INSC 976 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.B. PARDIWALA,MANOJ MISRA 13 S.C.R. 943 : 2023 INSC 976 943 CASE DETAILS LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED v. UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED ( Arbitration Petition No. 43 of 2022) NOVEMBER 6, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for Whether the dictum as laid down in ICOMM Tele Limited’s case can be made applicable to the instant case, when Clause 55 of the General Conditions of Contract provides for a pre-deposit of 7% of the total claim for the purpose of invoking the Arbitration clause; whether there is any Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION/43/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Application allowed
5	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF Vs M/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 9842023 INSC 949 Judge : M.M. SUNDRESH,HON subsists till 24.11.1999. On receipt of the said reply- notice by respondent no. 2 dated 05.06.1999, a second notice was issued by the appellant to which a diff erent response came; that the said registered lease was extended orally for another 33 years. A reference was also made to the arbitration Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6933/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
6	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING Vs M/S TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS (JV) & ANR. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 9952023 INSC 932 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,ARAVIND KUMAR 19, 2023 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether revision of fee by an arbitral tribunal would terminate the mandate of the tribunal on the ground of ineligibility as per s. 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 12, 13 and 14 – Grounds and procedure of challenge – Failure or impossibility of the arbitrator or tribunal to act – Arbitration proceedings between the parties – Tribunal revised the hearing fee for each arbitrator fi xed at Rs 1,00,000/- per session to Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/184/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Appeal disposed of and application dismissed.
7	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S UNIBROS Vs ALL INDIA RADIO – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 6832023 INSC 931 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA and; whether a claim on account of loss of profi t is liable to succeed merely on the ground that there has been delay in the execution of the construction contract, attributable to the employer. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(2)(b) – “Public policy of India” – Appellant contemplated by s.34(2)(b) – No merit in the appeal. [Paras 13, 14 and 20] Arbitration – Claim for loss of profi t arising from a delayed contract or missed opportunities from other available contracts – Claimant to substantiate the presence of a viable opportunity through compelling Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6895/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
8	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RUCHIR RASTOGI Vs PANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 9142023 INSC 941 Judge : VIKRAM NATH,AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH investigation as to whether a triable case is made out or not by the investigating agency but in any case, was not a case where FIR was liable to be quashed – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter to proceed with respect to the FIR in question in accordance with law – Arbitration and Conciliation therein. 3.4 In response, the appellant gave a legal notice dated 07.06.2013 requesting the respondent 1 to withdraw his notice dated 27.05.2013. The appellant also fi led an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19963 before the District Judge, Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/3283/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
9	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Vs HDFC BANK LTD. & ANR. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 10332023 INSC 929 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA IL&FS and its 348 group companies. Aggrieved, appeals were fi led before the NCLAT. By order dated 15.10.2018 NCLAT, inter-alia, stayed: (i) the institution or continuation of suits or any other proceedings against the IL&FS or its 348 group companies, before any court/tribunal/ arbitration panel/ Arbitration authority; (ii) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created over the assets of the IL&FS or those of its 348 group companies; and (iii) the acceleration, premature withdrawal or other withdrawal, invocation of any term loan, corporate Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4708/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
10	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer TOTTEMPUDI SALALITH Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 4922023 INSC 923 Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,VIKRAM NATH corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, Arbitration panel or other authority. The prohibition to institution of suit or continuation of pending suits or proceedings including execution of decree would not mean that a decree-holder Decision Date : 18-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2348/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
11	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SOLARIS CHEM TECH INDUSTRIES LTD Vs ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD & ANR. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 4632023 INSC 916 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.B. PARDIWALA,MANOJ MISRA MISRA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in dismissing the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal on the strength of Clause 11 of the agreements between the parties; and whether there was a valid Arbitration agreement between the parties, justifying referral to the Chief Engineer under Clause 11. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 7(1), 2(b) – Valid Arbitration agreement – On facts, in terms of Clause 11 of the agreements, any dispute that would arise between the parties would be resolved fi rstly by mutual discussion and Decision Date : 10-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6609/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
12	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs ROYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LTD. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 3932023 INSC 899 Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,VIKRAM NATH Arbitration agreement, arbitral award or the judgment of Supreme Court dated 24.02.2015 passed in earlier round of litigation between the parties, provided for payment of the awarded amount in Indian currency. Arbitration – Amount awarded in Iraqi Dinars if was to be converted in currency: Held: Neither the Arbitration agreement, arbitral award or the judgment of Supreme Court dated 24.02.2015 permit payment of the awarded amount in Indian currency except the amount of Rs. 20 lacs with admissible interest against the encashment of bank guarantee – Thus, there would be Decision Date : 10-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1991/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
13	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SMT. M. HEMALATHA DEVI & ORS. Vs B. UDAYASRI – [2023] 13 S.C.R. 2582023 INSC 870 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,SUDHANSHU DHULIA arbitrable, and once a party has availed the remedy before a public forum under a special benefi cial legislation, can it be compelled to go for Arbitration . Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Arbitration Act & Conciliation, 1996 – s.11(6A), 8(1) – Arbitrability consumer dispute – Constructed house/villa was not handed over to the buyer/consumer-respondent on time – Later, builder terminated the agreement and the appellants-builders/owners fi led application u/s.11(5), (6), Arbitration Act, 1996 before the High Court for appointment of Arbitrator, Decision Date : 05-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6500/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
14	ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. Vs IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED – [2023] 12 S.C.R. 8032023 INSC 867 Judge : J.K. MAHESHWARI,HON of Limitation in Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020, the Supreme Court by order dated 08.03.2021 directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 will stand excluded in computing: a) the period prescribed u/ss. 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; b) S.12-A S.C.R.810 13. The order of 06.05.2020 directed that the limitation prescribed under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 until further orders. It also provides that in case the Decision Date : 03-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6411/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
15	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BATLIBOI ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS LIMITED Vs HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER – [2023] 12 S.C.R. 4412023 INSC 850 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH Division Bench of the High Court was justifi ed in allowing the appeal fi led by the respondents u/s. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and thereby setting aside the arbitral award. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 37 – Arbitral award – Interference with – of court’s power: Held: Foundation of Arbitration is party autonomy – Parties have the freedom to enter into an agreement to settle their disputes/claims by an arbitral tribunal, whose decision is binding on the parties – Court must exercise its powers when the award is unfair, Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1968/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
16	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs MUKUL KUMAR & ANR. – [2023] 12 S.C.R. 1502023 INSC 816 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,SUDHANSHU DHULIA the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is liable to be included at a belated stage-after the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors and pending approval by the adjudicating authority. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process – This would result in the reopening of the whole issue – Thus, NCLAT’s judgment rejecting the claim of the entity, upheld – Arbitration Decision Date : 11-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5590/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
17	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED Vs M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 6232023 INSC 768 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,ARAVIND KUMAR respect to the interpretation of a contract condition, which required the measurement of quantities used for payment for embankment construction with soil or with pond; and the relevance of the dissenting opinion of the arbitrators. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34, 37 – award – Scope of intereference u/ss. 34 and 37 – On facts, three technical member Arbitration passed an award which was unanimous on most questions while, on others, there was a dissenting view – Single Judge of the High Court held that the tribunal’s majority opinion refl ected a Decision Date : 24-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4658/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
18	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. S.D. SHINDE TR. PARTNER Vs GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 3672023 INSC 751 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA was challenged by the respondent-State u/s.30, 33, Arbitration Act, 1940 and was set aside by Courts below inter alia holding that the claim was time-barred – Legality. Arbitration Act, 1940 – ss.30 and 33 – Jurisdiction of Courts – Scope: Held: A claim crystallizes upon the resolution or Arbitration given the department itself sat over the request for settlement of disputes for more than 6 years – The scope of 367 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. jurisdiction of a court, u/ss.30/33 never extended beyond discerning if the award disclosed an “error Decision Date : 22-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6107/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
19	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer H. J. BAKER AND BROS. INC Vs THE MINERALS AND METALS TRADE CORPORATION LTD. (MMTC) – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 2872023 INSC 747 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,ARAVIND KUMAR appeals, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which partly interfered with an Arbitration award by upholding the fi ndings of the Single Judge of the High Court to the extent the award granting damages for certain period, but set aside the award for the balance period, challenged. Arbitration – Award of damages – Interference with – Award of damages for breach of contract for certain periods – Upheld by the Single Judge of the High Court, however, the Division Bench upheld the fi ndings, to the extent the award granted damages for certain period, but Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2437/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
20	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED Vs CHENAB BRIDGE PROJECT UNDERTAKING – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 2152023 INSC 742 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,J.B. PARDIWALA consideration : In the instant appeal, the legality of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an appeal u/s. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by which the concurrent fi ndings of the arbitral tribunal and that of the Single Judge of the High Court u/s. of the Act rejecting all claims were set aside and certain claims were allowed, is challenged. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34 and 37 – Arbitral award – Concurrent interpretations of the contractual clause pertaining to the disputes, by the arbitral tribunal and the Decision Date : 17-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2903/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
21	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S LARSEN AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGRATION COMPANY Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 862023 INSC 707 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA erred in modifying the arbitral award to the extent of reducing the interest, from compound interest of 18% to 9% simple interest per annum. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31 – Modifi cation of interest by the High Court – Propriety of: Held : In the instant case, given that Arbitration commenced in 1997, i.e., after the Act of 1996 came into force on 22.08.1996, the arbitrator, and the award passed by them, would be subject to this statute – Under the enactment, i.e. s.31(7), the statutory rate of interest itself is contemplated at 18% p.a. – This is in the Decision Date : 11-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3798/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
22	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs SURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR. – [2023] 10 S.C.R. 11552023 INSC 649 Judge : J.B. PARDIWALA,MANOJ MISRA agreement of the parties, such as a private arbitrator or a tribunal acting under S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not satisfy the test of a tribunal within Art. 136. It matters little that such a body or authority is vested with the trappings of a Court. The Arbitration Decision Date : 26-07-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/5263/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
23	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VINOD KUMAR & ORS. Vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU & ORS. – [2023] 10 S.C.R. 3872023 INSC 606 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,J.B. PARDIWALA the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every Arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) Decision Date : 07-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5107/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
24	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA Vs INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. & ANR. – [2023] 10 S.C.R. 7242023 INSC 610 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,VIKRAM NATH – Review – Scope of – Civil Appeals filed by the Review Petitioner were dismissed vide judgment dtd. 10.08.2021 inter alia holding that foreign award could be enforced against non-signatories to the Arbitration agreement and that the only ground on which its enforcement could be resisted refused are contained in s.48, Arbitration and Conciliation Act – It also held that the canvas of s.46 is wider than that of s.35 and would apply to all the persons who are not even parties to the Arbitration Agreement – It further held that tortious dispute can also be referred to Arbitration Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)/1273/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
25	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S GLOCK ASIA-PACIFIC LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2023] 6 S.C.R. 7172023 INSC 568 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,J.B. PARDIWALA [2023] 6 S.C.R. 717 717 M/S GLOCK ASIA-PACIFIC LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA ( Arbitration Petition No. 51 of 2022) MAY 19, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – 12(5) – Ministry of Home Affairs floated tender – Applicant’s bid was accepted as per the terms and conditions of the tender which provided for Arbitration clause which enabled the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to appoint an officer in the Ministry of Law as the arbitrator – Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION/51/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
26	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S B AND T AG Vs MINISTRY OF DEFENCE – [2023] 7 S.C.R. 5992023 INSC 549 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.B. PARDIWALA [2023] 7 S.C.R. 599 M/S B AND T AG v. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2023) MAY 18, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, J.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11– Limitation period – Cause of – When accrues – “Breaking Point”– Negotiations, if postpone the cause of action – Held: No – Cause of action becomes important for calculating the limitation period for bringing an action – Period of limitation for commencing an Arbitration runs from the date on which the “cause of Arbitration Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION/13/2023 | Disposal Nature : Rejected
27	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MAGIC EYE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Vs M/S. GREEN EDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. ETC. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 4012023 INSC 528 Judge : M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR EYE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. M/S. GREEN EDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3634-37 of 2023) MAY 12, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment 2015 – s.11(6) – Pre-referral jurisdiction – Before the High Court, appellant raised objection with regard to the existence of an Arbitration agreement – High Court/referral court held that the issue of arbitrability of the dispute can be addressed by Arbitral Tribunal – Thereafter, High Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3634/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
28	MS. INDIRA JAISING Vs SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 4342023 INSC 524 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,ARAVIND KUMAR proceedings of the case; pro bono work done by the advocate concerned; domain expertise of the applicant advocate in various branches of law, such as Constitutional law, Inter-State Water Disputes, Criminal law, Arbitration law, Corporate law, Family law, Human Rights, Public Act, 2002, Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, etc. This has led to the opening up of various specializations, including but not limited to Arbitration , telecom, electricity, energy, competition, insolvency, and white- collar Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/709/2022 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
29	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M. SURESH KUMAR REDDY Vs CANARA BANK & ORS. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 3872023 INSC 521 Judge : ABHAY S. OKA,RAJESH BINDAL the corporate debtor can, within a period of 10 days of receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1), bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the record of the pendency of a suit or Arbitration proceedings, which is Decision Date : 11-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7121/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
30	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs STATE OF GOA – [2023] 8 S.C.R. 3792023 INSC 514 Judge : DINESH MAHESHWARI,SANJAY KUMAR 8 S.C.R. 379 379 RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. v. STATE OF GOA (Civil Appeal No. 3615 of 2023) MAY 10, 2023 [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss. 34, 37 – Arbitral award – Scope of interference – entirety. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Arbitral award is not an ordinary adjudicatory order so as to be lightly interfered with by the courts under sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as if dealing with an appeal or revision against a decision of Decision Date : 10-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3615/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
31	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. SHREE VISHNU CONSTRUCTIONS Vs THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE & ORS. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 3272023 INSC 508 Judge : M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR 5 S.C.R. 327 327 M/S. SHREE VISHNU CONSTRUCTIONS v. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3461 of 2023) MAY 09, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 – – Applicability of Amendment Act, 2015– Whether the provisions of the old Act (pre-Amendment Act, 2015) or the new Act (Amendment Act, 2015) shall be applicable when the notice invoking Arbitration is issued prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 but application to appoint arbitrator u/s.11(6), 1996 Decision Date : 09-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3461/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
32	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS Vs M/S. SATHYANARAYANA SERVICE STATION & ANR – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 6822023 INSC 507 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,B.V. NAGARATHNA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 5 S.C.R. 682 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. v. M/S. SATHYANARAYANA SERVICE STATION & ANR (Civil Appeal No.3533 of 2023) MAY 09, 2023 [K. M. JOSEPH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996: s. first respondent expressed his intention to withdraw the resignation from the dealership, however, the same was not accepted – IOC took possession of the petroleum outlet and new dealer was awarded the dealership – First respondent challenged the same – Arbitration award in favour of Decision Date : 09-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3533/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
33	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITED Vs A INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 1032023 INSC 470 Judge : DINESH MAHESHWARI,SUDHANSHU DHULIA COMPOSITE LIMITED v. A INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3259 of 2023) MAY 01, 2023 [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.8 – Arbitrability of the dispute in question – Held: Except principal licence agreement, none of the other agreements contained any Arbitration clause, even if they related to the same property and also involved the appellant and the respondent No.1 – Even if the original licence agreement is said to be the genesis of the contractual relations Decision Date : 01-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3259/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
34	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer THE BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs DHRUVA & ANR. – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 8622023 INSC 451 Judge : ABHAY S. OKA,RAJESH BINDAL the final bills for the construction of tenements or as the result of land award or Arbitration proceeding or enhancement in cost of land on any account, the Board considers it necessary to revise the price, already specified, it may do so and determine the final price payable by the hirer vested with the power to revise the price at any time. The use of the expression “or enhancement in cost of land on any account” after the expression “the receipt of the final bill for the construction of tenements or as the result of land award or Arbitration proceeding” shows that while Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2950/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
35	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer PRAKASH AGGARWAL Vs GANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED AND ANOTHER – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 8442023 INSC 464 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,VIKRAM NATH 1860 – ss.120-B, 403, 406, 420 r/w s.34 – Security Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – s.15-HA – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: A perusal of the entire complaint would reveal that the only allegation is that accused No.1 Company had sold persons/appellants to sell the shares either to themselves or their group of companies. Accused No.1 Company had already invoked the Arbitration clause on 14th August 2001. In the Arbitration proceedings, a specific stand was taken by the complainant/respondent No.1 that accused No.1 Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1308/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
36	M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/s INDO UNIQUE FLAME LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 9 S.C.R. 2852023 INSC 423 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,AJAY RASTOGI,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,HRISHIKESH ROY,C.T. RAVIKUMAR Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 11(6A), 7, 8, 9, 11 and 16 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – ss. 3, 33 & 35 – Contract Act, 1872 – ss. 2(h), 10 – Appointment of Arbitrators by The Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996 – Arbitration Agreement in an unregistered instrument, which is not stamped, if valid and enforceable – Whether the statutory bar contained in s.35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to instruments chargeable to stamp duty under s.3 read with the Schedule to the Act, would also render the Arbitration agreement contained in such an instrument, which is not Decision Date : 25-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3802/2020 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered
37	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. Vs NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 182023 INSC 379 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH para 7) “7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to Arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating Arbitration proceedings.” (emphasis supplied) 27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
38	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Vs GAGANDEEP BRAR AND ANOTHER – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 4222023 INSC 370 Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA Arbitration proceedings between the appellant and the CHB. 2.4 Being aggrieved by the common order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the National Commission, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition bearing S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 17133-17134 of 2013 and connected matters. This Court vide order Arbitration proceedings between the appellant and the CHB. In the award, the learned arbitrator also held that any amount payable A B C D E F G H 425 on account of refund of price, interest or compensation (if and when finally determined by the National Commission/Supreme Court) Decision Date : 13-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6380/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
39	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer NTPC LTD. Vs M/S SPML INFRA LTD – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 8462023 INSC 334 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.[2023] 2 S.C.R. 846 846 NTPC LTD. v. M/S SPML INFRA LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 4778 of 2022) APRIL 10, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 : s. month, SPML filed the Arbitration petition u/s. 11(6) alleging coercion and economic duress in the execution of the Settlement Agreement – High Court allowed the same – On appeal held: No allegations of coercion or economic duress compelling SPML to withdraw any pending claims under the Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4778/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
40	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BHIMASHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITA Vs WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. (WIL) – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 3612023 INSC 335 Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITA v. WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. (WIL) (Civil Appeal No. 6810 of 2022) APRIL 10, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(3) – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.2(j) r/w General Clauses Act is also untenable in the light of proviso to s.10 of the General Clauses Act – No error committed by the High Court and Trial court in refusing to condone the delay caused in preferring application u/s.34 which was beyond the period prescribed u/s.34(3). Arbitration Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6810/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
41	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer HARYANA POWER PURCHASE CENTRE Vs SASAN POWER LTD. & ORS – [2023] 8 S.C.R. 12023 INSC 326 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,B.V. NAGARATHNA qualification by a pre-qualification system and thereafter submission and consideration of essentially what consists of the financial bid. There is a guideline which deals with Arbitration and it was contained in guideline 5.17: “5.17 The procurer will establish an Amicable Dispute mechanism in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The ADR shall be mandatory and time-bound to minimize disputes regarding the bid process and the documentation thereof. If the ADR fails to resolve the dispute, the same will be subject Decision Date : 06-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11826/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
42	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 Vs M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 3102023 INSC 325 Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA had been litigation between shareholders of the Company being family members. Litigations in the Company Law Board and the High Court culminated in Arbitration . In the Arbitration proceedings, an interim award was passed whereby an amicable settlement termed as “family settlement” was said property. The family dispute among the three shareholders brother and two sisters, which resulted in a settlement by way of Arbitration award, as per which the three shareholders became entitled to Rs.10.35 Crores each for transfer of shares as well as relinquishment of any right or Decision Date : 06-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6126/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
43	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISE – [2023] 8 S.C.R. 8032023 INSC 277 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,KRISHNA MURARI,B.V. NAGARATHNA OF INDIA & ORS. v. M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISE (Civil Appeal Nos. 3441-3442 of 2015) MARCH 23, 2023 [K. M. JOSEPH, KRISHNA MURARI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitrator passed an award allowing claims which submitted after the submission of the final bill (containing No Claims Certificate) by the Respondent-Contractor – During the Arbitration , the appellant filed an application u/s.16 invoking clauses 65 and 65A of the Contract which interdicted the submission of a new claim after the submission of Decision Date : 23-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3441/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
44	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED Vs M/S NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 7132023 INSC 248 Judge : M.R. SHAH,M.M. SUNDRESH 2 S.C.R. 713 713 INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. M/S NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 8460 of 2022) MARCH 17, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.] Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34, the NBCC for termination of the contract relying upon clause 60.1 of the agreement – NBCC invoked the Arbitration clause – Arbitral Tribunal rejected the NBCC’s claim for refund of two security deposits i.e. claim nos.33 and 34 – Tribunal held termination with reference to clause 60.1 bad in Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8460/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
45	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer MODI RUBBER LIMITED Vs CONTINENTAL CARBON INDIA LTD. – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 10262023 INSC 246 Judge : M.R. SHAH,SUDHANSHU DHULIA SICA; (ii) The schemes whether under the Companies Act or under specific insolvency legislations like, SICA are binding on all A B C D E F G H 1037 the creditors including the decree holders / Arbitration award holders / industrial award holders covered by the scheme. No of the SICA, the concerned insolvent companies can lead a debt free future life and can use this as a second chance / fresh start to succeed; (iii) That no creditor including the decree holders / Arbitration award holders / industrial award holders can claim super priority of their Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/375/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
46	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VICTORY IRON WORKS LTD. Vs JITENDRA LOHIA & ANR – [2023] 7 S.C.R. 10212023 INSC 230 Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,PANKAJ MITHAL control of all the assets of the corporate debtor, including the business records of the corporate debtor; (b) represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties, exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi-judicial or Arbitration Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1743/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed.
47	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer SHINHAN BANK Vs CAROL INFO SERVICES LIMITED – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 7062023 INSC 217 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,J.B. PARDIWALA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 5 S.C.R. [2023] 5 S.C.R. 706 706 SHINHAN BANK v. CAROL INFO SERVICES LIMITED ( Arbitration Petition (Civil) No 1 of 2019) MARCH 13, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss.7, 8 – Arbitration agreement – Leave and License agreement as also amenties agreement between the petitioner and the respondent – Disputes between the parties – Invocation of Arbitration clause by the petitioner by Proposing appointment of a Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION/1/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
48	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer SUPER DIAMOND TOOLS & ORS. Vs K. MOHAN RAO – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 6442023 INSC 192 Judge : SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. SUPER DIAMOND TOOLS & ORS. v. K. MOHAN RAO (Civil Appeal No. 6216 of 2012) MARCH 02, 2023 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 34 – Setting aside of arbitral award – regarding partnership accounts between the parties referred to Arbitration – As a counter claim, the surviving partner of the appellant firm alleged that the respondent had falsified accounts and siphoned huge sums of money – Arbitrator concluded that the respondent was guilty of Decision Date : 02-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6216/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
49	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED Vs M/S. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORP. LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 3262023 INSC 103 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA Arbitration before the Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators in the Bureau of Public Enterprises under Clause 13.1 of the contract. Further, the matter was stated to be purely contractual in nature, involving the enforceability and validity of the terms of the contract, and no case was made out International Ltd. & Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India & Ors.5 It is in these circumstances that the High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, i.e. the Arbitration clause or through the civil suit. ABL International6 Decision Date : 08-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3504/2010 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
50	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer B V SESHAIAH Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 2932023 INSC 93 Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN the dispute is not resolved amicably, the matter shall be referred to the sole Arbitration of Shri Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkaiah whose decision shall be final and binding on all the parties. On entering reference, the sole arbitrator shall hear the parties and pass award. The of Arbitration and conciliation act shall apply to the Arbitration proceedings. The place of Arbitration shall be Ongole only. 7. It is also to be noted that as per the terms of the agreement, the A B C D E F G H 295 Respondent No.2 was bound to file a compromise petition before Decision Date : 01-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/284/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
51	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD Vs THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS. – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 8712023 INSC 92 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA in terms of an agreement. Such agreement contained an Arbitration agreement in clause 23. Instead of pursuing its remedy in Arbitration , the appellant company unsuccessfully invoked the writ jurisdiction. This Court was approached whereupon it was held that in view of the issues there was no reason why the appellant company should not pursue its remedy in Arbitration , having solemnly accepted clause 23 of the agreement, and instead invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution to determine questions which really form Decision Date : 01-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5393/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
52	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          ಕನ್ನಡ – Kannada          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer M/S ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PVT. LTD. Vs ASHOK S DHARIWAL AND OTHERS – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 9912023 INSC 57 Judge : M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PVT. LTD. v. ASHOK S DHARIWAL AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2023) JANUARY 19, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(2)(a) – Prior and post 2019 – Whether the applicant can be permitted to adduce evidence to support the ground relating to Public Policy in an application filed u/s. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – Held: In the instant case, the Arbitration proceedings commenced and even the award was declared prior to Decision Date : 19-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/73/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
53	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR Vs PRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 5532023 INSC 14 Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any Arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on of any civil court or any Arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application [and includes any liability towards debt securities which remains unpaid in full or part after notice of ninety days served upon the borrower Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8969/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
54	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SABARMATI GAS LIMITED Vs SHAH ALLOYS LIMITED – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 1882023 INSC 10 Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,C.T. RAVIKUMAR of a right vested in a party by law. This would clearly include Arbitration proceedings.” (Emphasis added) 11. In the light of the position settled thus, in Paramjeet Singh Patheja’s Case (supra), it is relevant to refer to an earlier two-Judge Bench decision of this court in Kailash before the BIFR the appellant could have resorted to Arbitration proceedings also has to fail. 15. Now, we will have to consider the purported intent of Section 22 (5), SICA. The intention appears to be to protect the interest of such a party who was prevented from lawfully enforcing the Decision Date : 04-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1669/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
55	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NEPA LIMITED THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL) Vs MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL – [2022] 14 S.C.R. 4462022 INSC 1263 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,SUDHANSHU DHULIA – Order XXI, Rule 1 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34 and 37 – Interest on award – By award dated 14.04.2000, appellant was held liable to pay Rs. 14,49,300/- to respondent with interest @ rate of 18% per annum from date of award, till payment – Objections filed by appellant Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 were dismissed on 28.02.2001. 4. The appellant had thereupon preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Act before the Division Bench of the High Court. On 30.10.2001, 1 For short, the “Act”. A B C D E F G H 449 the Division Decision Date : 08-12-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3984/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
56	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. MEENAKSHI SOLAR POWER PVT. LTD. Vs M/S. ABHYUDAYA GREEN ECONOMIC ZONES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. – [2022] 8 S.C.R. 7562022 INSC 1223 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,B.V. NAGARATHNA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R. [2022] 8 S.C.R. 756 756 M/S. MEENAKSHI SOLAR POWER PVT. LTD. v. M/S. ABHYUDAYA GREEN ECONOMIC ZONES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8818 of 2022) NOVEMBER 23, 2022 [B. R. GAVAI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Arbitration to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to regularise the loan and facilitate the transfer of the project company – However, disputes arose between the parties – In terms with the Arbitration clause under the SPA, application s.11(6)by the appellant for appointment of an arbitrator – High referred to Para 18 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.8818 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2021 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Arbitration Application No.55 of 2020. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., S.V.S. Chowdary, Decision Date : 23-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8818/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
57	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR. Vs ISMAIL BHAI AND OTHERS – [2022] 8 S.C.R. 8372022 INSC 1220 Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,J.K. MAHESHWARI 10.06.2016. The order passed by the High Court is reproduced as thus: “1. The dispute between the parties in the above appeals was referred to the Mediation and Arbitration Centre, by an order of this court dated 01.02.2016. A B C D E F G H 843 2. From the report of the Mediation Arbitration Centre attached to this Court, it appears that the Mediation was successful. The parties have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise before the Mediation and the copy of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise entered into on 28.04.2016 is filed before us. 3. Therefore, both Decision Date : 22-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8727/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
58	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 9 S.C.R. 7312022 INSC 1217 Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION LIMITED & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8571 of 2022) NOVEMBER 18, 2022 [A. S. BOPANNA AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.] Arbitration – Arbitral Award – In the instant case, the State issued tender notice construction of Masonry Dam and the appellant-contractor was successful bidder – During the course of work, the contractor requested for an alternate quarry which request was denied and the matter was referred for Arbitration – Thereafter, the contractor made another request for Decision Date : 18-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8571/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
59	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs ABHIJIT PAUL – [2022] 8 S.C.R. 7282022 INSC 1216 Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA admitted or in case of dispute, established in a Court of law or by Arbitration or they also include a claim for damages which is disputed by the contractor.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In Provash Chandra Dalui and Anr. v. Biswanath Banerjee and Anr.20, noting that the intention of the Decision Date : 18-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8572/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
60	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M. P. POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, JABALPUR Vs M/S. SKY POWER SOUTHEAST SOLAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 12022 INSC 1208 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY [Para 54][51-G; 52- A-B] 8. The existence of a provision for Arbitration , which is a forum intended to quicken the pace of dispute resolution, is viewed as a near bar to the entertainment of a Writ Petition. [Para 54][52-C] M. P. POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD., JABALPUR v. M/S. Arbitration clause in regard to the subject matter? (5) Whether the order dated 07.07.2018 terminating the contract based on first respondent not fulfilling the conditions subsequent is sustainable having regard to the judgment rendered by the High Court in the earlier round of Decision Date : 16-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8515/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
61	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BHAGYODAY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs RAVINDRA BALKRISHNA PATEL DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 12022 INSC 1210 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY was not repaid – Lavad Suit was filed in 1988 by the Appellant before the Board of Nominees u/ GCoSA 1961, which held to make payment with interest p.a. from the date of suit till realisation and cost of the suit to the Plaintiff (therein) – Matter was adjudicated in the form of an arbitration not a Court within the meaning of Section 38 of CPC – For effective working of Section 39 of CPC, there must be a Court which has passed a decree – In the context of the CPC there is no such Court within the meaning of Section 38 in these cases instead, there was essentially arbitration happened is in terms of the Act on a claim by the appellant-Bank which is a creditor the matter was adjudicated in the form of an Arbitration proceeding. At the end of the adjudication, the plaintiff being successful, an award was passed. After the award is passed, a certificate has to All that the law provides is that it is enforceable as a decree. He would submit that similar provisions are contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 16. He drew our attention in this regard to the judgment of this Court reported in Sundaram Finance Limited versus Abdul Decision Date : 16-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8531/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
62	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. Vs VCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. – [2022] 17 S.C.R. 5672022 INSC 1193 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,VIKRAM NATH time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any Arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application 1 [and Decision Date : 10-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8972/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
63	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S TEXCO MARKETING PVT. LTD. Vs TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. – [2022] 9 S.C.R. 10312022 INSC 1186 Judge : SURYA KANT,M.M. SUNDRESH recently been considered by a learned Judge of this Court while exercising his jurisdiction under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. v. Jain Studios Ltd. [(2006) 2 SCC 628]” A B C D E F G H 1051 The Decision Date : 09-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8249/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
64	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer GUJARAT STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. Vs MAHAKALI FOODS PVT. LTD. (UNIT 2) & ANR – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 10942022 INSC 1140 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,BELA M. TRIVEDI Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.37 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) – Whether the provisions of Chapter-V of the MSMED Act, 2006 would have an effect overriding the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996? – Held :One of principles of over Special laws) – When there is apparent conflict between two statutes, the provisions of a general statute must yield to those of a special one – MSMED Act, 2006 being a special law and Arbitration Act, 1996 being a general law, the provisions of MSMED Act would have precedence over Decision Date : 31-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8008/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
65	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer WEATHERFORD OIL TOOL MIDDLE EAST LIMITED Vs BAKER HUGHES SINGAPORE PTE – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 9962022 INSC 1123 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,BELA M. TRIVEDI SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.[2022] 13 S.C.R. 996 996 WEATHERFORD OIL TOOL MIDDLE EAST LIMITED v. BAKER HUGHES SINGAPORE PTE ( Arbitration Petition No. 03 of 2022) OCTOBER 20, 2022 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.] Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996: s.11(6) read with s.11(12) – Appointment of arbitrator – Arbitration agreement in unstamped Contract – In the instant case, petitioner and respondent entered into three agreements – Respondent issued letters to the petitioner terminating the three agreements – Pursuant to Decision Date : 20-10-2022 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION/3/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
66	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer JAYCEE HOUSING PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK & ORS – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 8002022 INSC 1119 Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI 30 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.2(1)(e) – Odisha Civil Courts Act, 1984 – ss.3, 9 – Whether in exercise of powers u/s.3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the State Government can confer jurisdiction to hear applications u/ss. 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District, contrary to the provisions of s.2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act – Held: Objects and Reasons of the 2015 Act is to provide for speedy disposal of the commercial disputes which includes the Arbitration Decision Date : 19-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6876/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
67	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE BENGAL SECRETARIAT COOPERATIVE LAND MORTGAGE BANK AND HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs SRI ALOKE KUMAR & ANR – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 10842022 INSC 1084 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J.B. PARDIWALA the developer on the revised terms and conditions – Appellant society was accorded permission – Respondent No. 1 then instituted the Arbitration execution case in respect of the award made in the 1st dispute case, which was allowed – In revision, by the appellant society, the High Court the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court at Alipore, District South 24 Paraganas in the Arbitration Execution Case No. 19 of 2009 dated 17.04.2014. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The Appellant Society was registered in the year 1945 under the Act 1940 (now governed by the West Decision Date : 13-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7261/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
68	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RAJRATAN BABULAL AGARWAL Vs SOLARTEX INDIA PVT. LTD.& ORS. – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 7552022 INSC 1081 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY dispute. Admittedly, there is no suit or Arbitration proceeding initiated as contemplated for the purpose of Section 9 of the IBC. Here is a case where the second respondent consumed the goods supplied even after the alleged deficiency continued to exist. The alleged variations do not “suit or Arbitration proceedings” being deleted. In Section 8(1), the words “through an information utility, wherever applicable, or by registered post or courier or by any electronic communication” have been deleted. Likewise, in Section 8(2), the period of “at least 60 days … through Decision Date : 13-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2199/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
69	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R AND B) AND OTHERS Vs GOKUL CHANDRA KANUNGO (DEAD) THR. HIS LRS. – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 3092022 INSC 1043 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,B.V. NAGARATHNA ENGINEER (R AND B) AND OTHERS v. GOKUL CHANDRA KANUNGO (DEAD) THR. HIS LRS. (Civil Appeal No. 8990 of 2017) SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 [B. R. GAVAI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31(7)(a) – Arbitral award – Interest period, pendent-lite and post-award period, reduced to 9% p.a. u/Art.142 of the Constitution – Constitution of India – Art.142. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A perusal of clause (a) of subsection (7) of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Decision Date : 30-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8990/2017 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
70	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati Disclaimer SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs RAVIN CABLES LTD., AND ANR – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 8502022 INSC 1050 Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. RAVIN CABLES LTD., AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6908 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.9 – Code of Civil Procedure, – Or.XXXVIII, r.5 – Application u/s.9 – Power of Commercial Court – Appellant invoked performance bank guarantees issued by respondent no.1 – Thereafter, it invoked Arbitration – Respondent No.1 filed application u/s.9 before Commercial Court regarding the bank guarantees, pending which the Decision Date : 30-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6908/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
71	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. EMAAR INDIA LTD. Vs TARUN AGGARWAL PROJECTS LLP & ANR. – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 9332022 INSC 1049 Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI 13 S.C.R. 933 933 M/S. EMAAR INDIA LTD. v. TARUN AGGARWAL PROJECTS LLP & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6774 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Appointment of arbitrator – Arbitration Petition No. 637 of 2021, by which, the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) has appointed arbitrators to resolve the dispute between the parties, the original Decision Date : 30-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6774/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
72	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL M.V. POLARIS GALAXY Vs BANQUE CANTONALE DE GENEVE – [2022] 10 S.C.R. 12022 INSC 1015 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,A.S. BOPANNA lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).] (2) specifically enumerated under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 64. The Commercial Courts Act does not amend Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC which provides: “1. Appeals from orders.—An Decision Date : 23-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6897/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
73	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer ASHOK G. RAJANI Vs BEACON TRUSTEESHIP LTD. & ORS – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 1332022 INSC 1003 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,J.K. MAHESHWARI G. RAJANI v. BEACON TRUSTEESHIP LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4911 of 2021) SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 [INDIRA BANERJEE AND J.K. MAHESHWARI JJ.] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Ss. 7, 12A, 62 – Arbitration proceedings between corporate debtor and requesting payment of the second tranche of Rs.8 Crores in terms of the DTD. The Corporate Debtor also issued notice to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to make payment of second tranche of Rs. 8 Crores. 8. On 12th September 2019, the Corporate Debtor took recourse to Arbitration Proceedings against Decision Date : 22-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4911/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
74	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/s. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITED Vs OSCAR INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 11 S.C.R. 10202022 INSC 994 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,K.M. JOSEPH,INDIRA BANERJEE approximately INR 2562 crores with further additional pre-award interest (4.44%) and post-award interest (5.33%), in Arbitration Case No.19074/CYK. The Award was challenged in Singapore as well as in India but the objections were dismissed and the Award became final. In the proceedings initiated enforcement of said Award in the High Court1, anobjection was raised under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’). However, said objection was dismissed except insofar as original respondents No. 5 and 9 to 12, who were minors when the award was 1High Court Decision Date : 22-09-2022 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/20417/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
75	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION Vs POWER MECH PROJECTS LTD. – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 3432022 INSC 981 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,KRISHNA MURARI ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. POWER MECH PROJECTS LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 6789 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 [INDIRA BANERJEE AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss. 36 and 9 – Arbitration award – Interference before an application [2022] 7 S.C.R. 343 343 A B C D E F G H 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. made later in point of time. Both the applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the respondent and the application for stay u/s. 36(2) filed Decision Date : 19-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6789/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
76	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ESSAR HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs ARCELLOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED – [2022] 11 S.C.R. 10012022 INSC 957 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,A.S. BOPANNA [2022] 11 S.C.R. 1001 1001 ESSAR HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED v. ARCELLOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 6574 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 [INDIRA BANERJEE AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.9 – by respondent u/s.9, Arbitration Act was allowed, appellants were directed by Single Bench of High Court to deposit Rs.35.5 crores and Rs.47.41 crores respectively or to furnish bank guarantee for the entire amount with interest – Order confirmed by Division Bench – On appeal, Decision Date : 14-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6574/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
77	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Vs M/S. SAMARTH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS & ANR. – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1512022 INSC 935 Judge : SURYA KANT,ABHAY S. OKA RAJARAM PUND v. M/S. SAMARTH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6272 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 07, 2022 [SURYA KANT AND AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.11 – Arbitration Clause in agreement – Respondent No.1 is – Appellant invoked Arbitration clause in the ‘Development Agreement’ and issued a notice to the respondents regarding referral of the dispute to the sole arbitrator – Respondents failed to respond to it – Appellant filed application u/s.11 of the Act before the High Court – Decision Date : 07-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6272/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
78	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Vs SUDERA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 4622022 INSC 928 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA rent at the last rate paid so long we continue in the possession of the aforesaid premises and that is all that we are obliged to pay to you and you are entitled to get from us. There is no scope for any genuine or real claim for mesne profits/damages and the question of Arbitration does not respondent would not insist on reference to Arbitration . By letter dated 24.05.1994 the appellant wrote as follows: “WITHOUT PREJUDICE No.: HO:LAW:REC:1476:PT 24th May, 1994 Mis. Sudera Enterprises Pvt Ltd. 1, Shakespeare Sarani, · CALCUTTA- 700 001 Dear Sirs, We refer to your letter dated Decision Date : 06-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6199/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
79	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD. Vs VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. – [2022] 9 S.C.R. 8192022 INSC 898 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.S. BOPANNA SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD. v. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 5437 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 01, 2022 [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND A S BOPANNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996: s. 31(7)(a), 31(7)(b) – Post award interest arbitrator granting post award interest on the principal amount does not suffer from an error apparent. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD 1.1 While, clause (a) of Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is qualified by the Arbitration agreement, clause (b) is qualified by Decision Date : 01-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5437/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
80	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD Vs AFCONS GUNANUSA JV – [2022] 10 S.C.R. 6602022 INSC 884 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,SANJIV KHANNA,SURYA KANT SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.[2022] 10 S.C.R. 660 660 OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. v. AFCONS GUNANUSA JV ( Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 05 of 2022) AUGUST 30, 2022 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, SANJIV KHANNA AND SURYA KANT, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 11, 31, 31A, 38 and 39 – Fourth Schedule – Arbitrators’ Fees – Whether the arbitrator(s) are entitled to unilaterally determine their own fees – Whether the term “sum in dispute” in the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration Act means the cumulative total of Decision Date : 30-08-2022 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION/5/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
81	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUNDARESH BHATT, LIQUIDATOR OF ABG SHIPYARD Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 6412022 INSC 872 Judge : N.V. RAMANA,J.K. MAHESHWARI,HIMA KOHLI to the operational creditor, or fails to show any existing dispute or Arbitration , then the operational creditor can approach the NCLT. SUNDARESH BHATT, LIQUIDATOR OF ABG SHIPYARD v. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS [N. V. RAMANA, CJI] A B C D E F G H 656 SUPREME execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, Arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest Decision Date : 26-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7667/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
82	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi          ਪੰਜਾਬੀ – Punjabi Disclaimer SMT. KATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ANR. Vs SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.& ORS. – [2022] 17 S.C.R. 4162022 INSC 865 Judge : N.V. RAMANA,KRISHNA MURARI,HIMA KOHLI Minerals (P) ltd.4, was also misplaced. In that case, the Court was concerned with the interpretation of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, that deals with granting of injunctions. The specific question before the Court was whether the provisions of the CPC or the provisions of the Relief Act have a bearing on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 47. While discussing the nature of the Specific Relief Act, in the aforesaid case, this Court had observed as under:- “16. Injunction is a form of specific relief. It is an order of a court requiring a party Decision Date : 25-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5822/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
83	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs SHEETAL JAIDEV VADE & ORS. – [2022] 11 S.C.R. 1182022 INSC 861 Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA – Article 226 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Writ petitions u/Article 226 seeking reliefs to execute award passed by Arbitral Tribunal/Court – Entertainment of – Disapproved – Held: Reliefs sought by the private respondents-land owners were in the nature of execution of the passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/ Court – Apart from the fact that the award has been challenged by the appellant-NHAI by initiating proceedings u/s.34, Arbitration Act which are pending, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition u/Article 226 seeking the reliefs to execute Decision Date : 24-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5256/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
84	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND – [2022] 11 S.C.R. 252022 INSC 860 Judge : N.V. RAMANA,J.K. MAHESHWARI,HIMA KOHLI assigned after examining the role of senior authorities who were involved in the decision-making process. Astonishingly, most of the senior officials, who approved various decisions regarding extension of time, appointment of arbitrator and implementation of Arbitration award and consequent payment further extension of time. In the said correspondences, it was said that RPCL had already invoked the Arbitration clause on 22.12.2006, in terms of the contract and requested JSEB for appointment of an arbitrator. The said letters were handed over to the Appellant, on which under the Decision Date : 24-08-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1333/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
85	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BRIJ RAJ OBEROI Vs THE SECRETARY, TOURISM AND CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT & ANR. – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 782022 INSC 845 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,C.T. RAVIKUMAR SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. BRIJ RAJ OBEROI v. THE SECRETARY, TOURISM AND CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5509-5510 of 2022) AUGUST 18, 2022 [INDIRA BANERJEE AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. Bench erred in rejecting the application of the appellant u/s. 11(6) for appointment of an arbitrator – Arbitration clause cannot be rendered otiose by refusal of the respondent State to renew the lease – Thus, the impugned judgment and order is set aside – Appointment of an arbitrator Decision Date : 18-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5509/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
86	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer S. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Vs V. NARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS – [2022] 11 S.C.R. 422022 INSC 846 Judge : N.V. RAMANA,KRISHNA MURARI,HIMA KOHLI When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the Arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of Decision Date : 18-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5503/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
87	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. Vs RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED – [2022] 11 S.C.R. 8082022 INSC 841 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY award within the meaning of Section 30(4) of the Arbitration Act, giving it meaningful enforceability. The period spent in mediation is excluded for the purpose of limitation. The Act confers power to order costs based on conduct of the parties. [Para 72][861-D-H; 862-A-D] 6. Section 12A of signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator. (5) The settlement arrived at under this section shall have the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms under sub-section (4) of section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).” 25. Decision Date : 17-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5333/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
88	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MANJIT SINGH SODHI Vs THE CUSTODIAN & ORS. – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1652022 INSC 792 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.B. PARDIWALA Arbitration Act 1940, an appeal shall lie from any judgment [decree] sentence or order, not being interlocutory order, of the Special Court in the Supreme Court both on facts and law.” 10. Responding to the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal, it has been urged on Decision Date : 04-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5126/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
89	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs TULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 11122022 INSC 777 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,J.K. MAHESHWARI of the pendency of a suit or Arbitration proceedings, which is pre-existing—i.e. before such notice or invoice was received by the corporate debtor. The moment there is existence of such a dispute, the operational creditor gets out of the clutches of the Code. 30. On the other hand, as we declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely— (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, Arbitration panel or other Decision Date : 01-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/84/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
90	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD & ANR Vs M/s IVRCL AMR JOINT VENTURE – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 5222022 INSC 748 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.S. BOPANNA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD & ANR v. M/s IVRCL AMR JOINT VENTURE (Civil Appeal No. 4914 of 2022) JULY 25, 2022 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND A S BOPANNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 2(b), 7 and Arbitration agreement – Attributes – Contract Agreement entered between appellant (a subsidiary of CIL) and respondent on 30 January 2012 – Dispute between the parties – Invocation of jurisdiction u/s.11(6) by respondent before the High Court for appointment of arbitrator – Challenged, Decision Date : 25-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4914/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
91	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer GENERAL MANAGER EAST COAST RAILWAY RAIL SADAN & ANR. Vs HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. – [2022] 6 S.C.R. 7852022 INSC 743 Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA MANAGER EAST COAST RAILWAY RAIL SADAN & ANR. v. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 4747 of 2022) JULY 22, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.42 and 11(6) – Jurisdiction over SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4747 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2021 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Arbitration Petition No.10 of 2021. K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Vivek Gupta, Ms. Decision Date : 22-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4747/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
92	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED Vs NCC LIMITED – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 6602022 INSC 735 Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. [2022] 13 S.C.R. 660 660 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. NCC LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2022) JULY 20, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.11(6), time, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that after the insertion of Sub-Section (6-A) in s.11 scope of inquiry by the Court in petition is confined only to ascertain as to whether or not a binding Arbitration agreement exists qua the parties before it, which is relatable to Decision Date : 20-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/341/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
93	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S S.S. ENGINEERS Vs HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 3912022 INSC 1309 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN payment. On 09.7.2016, the appellant sent legal notice to HBL through its advocate, demanding payment or alternatively reference of the disputes to Arbitration . 12. On 30.08.2017, the appellant sent a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC to HBL claiming that a sum of Rs. disputing the claim. It is apparent from the records that there were pre-existing disputes between the parties and on 09.07.2016, a request had been made by the Operational Creditor to HBL to refer the disputes to Arbitration . 13. Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC read :- “8. Insolvency Decision Date : 15-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4583/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
94	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. Vs ALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 1242022 INSC 713 Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA the irrevocable license till the documents of transfer/conveyance are executed by the defendant. 3.2. That the appellant – defendant appeared before the High Court. The defendant raised verbal objection that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and 1996. The High Court vide order dated 21.07.2020 dismissed the suits with liberty to the parties to avail remedy of Arbitration in view of the Arbitration clause in the license agreement on the verbal plea. The order passed by the High Court dismissing the suits with the above Decision Date : 12-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3703/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
95	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs DIWAN CHAND ANAND & ORS – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 10532022 INSC 668 Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA the Punjab Government had acquired certain pieces of land belonging to two brothers jointly. Upon their refusal to accept the compensation offered, their joint claim was referred to Arbitration and an award was passed in their favour that was challenged by the State Government in appeal Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2397/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
96	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED Vs PRADEEP SHANTIPERSHAD JAIN & ORS – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 4302022 INSC 685 Judge : M.R. SHAH,ANIRUDDHA BOSE investment in the equity capital of Avitel India for a consideration of USD 60 million in order to acquire 7.8% of its paid-up capital. That the said SSA contained an Arbitration clause. 2.2 That thereafter, both the parties entered into a Shareholders Agreement (SHA) on 06.05.2011, which the relationship between the parties after SSA dated 21.04.2011 had been entered into. The said SHA also contained an Arbitration clause. As disputes arose between the parties, on 11.05.2012, notices of Arbitration were issued by HSBC to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/624/2020 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
97	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs TRANSSTROY (INDIA) LIMITED – [2022] 6 S.C.R. 9482022 INSC 680 Judge : M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. TRANSSTROY (INDIA) LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 6732 of 2021) JULY 11, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 23(2A) – Statements of claim dispute (in the present case, the termination of the Contract by the NHAI), the Arbitration proceedings would be maintainable. That does not mean that only a claim and/or counter claim as sought to be contended on behalf of the Contractor now would alone be entertained. [Para 13][966-D-E] [2022] Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6732/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
98	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs SRI P. NAGARAJU @ CHELUVAIAH & ANR – [2022] 8 S.C.R. 10702022 INSC 689 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,A.S. BOPANNA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. SRI P. NAGARAJU @ CHELUVAIAH & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 2022) JULY 11, 2022 [INDIRA BANERJEE AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] National Highways Act – ss.3J, 3G (7) – Arbitration value was determined at Rs.15,400/- per sq. mtr and Rs.25,800/- per sq. mtr respectively and compensation was awarded – Appellant aggrieved by the method adopted by the Arbitrator in determining the market value and compensation filed Arbitration suit u/s. 34 of the Act, 1996, dismissed Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4671/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
99	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs A. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR. – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 10722022 INSC 630 Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,A.S. BOPANNA pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, Arbitration panel or other authority. The prohibition to institution of suit or continuation of pending suits or proceedings including execution against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, Arbitration panel or other authority is specifically prohibited. He therefore submits that the learned NCLAT has correctly held that the application filed by KMBL under Section 7 of the Decision Date : 30-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/689/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
100	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BBR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 9772022 INSC 591 Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,SANJIV KHANNA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED v. S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (Civil Appeal Nos. 4130-4131 of 2022) MAY 18, 2022 [AJAY RASTOGI AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.20 – Place of Arbitration – Whether conducting Arbitration proceedings at a new place, owing to the appointment of a new arbitrator, would shift the jurisdictional seat of Arbitration – The place of conducting the Arbitration proceedings were shifted from Panchkula to Delhi due to the change of arbitrator – Appellant argued that Decision Date : 18-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4130/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed