Supreme Court's Important Judgments of April 2026

 *Supreme Court's Important Judgments of April 2026*

1. Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash [2026] GCtR 285 (SC)
2. Samarendra Nath Kundu v. Sadhana Das [2026] GCtR 287 (SC)
3. Jai Prakash Saini v MD, UP Cooperative Federation Ltd [2026] GCtR 289 (SC)
4. Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari [2026] GCtR 288 (SC)
5. Satinder Singh Bhasin v. GNCTD [2026] GCtR 298 (SC)
6. J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director [2026] GCtR 299 (SC)
7. Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Rai [2026] GCtR 300 (SC)
8. A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt Ltd v. State of Jharkhand [2026] GCtR 301 (SC)
9. Punjab & Sind Bank v. Raj Kumar  [2026] GCtR 302 (SC)
10. Commissioner Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar [2026] GCtR 304 (SC)
11. Sajal Bose v. State of WB [2026] GCtR 305 (SC)
12. Madan Singh v. State of Haryana [2026] GCtR 332 (SC)
13. Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natawarlal Shamji Gada [2026] GCtR 338 (SC) : "No doubt, the principle that the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated keeping in mind the rights existing at the commencement of the lis. Where however subsequent events having a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief occur, the Court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the same and moulding the relief in accordance with law." 
14. Home Care Retail Marts Pvt Ltd v. Haresh N. Sanghavi [2026] GCtR 339 (SC) : "The principle of contextual or purposive interpretation cannot be invoked where the statutory language is unambiguous and admits of only one meaning. It is trite law that where the expressions employed in a statute are clear, categorical, and leave no room for doubt, the Court must refrain from resorting to contextual or purposive construction. If Courts were to resort to contextual or purposive interpretation so as to arrive at a meaning contrary to the plain language of the statute, it would not only do violence to the statute but at a jurisprudential level would constitute a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers."
15. State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora [2026] GCtR 340 (SC) : "It is well-settled that in matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 are mandatory and entail no relaxation merely on the ground that the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration during the pendency of trial. The provision casts upon the Court a duty to record, before enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative conditions, first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."

*To obtain full text PDF Copies of Decisions with synopsis Free of cost directly on your email address, please take the following steps* : 

1. Click on "Follow" option to become the Follower of this blog.

2. Mention your Email address in the "Comments" of this blog post.

Arbitrator's Eligibility under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Position

Arbitrator's Eligibility under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Position

It has been held that when a right exists, i.e., the right to object to the appointment of an ineligible arbitrator in terms of Section 12(5) of A&C Act, 1996, such a right cannot be taken away by mere implication. For a party to be deprived of this right by way of waiver, there must be a conscious and unequivocal expression of intent to relinquish it.

[ Bhadra International (I) Pvt. Ltd v. Airports Authority of India [2026] GCtR 12 (SC) ]

Arbitrability under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 : Supreme Court Explains the Law to be Applied

Arbitrability under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 : Supreme Court Explains the Law to be Applied

It has been held that the conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court or creation of a public forum though eminently significant, may not be the decisive test to answer and decide whether arbitrability is impliedly barred.  

Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd v. Santosh Cordeiro [2026] GCtR 4 (SC)

HC Answers and Examines the Scope of S.18 of MSMED Act, 2006

HC Answers and Examines the Scope of S.18 of MSMED Act, 2006

It has been held that S.18 of MSMED Act, 2006 cannot be invoked in respect of the dispute having arisen between the parties prior to the MSMED Act having came into force and prior to the “Supplier” having filed the memorandum and is registered under Section 8 of the said Act.

Faridabad Metal Udyog Pvt Ltd v. Anurag Deepak [2013] GCtR 6538 (Bombay)

HC Upholds the Relief Granted to MSME under MSMED Act, 2006

HC Upholds the Relief Granted to MSME under MSMED Act, 2006

Upholding the Order of MSEFC, it was held in context of S.18 of MSMED Act, 2006 that upon receipt of a reference by the Council, the Council may either itself attempt to bring about conciliation between the Parties in the  matter, or seek the assistance of an institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services  by making a reference to such an institution or centre for conducting  conciliation under the provisions of Sections 65 to 81 of the MSMED Act.

BSNL v. Maharashtra MSSEFC [2015] GCtR 6537 (Bombay)

HC Examines the Effect of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Exclusion of Indian Courts

HC Examines the Effect of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Exclusion of Indian Courts

It has been held that when the seat of arbitration is outside India, the bar contained in Section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 squarely applies and the jurisdiction of Indian courts is excluded, rendering Part I of the A&C Act inapplicable. On facts of this case, it was held that the dispute shall be governed by the arbitral proceedings in London as per the ICC Rules, Paris. 

[ DAMEPL v. Construcciones Y Auxiliar De Ferrocarriles [2025] GCtR 1888 (Delhi) ]

Power to Modify an Arbitral Award

Power to Modify an Arbitral Award

Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd [2025] GCtR 953 (SC) on Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the power of Court to modify an arbitral award. It was held that Court has a limited power under Sections 34 and 37 of the 1996 Act to modify the arbitral award.

Arbitration Clauses and Their Utility : An Analysis

Arbitration Clauses and Their Utility

By Vishal M.

It is now becoming a fashion to incorporate arbitration clauses in the agreements.

But is it economically viable to have an arbitration in India ?

After the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015,  4th Schedule was added to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The model fee of arbitrator for a sum in dispute of Rs. 5 lacs is Rs. 45000/- and if it is between above Rs. 5 lacs but below Rs. 2 lacs, then it is Rs. 45,000/- plus 3.5% of amount over Rs. 5 lacs. The Act does not makes it mandatory that parties have to pay fees according to 4th Schedule. Parties can agree to pay lesser fees to arbitrators, if arbitrator has agreed to it. 

As is visible, if a sum in dispute is Rs. 50,000/- even then the fees of arbitrator would be Rs. 45000/- if 4th Schedule is followed. This makes arbitration a bad choice. More so, when there is sole arbitrator in such case when 25% extra fees might also be added. So, in order to recover an amount of Rs. 50,000/- a person has to first spend more than Rs. 50,000/- on arbitrator [plus the vague "expenses" that arbitrator might add, plus the fees of lawyers], if an arbitration agreement exists. Arbitration should leave most of the things to parties' choice, but the rigidity of arbitrators in fixing their fees and propagating the myth that fees below 4th Schedule is impermissible makes the entire arbitration mechanism uneconomical and frustrates the object of the Act itself.

S.11 (14) of A&C Act, 1996 was introduced and now contains 4th Schedule. 

If we compare the costs which one would incur in a civil suit or commercial suit, then the one major costs incurred by party would be on expenses of lawyers, and the Court fees. A Judge deciding a civil suit or commercial suit cannot ask for his expenses / fees from the party.

In arbitration, some arbitrators fix the fees according to 4th Schedule and then would even say that other expenses will be separate [in addition to the fees under 4th Schedule] which will also be charged from the party. This leaves everything to uncertainty. 

The costs that one would incur on lawyers in a civil suit or arbitration would be similar. So there is not much variation in that. 

There have been instances where arbitrators have insisted that they would charge fees based on 4th Schedule even after they have accepted the appointment as arbitrator at lesser fees. 

The other risk is S.11 ; when a petition is filed before HC/SC under S.11, a large number of arbitrations are referred to Former Judges. What is not clear in the order passed under S.11 is about the fees that arbitrator would take and whether arbitrator can add random expenses to be paid by the parties. S.11 leaves no choice with parties ; choice of arbitrator is with HC/SC and they are almost imposed on the parties. 

Coming to the timelines : ideally an arbitration should be over in 12 months and in fast track, in 6 months. But a deluge of applications under S.29A shows lethargic pace of arbitration. Many of them are by Retired High Court Judges as arbitrators. On the contrary, an ordinary civil suit have gained reputation for being slow. But, Order 37 or Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provide avenue for a faster resolution. Order 17, Order 9, S.35B are methods to expedite disposal of commercial suits or civil suits. 

S.14 (1)(a) of A&C Act, 1996 provides for termination of arbitrator when there is undue delay. But this section has rarely been invoked and it causes further delay as well as increased expenses on arbitration. 

Third aspect is : Enforcement. An arbitral award cannot be enforced by arbitrator alone. It has to follow the process given under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. S.36 (1) of A&C Act, 1996 is an acknowledgement of the fact that enforcement of arbitral award cannot be done without understanding the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Nobody wants a paper decree or paper arbitral award.

Conclusion

Given these negative aspects of arbitration in India, whenever parties draft an agreement they should always try to ensure that incorporation of arbitration clauses is not done as a matter of course as once an arbitration agreement is there, civil suit or commercial suit becomes difficult to be initiated due to S.8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Incorporation of arbitration clauses is to be done only when the parties know what it means and what will be the economical costs of indulging in arbitral proceedings. 

Interest Liability under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

 Interest Liability under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Introduction

A&C Act, 1996 contains 87 sections. S.37 is in part 1 of the Act. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was amended in the year 2015 through Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 which had added S.29A (1) to the principal Act which had fixed a time limit of 12 months for making the award; through S.16 of the said Amendment Act, 2015, S.31 (7) was amended as well.  S.29B was also added through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 which provided for fast track procedure.

S.31 (7)(a) says "unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where and in so far as an arbitral award is for the payment of money, the arbitral tribunal may include in the sum for which the award is made interest, at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made." 

S.31 (7)(b) says "a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at the rate of two per cent. higher than the current rate of interest prevalent on the date of award, from the date of award to the date of payment."

Interpretation of S.31 (7)

Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd v. Governor, State of Orissa [2014] GCtR 6092 (SC) has dealt with the issue : "Whether grant of interest by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 amounts to granting "interest on interest"? 

It was explained at page 76 that Section 31(7)(a) of the Act deals with grant of preaward interest while sub-clause (b) of Section 31(7) of the Act deals with grant of post-award interest. Preaward interest is to ensure that arbitral proceedings are concluded without unnecessary delay. Longer the proceedings, would be the period attracting interest. Similarly, post-award interest is to ensure speedy payment in compliance of the award. Pre-award interest is at the discretion of Arbitral Tribunal, while the post-award interest on the awarded sum is mandate of statute - the only difference being that of rate of interest to be awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal. In other words, if the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded post-award interest payable from the date of award to the date of payment at a particular rate in its discretion then it will prevail else the party will be entitled to claim postaward interest on the awarded sum at the statutory rate specified in clause (b) of Section 31(7) of the Act, i.e., 18%. Thus, there is a clear distinction in time period and the intended purpose of grant of interest. Section 31(7)(a) employs the words "...the arbitral tribunal may include in the sum for which the award is made interest...". The words "include in the sum" are of utmost importance. This would mean that pre-award interest is not independent of the "sum" awarded. If in case, the Arbitral Tribunal decides to award interest at the time of making the award, the interest component will not be awarded separately but it shall become part and parcel of the award. An award is thus made in respect of a "sum" which includes within the "sum" component of interest, if awarded. There may arise a situation where, the Arbitral Tribunal may not award any amount towards principal claim but award only "interest”. This award of interest would itself then become the "sum" for which an award is made under Section 31(7)(a) of the Act. Thus, in a pre-award stage, the legislation seeks to make no distinction between the sum award and the interest component in it.

"What carries under Section 31(7) (b) of the Act is the "sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award" and not any other amount much less by or under the name "interest". In such situation, it cannot be said that what is being granted under Section 31(7)(b) of the Act is "interest on interest"." Arbitral Tribunal is well empowered to grant interest even in the absence of clause in the contract for grant of interest.

Power of Tribunal under S.31 (7)

The issue related to S.31 (7) of the A&C Act, 1996 was also discussed in NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTIONS CORPORATION LTD v Interstate Construction [2023] GCtR 2470 (Delhi). Hon'ble J. Yashwant Varma was part of the Bench and he authored the decision. Arbitral Tribunal had directed payment with 18% interest and matter went to Court. It was explained that "as is manifest from a conjoint reading of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 31(7) of the Act, the AT now stands empowered to award interest at such rate as it may deem reasonable for the period between the date on which the cause of action arose upto the date when an Award ultimately comes to be rendered. In terms of Clause (b), the AT is additionally empowered to direct payment of interest for the period between the date of the Award till the amounts specified therein are paid." "Section 31(7) of the Act thus in unequivocal terms recognizes only two periods for which interest may be awarded. These have been spelt out to be the period falling between the date on which the cause of action arose till the Award is made and the second comprising of the period starting from the date of the Award till the actual payment of the sums that the AT may have found the respondent liable to pay. This thus constitutes a clear departure from the interest regime which prevailed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and where three distinct periods- pre-reference/past period, pendente lite and future period were recognized to exist." 

Changed Regime from Arbitration Act, 1940

The shift from Arbitration Act, 1940 to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was explained way back in the year 2009.  Sayeed Ahmed and Company v. State of UP [2009] GCtR 2523 (SC) has held that "the Arbitration Act, 1940 did not contain any specific provision relating to the power of the arbitrator to award interest. That led to considerable confusion about the power of arbitrators in regard of award of interest from the date of cause of action to date of award, that is, pre-reference period (from the date of cause of action up to the date of reference) and pendente lite (from the date of reference to the date of award)." Sayeed Ahmed (2009) clearly holds that the distinction between the pre-reference/past period and pendente-lite period has clearly vanished and is inapplicable to arbitrations governed by A&C Act, 1996. 

Supreme Court : 10 Important Decisions of May 2024 : Part 1

Supreme Court : Ten (10) Important Decisions of May 2024 : Part 1

In Bar of Indian Lawyers v. DK Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases [2024] GCtR 1344 (SC), it has been held that services provided by Advocates are not covered under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. "Services hired or availed of an Advocate would be that of a contract ‘of personal service’ and would therefore stand excluded from the definition of “service” contained in the section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As a necessary corollary, a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019."

In the case of Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Karnataka [2024] GCtR 1352 (SC), it has been held that the provision of Section 14(3) of the  Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, providing for the period of 3 months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory. The same is held to be directory.

In Bhikchand v. Shamabai Dhanaraj Gugale [2024] GCtR 1350 (SC) it was reiterated that "if at a court auction sale in execution of a decree, the properties are purchased by a bona fide purchaser who is a stranger to the court proceedings, the sale in his favour is protected and he cannot be asked to restitute the property to the judgment debtor if the decree is set aside. The policy which prompts the extension of protection to the strangers who purchase at court auctions is based on a need to ensure that proper price is fetched at a court auction. The special protection afforded to a stranger who purchases at an execution sale is not extended to an assignee of the decree-holder auction purchaser. Persons who purchase at a court auction who are strangers to the decree are afforded protection by the court because they are not in any way connected with the decree. The reasons which prompt the courts to protect strangers who purchase at court auction sales also do not apply to assignees or purchasers from a decree-holder auction purchaser." It was also explained that "the execution of a decree by sale of the entire immovable property of the judgment debtor is not to penalise him but the same is provided to grant relief to the decree holder and to confer him the fruits of litigation."

In M/s Embio Ltd v. DGFT [2024] GCtR 1336 (SC) it was held that Section 11 (2) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is a penal provision. It must be strictly construed.

In Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen [2024] GCtR 1335 (SC) issue arose was what is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?  [page 2, para 2] or does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether? [page 2, para 2]. It has been concluded that the "line of precedents which have taken the position that ‘seizure orders’ are vitiated for delay in compliance with the reporting obligation are declared to be manifestly erroneous and are accordingly, overruled." [page 12, para 17]

In Tapas Guha v. Union of India [2024] GCtR 1329 (SC) it was held that "while acknowledging the importance of infrastructure development, it is paramount that such projects proceed in harmony with environmental laws to prevent irreparable damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. The requirement for Environmental Clearance serves as a crucial safeguard against unchecked exploitation of natural resources and helps uphold the principles of sustainable development- which safeguards the interests of both present and future generations."

In Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police [2024] GCtR 1284 (SC) on the issue of Minor Relatives and Inclusion in History Sheet, it has been commented while dealing with Standing Order No.L&O/54/2022 issued by Delhi Police Commissioner that "amended Standing Order that in the column “relations and connections”, it has been decided that identities of only those persons shall be reflected who can afford the history sheeter/bad character shelter, when the offender is running/wanted by the police and it shall also include names of his associates in crime, abettors and receivers. The amended Standing Order emphatically says that no details of any minor relatives, i.e., son, daughter, siblings shall be recorded anywhere in the History Sheet unless there is evidence that such minor, has or earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender." Ultimately, the criminal appeal filed by Amanatuallah Khan was disposed of modifying the decision of Hon'ble Delhi HC.

In the case of Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh [2024] GCtR 1273 (SC) while dealing with issue of Lis Pendens and equity, it was held that "the object underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is for maintaining status quo that cannot be affected by an act of any party in a pending litigation. The objective is also to prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums. The principle is based on equity and good conscience." There can be no doubt that even if Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable in its strict sense in certain cases, then too the principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity and good conscience, would certainly be applicable.

In the case of Shankar v. State of UP [2024] GCtR 1267 (SC) on the issue of S.319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it was explained that "the degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 is well settled. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned. The degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity."

In the case of Sharif Ahmed v. State of UP [2024] GCtR 1232 (SC), the important issue of non bailable warrants and completion of chargesheet was clarified. It was held that while there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of nonbailable warrants, it can be observed that non bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence. The chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial. The nature and standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and evidence is proven. The chargesheet is complete where a case is not exclusively dependent on further evidence.

You can download full text (PDF) Copies of all these judgments free of cost from Linkedin Page of GCtR Legal Updates. 

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship. 

Some Interesting Decisions

Some Interesting Decisions 

State of Maharashtra v Ravindranath Kautik Mohite [2016] GCtR 4405 (Bombay) : If    delay    is   caused on account of  non processing of the file then the Applicant is entitled to get interest on the delayed pension.

M/s.Ravindranath GE Medicate Associate Private Limited v M/s.Clean Coats Private Limited [2016] GCtR 4407 (Bombay) : Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006 clearly indicates that once the conciliation initiated under section 18(2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration and for such dispute resolution, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to such disputes as if the arbitration was pursuant to the arbitration agreement referred to in section 7(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 

Pradeep Sakharam Mayekar v State of Maharashtra [2016] GCtR 4408 (Bombay) :Duty to act in a fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and objective manner is a facet of the Rule of Law in a constitutional democracy like ours.  The action that is arbitrary has no place in a polity governed by Rule of Law apart from being offensive to the equality clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

State of Maharashtra v Vijay Ghogre [2016] GCtR 4406 (Bombay) : There is no total bar for the State to use and utilise it's enabling power to provide Reservation to all the similarly placed class/group.

Kandarpa Pathak v Mono Kanta Baruah [2016] GCtR 3358 (Gauhati) : A bare reading of Order XIX Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 leaves no manner of doubt that the said provision can be invoked when the Court requires any particular fact or facts to be proved by affidavit and such evidence is tendered by way of affidavit, than the Court can order, at the instance of either party, the presence of the deponent for cross examination. What, therefore, follows is that in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Order XIX Rule 2, there must be a proceeding where any fact or facts are being sought to be proved by affidavit and in deference to the said purpose, evidence in given by either party, by affidavit.

Mohammad Munaf Mohammad Hanif Bedre v State of Maharashtra [2016] GCtR 4409 (Bombay) : Recourse to affinity test can be taken if the other documentary evidence, which was conclusive in nature was not available.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.

Scope of "Review" in Arbitration : HC Explains the Law

 

Scope of Review in Arbitration : HC Explains the Law

In one of the case, issue of review arose.

In M/s.Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd. v Maharashtra State Road Development) Corporation Limited [2013] GCtR 4353 (Bombay) it was held that "in view of the express bar provided under section 5 that notwithstanding contained any other law for the time being in force, matters which are governed by part I, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in that part" and "the review is not provided in any of the provisions of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996".

Further, "the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self contained code and as the said Act does not provide any remedy of review, it is manifest that review could not be made." "Remedy of review is substantive remedy and would not be maintainable unless the statute/rules permits. If, the right of review is not provided and is allowed to be exercised, any order if passed would be ultra-virus and without jurisdiction."

 Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.

ARBITRATION : 15 Crucial Judgments of 2023 on Arbitration

 15 Crucial Judgments of 2023 on Arbitration 

In Ambey Mining Pvt Ltd v NTPC Ltd [2023] GCtR 2247 (Delhi) it was held that Section 62 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act also states that it is only where the parties agree to the conciliation process that they shall be so referred to the said process.

In Delhi Paper Products Co. Pvt Ltd v Union of India [2023] GCtR 101 (Delhi), it was found that the arbitral award was based on material, which is extraneous to the controversy. 

In Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure v Sukumar Chand Jain [2023] GCtR 2248 (Delhi) it was held that neither the Commercial Court, considering the application for setting aside an award under Section 34 of the A&C Act, nor the appellate court, considering an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act, is required to re-evaluate the evidence and re-adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 

It was held in CSIR v M/s Virtual - Wire Technologies Pvt Ltd [2023] GCtR 2256 (Delhi) that "the object of the alternative dispute resolution process of arbitration is to have expeditious and effective disposal of the disputes through a private forum of the parties’ choice."

In Pradeep Vinod Construction Co v Union of India [2023] GCtR 2349 (Delhi) it was held that the objective of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is to provide for neutrality of arbitrators and objectivity of the arbitral tribunal.

In Suryapushpa Distributors v RLDA [2023] GCtR 2250 (Delhi) it has been held that "when a party is seeking relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it is implicit that there is a final and binding arbitration agreement in existence. When an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is filed before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, there has to be “manifest intention” on the part of the applicant to take recourse to the arbitral proceedings."

In ITDC Ltd v Bajaj Electricals Ltd [2023] GCtR 105 (Delhi) it has been held that "Section 34(3) of the A&C Act provides for the period within which the objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act may be filed for setting aside the Award. In nutshell, it provides for a limitation period of three months in filing the Objections and a further period of 30 days in case the parties are able to show sufficient cause which prevented it from filing the petition within the prescribed period. In all, three months plus one month is the time provided for filing of the objections which is now settled to be the maximum period beyond which no further extension under any circumstances, can be granted."

In Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd v Saatvik Foods [2023] GCtR 2251 (Delhi) it has been noted that "if the parties have agreed that they would first endeavour to resolve the disputes amicably in a particular manner, it is necessary for them to first exhaust that procedure before exercising any right to refer the disputes to arbitration."

In UBTECH Pvt Ltd v Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd [2023] GCtR 2253 (Delhi) it has been concluded that "the objection raised on behalf of the respondent under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 cannot come to its rescueand further found that the dispute in question was arbitral in nature."

It has been held in Union of India v Alcon Builders and Engineers [2023] GCtR 2254 (Delhi) that "it is important to appreciate that the A&C Act, 1996 does not define an "award‟, except to say in section 2(1)(c) that "arbitral award‟ includes an interim award. But typically, an arbitral award includes decisions on multiple claims and counter-claims raised by the disputing parties; and thus the award commonly comprises a bouquet of decisions of the arbitrator on separate claims and counter-claims.

It was held in Gujarat JHM Hotels Ltd v Rajasthali Resorts and Studios Ltd [2023] GCtR 2255 (Delhi) that "position in law can be safely recognised to be the seat court being the focal point for all challenges that may arise before, during or after the conclusion of arbitral proceedings. The seat court would always be the central pivot in terms of the provisions that may be contained in the arbitration agreement. It would thus clearly be a court which would fall within the ambit and scope of Section 42 of the A&C Act, 1996".

It was held in Inland Waterways Authority of India v Reach Dredging Ltd [2023] GCtR 153 (Delhi) that "the venue of arbitration is to be merely recognised as a convenient location or place which may be decided upon by parties for the purposes of conduct of arbitral proceedings" but "a seat of arbitration is to be identified from a juridical perspective and thus constituting the situs of the arbitration itself."

In Bridge Building Construction Co. Pvt Ltd v BHEL [2023] GCtR 2252 (Delhi) it was noted "that a person who is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator would also be ineligible to appoint the arbitrator and the element of ineligibility would also extend to the person so appointed."

It was held in Barasat Krishnagar Expressways Ltd v NHAI [2023] GCtR 2257 (Delhi) it was held that "an inordinate delay in passing of an Award is detrimental to the very object of arbitration", however "effect of delay in making an Award is to be considered by the Court once the Award is pronounced by the Arbitral Tribunal and is challenged by either of the parties in accordance with law."

In Chabbras Associates v HSCC India Ltd [2023] GCtR 2258 (Delhi) it was reiterated that "procedure prescribed in the Agreement before invocation of the Arbitration Agreement necessarily needs to be followed, as Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be invoked only where the parties have failed to act under the prescribed procedure".

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.

10 Judgments of Supreme Court that Everyone Should Know

 10 Judgments of Supreme Court that Everyone Should Know

There are some decisions which everyone should know. 

List is as follows : - 

1. Lalita Kumari v Govt of UP [2013] GCtR 210 (SC) - If the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith.
2. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] GCtR 4065 (SC) - Articles dealing with different fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution of India do not represent entirely separate streams of rights which do not mingle at many points. They are all parts of an integrated scheme in the Constitution.
3. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy v CBI [2013] GCtR 338 (SC) - Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
4. CIT v Chhabil Dass Aggarwal [2013] GCtR 751 (SC) - High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
5. United Bank of India v Satyawati Tandon [2010] GCtR 1357 (SC) - High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions.
6. Associate Builders v DDA [2014] GCtR 1661 (SC) - It is important to note that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to replace the 1940 Arbitration Act in order to provide for an arbitral procedure which is fair, efficient and capable of meeting the needs of arbitration; also to provide that the tribunal gives reasons for an arbitral award; to ensure that the tribunal remains within the limits of its jurisdiction; and to minimize the supervisory roles of courts in the arbitral process.
7. Rajnesh v Neha [2020] GCtR 304 (SC) - The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, common law marriage, should be required to file a concise application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings, alongwith an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court, as a mandatory requirement.
8. Sarla Verma v DTC [2009] GCtR 1241 (SC) - Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents.
9. NICL v Pranay Sethi [2017] GCtR 836 (SC) - In cases for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. 
10. Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v State of Maharashtra [1984] GCtR 4269 (SC) - Five golden principles, which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.