Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Union of India v. Larsen & Tubro Limited
The Supreme Court upheld an arbitral award granting interest despite contractual clauses barring interest, clarifying that such clauses broadly preclude pre-award interest but do not bar post-award interest under the Arbitration Act, 1996.
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. M/S Anoj Kumar Garwala
The Supreme Court held that a tender bid with a materially deficient bank guarantee period is non-responsive and must be rejected, dismissing the appeal and directing the work to be awarded to the next lowest bidder.
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. M/S Anoj Kumar Garwala
The Supreme Court held that a tender bid with a bank guarantee valid for only six months instead of the required 40 months constituted a material deviation that could not be condoned, leading to dismissal of the appeal and directing acceptance of the next lowest bid.
Radhamma & Ors. v. H.N. Muddukrishna & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a registered Will disposing of a coparcener's undivided share in Mitakshara joint family property under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, dismissing the appellants' claim to an independent share.
Forech India Ltd v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd
The Supreme Court held that insolvency proceedings under the IBC prevail over pending winding up petitions before High Courts and allowed continuation of NCLT proceedings while permitting transfer of winding up petitions to the NCLT under amended statutory provisions.
Nawaz v. State
The Supreme Court reduced the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under provocation and upheld conviction for concealment of offence, partially allowing the appeal.
Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise
The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act applies independently to buyers claiming refund of excise duty paid under protest by manufacturers, and refund claims filed beyond this period are barred.
Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise
The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act applies strictly to buyers claiming refund of excise duty paid under protest by manufacturers, dismissing refund claims filed beyond this period.
Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise
The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act applies separately to buyers and manufacturers, and a buyer cannot claim refund of duty paid under protest by the manufacturer beyond this period.
Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike; Punjab Wakf Board v. Teja Singh
The Supreme Court held that suits for possession and injunction relating to Wakf properties are maintainable before Wakf Tribunals under the Wakf Act, 1995, clarifying the limits of civil court jurisdiction and distinguishing the Ramesh Gobindram precedent.
Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike; Punjab Wakf Board v. Teja Singh
The Supreme Court held that prior to the 2013 amendment, suits for eviction or possession relating to Wakf properties are maintainable only before civil courts and not Wakf Tribunals, dismissing the Punjab Wakf Board's appeals.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings requested before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by the pre-amended law, no claim certificates signed under duress do not bar arbitration, and courts must respect contractual procedures for appointing arbitrators.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by pre-amendment law, no claim certificates signed under financial duress do not extinguish disputes, and courts must respect agreed arbitration appointment procedures before appointing independent arbitrators.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 does not apply to arbitration proceedings commenced before its commencement, no claim certificates signed under economic duress do not bar arbitration, and the High Court rightly appointed independent arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the pre-amended Act due to failure of the appellants to follow the agreed appointment procedure.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration demands made before the 2015 Amendment are governed by pre-amendment law, 'no claim' certificates do not bar arbitration if signed under duress, and courts must respect agreed arbitration appointment procedures before appointing independent arbitrators.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antique Art Exports Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that absent prima facie evidence of coercion, a full and final discharge voucher accepted without protest extinguishes arbitral disputes, and the High Court erred in appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by pre-amendment law, no claim certificates signed under duress do not bar arbitration, and courts must respect agreed arbitration appointment procedures before appointing independent arbitrators.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by pre-amendment law, no claim certificates do not bar arbitration if signed under duress, and the High Court rightly appointed independent arbitrators due to failure to follow agreed appointment procedures.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by pre-amendment law, no claim certificates do not bar arbitration if signed under duress, and the High Court rightly appointed independent arbitrators due to failure of parties to follow agreed appointment procedures.
Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali
The Supreme Court held that Indian courts lack jurisdiction over custody of minor children who are US citizens and not ordinarily resident in India, affirming the US Court's custody orders and emphasizing the paramountcy of the child's welfare and comity of courts.