Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Arbitration Act, 1940

388 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–388.

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.versusATWOOD OCEANIC INTERNATIONAL, S.A.

2008 INSC 64813 May 2008Dismissed

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) entered into a drilling contract with Atwood Oceanic International containing clauses on tax liability and changes in law. The Government of India issued a 1983 notification extending the Income Tax Act to offshore areas, causing Atwood to pay tax on its expatriate employees for a

M/S OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD.versusM/S OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.

2018 INSC 33713 April 2018Dismissed

The dispute between Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. and Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. arose from a breach of an agency agreement and was referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Two arbitrators could not agree on an award, so the matter was referred to an umpire who awarded damages to the respondent. The appellant late

DR. KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.

2004 INSC 26613 April 2004Dismissed

Dr. Karan Singh, son of the former Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir, claimed that 563 heirloom articles in the state Toshakhana were his private property. After a 1983 representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs was rejected, he filed a writ petition which was partially allowed by the High Court, declaring 42 items his.

R.N. KUMARversusR.K. SORAL

1988 INSC 10513 April 1988Dismissed

The petitioner and respondent entered into a film distribution agreement on 19 March 1983 that contained an arbitration clause. On 11 March 1985 they executed a second agreement in which the respondent promised to pay Rs 6.5 lakhs and the petitioner would surrender his distribution rights, purportedly cancelling the 19

R. MCDILL AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.versusGOURI SANKAR SARDA AND OTHERS

1991 INSC 7113 March 1991Appeal(s) allowed

A suit was filed by Gouri Sankar Sarda against R. McDill Co. and Misrilal Bharamchand. The defendants applied under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for a stay of the suit, but the application was withdrawn for a formal defect and the court ordered them to make a fresh application. Instead of filing a joint fres

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.versusNEPC INDIA LTD.

1999 INSC 1013 January 1999Disposed off

Sundaram Finance Ltd entered into a hire‑purchase agreement for two wind‑turbine generators with NEPC India Ltd, which contained an arbitration clause. After the respondent defaulted on payments, the appellant sought interim custody of the equipment under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD.versusFERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD.

2007 INSC 114012 November 2007Dismissed

Larsen & Toubro Ltd entered into a purchase order with Fertilizer and Chemicals Travancore Ltd that contained both Standard Conditions and Special Conditions. A dispute arose over the arbitration clause: the appellant sought an independent sole arbitrator under the Special Conditions, while the respondent insisted that

DULAL PODDARversusEXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DONA CANAL DIVISION AND ORS.

2003 INSC 62712 November 2003Dismissed

The appellant, a contractor, entered into a canal construction contract with the respondent department, which contained an arbitration clause appointing the Superintending Engineer as arbitrator. After an interim award, the arbitrator failed to pass a final award, prompting the contractor to invoke Section 8 of the Arb

ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITEDversusBERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED

2024 INSC 68612 September 2024Directions issued

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

SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD.versusAKSH OPTIFIBRE LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 36012 August 2005Disposed off

Shin‑Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. entered into a contract with AKSH Optifibre Ltd. containing an international arbitration clause. After the contract was terminated, the respondent sued for a declaration that the arbitration agreement was void, while the appellant sought a direction under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Con

KAMALUDDIN ANSARI & CO.versusUNION OF INDIA

1983 INSC 9112 August 1983Dismissed

The Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals (DGS&D) entered into a standard form contract with Kamaluddin for timber supply, which contained Clause 18 allowing the Government to recover any claimed sum by appropriating amounts due under other contracts, and Clause 24 providing for arbitration. Kamaluddin failed to

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. KRAFTERS ENGINEERING & LEASING (P) LTD.

2011 INSC 48312 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India challenged an arbitral award that granted interest on amounts payable to M/s. Krafters Engineering & Leasing (P) Ltd. under a works contract, arguing that Clause 1.15 of the General Conditions expressly prohibited any interest on such amounts. The High Court had upheld the award, but the Supreme Cour

SKYPAK COURIERS LTD. ETC. ETC.versusTATA CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. ETC.

2000 INSC 32012 May 2000

The Supreme Court examined the practice of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) referring consumer disputes to a retired judge for "consensual adjudication" and then treating the award as its own order. It held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not empower the Commission to delegate its

G.C. KANUNGOversusSTATE OF ORISSA

1995 INSC 37812 May 1995Case Allowed

The petitioners, contractors who had contracts with the State of Orissa, obtained arbitral awards from Special Arbitration Tribunals which were later made "Rules of Court" by civil courts. The State subsequently enacted the Arbitration (Orissa Second Amendment) Act, 1991, which retrospectively nullified those awards, e

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.versusL.K. AHUJA

2004 INSC 25712 April 2004Disposed off

The dispute arose from contracts for work where the parties had agreed to refer disagreements to arbitration. After a fresh award was made by a newly appointed arbitrator, the appellant sought to set aside the award, challenging several items including sales‑tax refund and loss‑of‑profit claims, and also argued that th

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S. BANWARI LAL AND SONS (P) LTD.

2004 INSC 25212 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India sought to set aside an arbitration award that granted damages to Mis. Banwari Lal & Sons for the use of a commercial property requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The Act lapsed on 10‑Mar‑1987, after which the Court permitted the Union to remain in p

BOC INDIA LTD.versusBHAGWATL OXYGEN LTD.

2007 INSC 27912 March 2007Dismissed

BOC India Ltd. entered into a turnkey contract with Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. for the erection, installation and commissioning of an oxygen plant at a lump‑sum price, subject to variations for imported components. Due to exchange‑rate and customs‑duty changes the price rose, and the parties later disputed a sum of Rs 17,95,

BALWANT SINGH (D) THR. LR.versusDUNGAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

2020 INSC 17212 February 2020Disposed off

The brothers Balwant Singh and Dungar Singh disputed the partition of their father’s property and, by mutual consent, appointed three close relatives as arbitrators under an agreement dated 23‑11‑1981. The arbitrators passed a detailed award allocating houses, land, jewellery and cash, which was later registered. Dunga

STAR CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORT CO. AND ORS.versusTHE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.

2001 INSC 8412 February 2001Dismissed

Star Construction and Transport Co. and others appealed against The India Cements Ltd. after a non‑speaking arbitration award of Rs. 65,00,000 was reduced to Rs. 49,00,000 by the respondent, who claimed a set‑off of Rs. 16,00,000 arising from two suits pending before the High Court. The respondent sought to treat the a

DRESSER RAND S.A.versusM/S. BINDAL AGRO CHEM LTD. AND ANR.

2006 INSC 2012 January 2006Dismissed

The Indian company Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. invited bids for equipment and, after negotiations, agreed to modify its General Conditions of Purchase (which contained an arbitration clause) with Dresser Rand SA. The parties exchanged a revised set of conditions on 10 June 1991 and subsequently issued Letters of Intent on 12

J. KODANDA RAMI REDDYversusSTATE OF A.P. & ORS.

2010 INSC 77211 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant contractor filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking appointment of an arbitrator for claims exceeding Rs.50,000, which the State of Andhra Pradesh opposed on the ground of Government Order (GOM) No. 430, 24‑10‑1983, as clarified by GOM No. 160, 01‑06‑1987, that such claims mus

STATE OF U.P.versusHARISH CHANDRA AND CO.

1998 INSC 42211 November 1998Disposed off

The State of U.P. entered into a contract with Harish Chandra & Co. for excavation and construction work, which the contractor failed to complete, leading the State to finish the work through other agencies and incur extra costs. The dispute over payment was referred to arbitration, where the arbitrator awarded interes

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANYversusRENUSAGAR POWER COMPANY

1987 INSC 20411 August 1987Appeal(s) allowed

General Electric Company (GEC) and Renusagar Power Company entered into a contract for equipment supply, which later gave rise to disputes referred to ICC arbitration. Renusagar filed a suit in the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that the disputes were not arbitrable, while GEC applied for a stay of the suit un

M/S. ETHIOPIAN AIRLINESversusM/S. STIC TRAVELS (P) LTD.

2001 INSC 29011 July 2001Dismissed

Ethiopian Airlines terminated its agreement with STIC Travels and the dispute was referred to arbitration under a clause that the tribunal would consist of three arbitrators, each party appointing one and the two appointed arbitrators selecting a third who would act as Chairman. After the death of the appellant's origi

INDU ENGINEERING AND TEXTILES LTDversusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2001 INSC 29111 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Indu Engineering & Textiles Ltd. supplied hard coke to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under a contract containing a price‑escalation clause. The clause was later modified to apply only when there was a statutory increase in price. DDA refused to pay the escalated price for hard coke, leading to arbitration. The

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusGAURANGALAL CHATTERJEE

1993 INSC 18911 May 1993Dismissed

The State of West Bengal sought the appointment of an arbitrator under clause 25 of a contract, but the Chief Engineer failed to act, prompting the respondent to approach the High Court. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court revoked the Chief Engineer's authority and appointed Shri D.K. Roy Chowdhury as sole arbitr

KAMRUP LNDUSTRLAL GASES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2017 INSC 33011 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd entered into a contract with Diesel Locomotive Works (Union of India) to supply minimum quantities of oxygen and acetylene gas each month. When the buyer failed to lift the stipulated amounts, the seller was entitled to sell the surplus or, if unsold, to blow off the gas and recover the proc

SHANMUGHASUNDARAM AND ORS.versusDIRAVIA NADAR (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 13311 March 2005Dismissed

Two brothers, who were co‑owners of inherited land with three sisters, entered into a sale agreement with the appellant and an arbitration agreement to fix the price. The first arbitral award was set aside by the civil court on two grounds: breach of natural justice and the fact that the sisters, who owned a 3/5 share,

CHINTELS INDIA LTD.versusBHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 7611 February 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Chintels India Ltd. filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award, but the single judge of the Delhi High Court refused to condone the delay in filing the application and dismissed it. The appellant challenged that order by invoking section 37(1)(c) o

JAGDISH CHANDER BHATIAversusLACHHMAN DAS BHATIA

1993 INSC 611 January 1993Disposed off

The dispute between Jagdish Chander Bhatia and Lachhman Das Bhatia over shares in two houses was referred to arbitration by the Supreme Court, which appointed a retired chief justice as sole arbitrator. The arbitrator issued a speaking award allocating specific shares based on contributions to the purchase price, witho

S.V. CHANDRA PANDIAN AND ORS.versusS.V. SIVALINGA NADAR AND ORS.

1993 INSC 411 January 1993Appeal(s) allowed

Six brothers who were partners in two firms entered into arbitration to resolve disputes. The arbitrators awarded a division of the firms' assets, including immovable properties, among the brothers upon dissolution. A Single Judge ordered the award to be registered before it could be made a rule of court; the Division

M/S. CONSTRUCTION INDIAversusSECRETARY, WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 80610 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Construction India entered into works contracts with the Government of Orissa and, after the respondents failed to refer disputes to arbitration, the parties appointed Shri G.S. Patnaik, Chairman of the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal, as a sole arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. During the arbitratio

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSURENDRA, DEVENDRA & MOHENDRA TRANSPORT CO.

1987 INSC 37110 December 1987Disposed off

The Food Corporation of India (appellant) hired Sureendra, Devendra & Mohendra Transport Co. (respondent) as a transport contractor under three written agreements. Disputes over demurrage, wharfage and shortage charges were referred to an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration clause. The arbitrator reduced the appellan

CHIEF ENGINEER OF B.P.D.P./R.E.O., RANCHIversusM/S. SCOOT WILSON KIRPATRICK INDIA PVT. LTD.

2006 INSC 82510 November 2006Disposed off

The Chief Engineer of B.P.D.P./R.E.O., Ranchi appealed against a High Court order that dismissed its arbitration appeal as non‑maintainable. The appeal concerned whether an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award falls within Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Hig

STATE OF U.P.versusMIS RAM NATH INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

1995 INSC 71810 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh entered into a construction contract with Ram Nath International for dam works, but design changes caused a substantial increase in the quantity of work. The contractor claimed a higher rate for the extra work, which the arbitrator accepted and awarded, also directing that work done after 30

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS

2014 INSC 100110 September 2014Dismissed

The State of West Bengal filed a Section 34 application to set aside an arbitral award before the District Court of Jalpaiguri, while the High Court of Calcutta had earlier entertained interim relief under Section 9 and appointed an arbitrator under Section 11. The High Court held that, under Section 42 of the Arbitrat

U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD.versusM/S. THREE CIRCLES

2009 INSC 112410 September 2009Dismissed

The U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. entered into a contract with M/s Three Circles for constructing a cold storage. Disputes arose over balance steel, alleged bad workmanship, and interest on the award. An arbitrator awarded Rs.32,68,805.80 with interest at 15% and allowed various claims, which the appellant sought to

BIJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusMAYANK SRIVASTAVAAND ORS.

1994 INSC 31110 August 1994

The parties to a family arbitration agreement divided joint family property among six branches, with a retired district judge acting as arbitrator. After the award was registered, objections were filed, and later amended to include new allegations of arbitrator misconduct. The High Court set aside the award on grounds

STATE OF ORISSAversusNIRANJAN SWAIN

1989 INSC 24110 August 1989Case Partly allowed

The State of Orissa contracted Niranjan Swain for construction of an earth dam and a dispute over the balance payment, security deposit and interest was referred to an arbitrator under the contract’s arbitration clause. The arbitrator awarded a lump‑sum of Rs 21,11,835 inclusive of interest, which the trial court made

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusM/S. CHANDU CONSTRUCTION AND ANR.

2007 INSC 40610 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) entered into a construction contract with Chandu Construction for godowns, which required the rate to include both labour and material as per CPWD specifications. After termination of the contract, the claimants sought arbitration and were awarded Rs 8,23,101 for the supply of sand,

STATE OF PUNJABversusSRI HARDYAL

1985 INSC 8410 April 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab entered into a contract with Sri Hardyal for construction of bridges, containing an arbitration clause appointing the Superintending Engineer as arbitrator but fixing no time for the award. Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the award was required within four months, a period that elapsed before the a

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S. NEELAM ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

2010 INSC 14210 March 2010Dismissed

The Union of India and others entered into a contract with M/s Neelam Engineering for security lighting, which later gave rise to disputes resolved by an arbitrator who awarded Rs.1,70,020 in favour of the respondent. The respondent filed a petition under Sections 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to have t

M/S. JUPITOR CHIT FUND (P) LTD.versusSRI SHIV NARAIN MEHTA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2000 INSC 6310 February 2000Dismissed

M/S Jupitor Chit Fund (P) Ltd, a chit fund company, sued the legal representatives of Shiv Narain Mehta for recovery of Rs.10,000 after a dispute over non‑payment of instalments. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator, but the award was set aside because the reference to arbitration was improper – no notice was give

SMT. PREM LATA AND ANR.versusMIS ISHAR DASS CHAMAN LAL AND ORS .

1995 INSC 2110 January 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, the widow and alleged son of a deceased partner, sought the accounts of an unregistered partnership firm that had dissolved upon the partner's death. They invoked Clause 16 of the partnership deed, which mandated referral of any dispute to named arbitrators, and filed a suit under Section 20 of the Arbi

PURE HELIUM INDIA PVT. LTD.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION

2003 INSC 5389 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Pure Helium India Ltd. won the lowest bid to supply helium gas to ONGC, quoting a composite price of Rs.149 per cubic meter that included a US$4.60 foreign‑exchange component. When the dollar appreciated, Pure Helium claimed compensation for the exchange‑rate difference, and a three‑member arbitral tribunal awarded it

RAMJI DAYAWALA & SONS (P) LTD.versusINVEST IMPORT

1980 INSC 1979 October 1980Appeal(s) allowed

Ramji Dayawala & Sons entered into a sub‑contract with Yugoslavian firm Invest Import that contained a clause referring all disputes to arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. After completing the work, the Indian contractor sued for unpaid sums, and Invest Import moved to stay the suit on th

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.versusGUPTA BROTHER STEEL TUBES LTD.

2009 INSC 11219 September 2009Dismissed

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) appealed a 1993 arbitration award that granted damages to Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd. for alleged breaches of a supply scheme. SAIL contended that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by applying Clause 7.2, which provides for liquidated damages, to a refusal to supply, a

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S V. PUNDARIKAKSHUDU AND SONS AND ANR.

2003 INSC 4629 September 2003Dismissed

The Union of India entered into a construction contract with Mis V. Pundarikakshudu and Sons, which was later terminated under clause 54. Both parties submitted claims to a sole arbitrator, who awarded Rs. 14,31,463 to the contractor and Rs. 33,95,000 to the Union, despite finding the Union responsible for delay. The c

H. SRINIVAS PAI & ANR.versusH.V. PAI (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 4009 July 2010Disposed off

In a suit for partition of joint family property filed in 1991, the appellants sought a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was dismissed in 1995 and affirmed on appeal. The suit continued, and the appellants later filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Concilia

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKAversusV. HARISHBABU

1996 INSC 7109 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Secretary to the Government of Karnataka (appellant) contracted V. Harishbabu for canal work, but disputes led to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an award on 22‑April‑1993 and the respondent filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on 23‑April‑1993, attaching a copy of the award. Th

HINDUSTAN STEELWORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD.versusTARAPORE AND CO. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7229 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. (HSCL) awarded a construction contract to Tarapore & Co. (the contractor) and obtained fourteen unconditional bank guarantees from Bank of India, each stipulating that HSCL was the sole judge on breach and loss. After the contractor failed to complete the work, HSCL rescinded the

SUPREME CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETYversusM/S. H.S. NAG AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.

1996 INSC 6559 May 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Co‑operative Group Housing Society entered into a construction contract with H.S. Nag & Associates that contained an arbitration clause (clause 32). After additional towers were awarded, a dispute arose and the respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to refer the matter

STATE OF ORISSAversusORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LTD.

1999 INSC 1739 April 1999Dismissed

The State of Orissa and Orient Paper & Industries Ltd entered into an agreement granting exclusive rights to fell bamboos, which later gave rise to disputes over the measurement of bamboo quantities. The parties referred three specific questions to an arbitrator: the correctness of the Chief Conservator's determination

U. P. RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.versusINDURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 2139 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd (appellant) and Indure Pvt Ltd (respondent) were negotiating a joint tender for the U.P. State Electricity Board. The appellant sent a draft agreement which it did not sign; the respondent returned a counter‑proposal deleting clause 10 and materially altering clause 12. No consensus ad

PATEL MOT!BHAI NARANBHAI AND ANR.versusDINUBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 359 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned ownership of certain properties and was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award on 26 February 1986. Neither party applied to file the award in court within the 30‑day period prescribed by Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Six years later, the arbitrator himself filed the award and s

SYAM SUNDER AGARWAL AND CO.versusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 369 January 1996Dismissed

Syam Sunder Agarwal & Co. entered into a contract with the Union of India, which later gave rise to an arbitration award of Rs. 6,72,645.56 in favour of the appellant. The award was made a rule of court by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, and the Union of India appealed the award under Section 39 of

BINOD BIHARI SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA

[1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 4688 December 1992Dismissed

The appellant, Binod Bihari Singh, entered a contract with the Union of India for handling goods at a railway shed, which was terminated early. An arbitrator was appointed and awarded Rs. 82,100 to the appellant on 26 February 1965. The appellant filed an application on 20 May 1966 under Section 17 of the Arbitration A

M.D., ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATIONversusSUMANGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

2003 INSC 5288 October 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an arbitration award arising from a turnkey housing contract between Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) and Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. (Sumangal). The Court held that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to pass an interim injunction under Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and

M/S HARISH CHANDRA & COMPANYversusSTATE OF U.P. THR. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

2016 INSC 8598 September 2016Disposed off

The dispute arose from a contract for earthwork where M/s Harish Chandra & Co. claimed payment for several items and the arbitrator awarded three of the six claims. The State of U.P. challenged the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, alleging the arbitrator had committed legal misconduct by exceeding t

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusSREE SREE MA ENGINEERING & ANR.

1987 INSC 2428 September 1987Disposed off

The State of West Bengal appealed a High Court order that set aside an arbitral award concerning a silt‑clearance contract and appointed a new arbitrator. The original award, dated November 1966, was unsigned but had been acted upon by the parties and the sum awarded was paid. The respondent sought to set aside the awa

M/S SHAHI AND ASSOCIATESversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2019 INSC 8758 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Shahi and Associates entered into a construction contract with the Uttar Pradesh government and invoked arbitration in 1999. The arbitrator awarded Rs. 17,86,339 with interest at 18% per annum under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The District Judge and the Allahabad High Court reduc

RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED AND ANR.versusM/S VERMA TRANSPORT COMPANY

2006 INSC 4958 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Rastriya Spat Nigam Ltd. entered into a consignment agency contract with Verma Transport Company that contained an arbitration clause. The appellant terminated the contract and issued a show‑cause notice to blacklist the respondent. The respondent filed a suit for a permanent injunction against termination and blacklis

FUERST DAY LAWSON LTD.versusJINDAL EXPORTS LTD.

2011 INSC 4798 July 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of Special Leave Petitions arising from orders of the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts that refused to enforce foreign arbitral awards or to award interest. The central question was whether an order that is not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 co

M/S. N.S. NAYAK AND SONSversusSTATE OF GOA

2003 INSC 2868 May 2003Dismissed

The appellant, N.S. Nayak & Sons, challenged the High Court's dismissal of its appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, arguing that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should govern the appeals because the arbitration agreement referred to "the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statut

NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTDversusM/S. FLOWMORE PRIVATE LTD. AND ANR.

1995 INSC 3428 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., entered into a contract with Flowmore Private Ltd. for the supply of pumps and related equipment, under which Flowmore furnished five bank guarantees payable on demand. Disputes arose and the parties referred the matter to arbitration; during the pendency, the app

BANWARI LAL KOTIYAversusP.C. AGGARWAL

1985 INSC 1348 May 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange, sued the non‑member respondent for Rs. 5,923 arising from share transactions. Each contract note bore a wide‑ranging arbitration clause referring disputes to the Exchange’s Rules, Regulations and Bye‑laws, specifically Bye‑law 247 which provided for a reference to tw

V.G.GEORGEversusINDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD. AND ANR.

1999 INSC 1718 April 1999Dismissed

The appellant, V.G. George, a mining contractor, entered into a contract with Indian Rare Earths Ltd. for the supply of raw sand. Disputes were referred to an arbitrator who awarded sums for obstruction by local parties and for a wage escalation, despite the contract assigning responsibility for landowner consent to th

B.B. RAJWANSHIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1988 INSC 1008 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a workman dismissed by his employer, obtained a favourable award from the Labour Court. Before publishing the award, the Uttar Pradesh Government exercised its power under sub‑section (4) of section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to remit the award for reconsideration, without giving notice

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusM/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

2010 INSC 238 January 2010Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan terminated a construction contract and the contractor, M/s Nav Bharat Construction Co., sought arbitration of several claims. After an initial umpire award was set aside, a new umpire was appointed and his award was filed in the Supreme Court. The State applied to make the award a rule of court w

M/S. MADNANI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (P) LTDversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2009 INSC 12867 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Madnani Construction Corporation entered into a contract with the North Eastern Railway for bridge work. Disputes arose over alleged manipulations in measurement books, leading the contractor to seek arbitration. The arbitrator, after examining the level book, graph sheets and log books, found that the railway had alte

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTAversusENGINEERS-DE-SPACE-AGE

1995 INSC 8617 December 1995Dismissed

The Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta contracted with Engineers‑de‑Space‑Age, including a clause (13(g)) that barred the Commissioners from entertaining any claim for interest on delayed payments. An arbitrator, however, awarded interest pendente lite. The Board appealed, contending that the clause prohibited

M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE

2024 INSC 8507 November 2024Dismissed

M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd., an Afghan distributor, entered into a 2010 distributorship agreement with M/s Micromax Informatics FZE (UAE) that contained an arbitration clause designating Dubai as the venue and subjecting the arbitration to UAE Arbitration and Conciliation rules. After a credit dispute, the petitioner sought

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.versusM/S. NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION LTD.

2006 INSC 7987 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the filing of an arbitration award by M/s Little & Co., acting as the arbitrator's agent, constituted statutory notice to Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and when the limitation period for setting aside the award under Articl

P.S. SATHAPPAN (DEAD) BY LRSversusANDHRA BANK LTD. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 5837 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners challenged a Madras High Court judgment that a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable against an order of a single High Court judge hearing an appeal. The Supreme Court examined the interplay between Section 104(1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the saving provision in Secti

THYSSEN STAHLUNION GMBH ETC.versusSTEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

1999 INSC 4637 October 1999

The Supreme Court examined three appeals concerning the applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the new Act) versus the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the old Act) and the Foreign Awards Act, 1961. In Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH v. SAIL (CA 6036/98), arbitral proceedings began in 1995 under the old Act and the

COAL LINKERversusCOAL INDIA LIMITED

2009 INSC 11117 September 2009Dismissed

Coal Linker entered into a work contract with Coal India and, after disputes, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded the appellant a sum and granted interest for the pre‑reference period and for the pendency of the arbitration, but expressly omitted any interest from the date of the award to the

M/S ASIAN TECHS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2009 INSC 11137 September 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Asian Techs Ltd. entered a construction contract with the Union of India, but the work was delayed due to material alterations and extensions granted by the respondents. The contractor claimed additional payment and invoked the arbitration clause; the arbitrator issued a non‑speaking award in its favour. The Kerala Hig

M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANYversusTHE UNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 5877 August 2024Dismissed

The petitioner, M/s D. Khosla & Co., obtained an arbitration award in 1997 that granted simple interest of 12% for the pre‑award period and 15% for the post‑award period, both described as payable on the "amount awarded" (the principal compensation of Rs.21,56,745). The petitioner later claimed that the 15% post‑award

SURAJ MAL AND ANOTHERversusRAM SINGH AND OTHERS

1986 INSC 1637 August 1986Dismissed

Suraj Mal and another (appellants) claimed title to a Zamindari parcel sold by Sona Devi, arguing that the sale deed gave them a valid interest. The respondents, Sona Devi's minor sons, sued for declaration that their mother only had a life interest and that the sale was void, seeking possession. The Munsif decreed in

M/S. RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD.versusM/S. CHOWGULE BROTHERS & ORS.

2010 INSC 3737 July 2010Case Partly allowed

The dispute arose from a work contract for port services that was initially for one year and extendable for a second year, subject only to statutory wage increases for dock labourers as per Clause 2.03. The contractor claimed additional payment for wage escalations that occurred after the commencement of the extended p

M/S. ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTIONversusPAWANHANS HELICOPTERS PVT LTD

2008 INSC 6047 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mis. Associated Construction, entered into a construction contract with the respondent, Pawanhans Helicopters, which required completion within four months. Delays caused by the respondent led the appellant to issue a "No Dues Certificate" under alleged economic duress and later claim price escalation un

SANGAMNER BHAG SAHAKARI KARKHANA LTD.versusMIS. KRUPP INDUSTRIES LTD.

2002 INSC 2697 May 2002Disposed off

The appellant, a cooperative sugar factory, entered into a contract with the respondent for the design and supply of machinery, which contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arising under the contract were referred to two arbitrators who awarded Rs. 151.97 lacs to the appellant. The civil judge, finding apparent erro

DWARIKESH SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.versusPREM HEAVY ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD.

1997 INSC 4867 May 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. entered into a contract with Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. for supply of equipment, the latter furnishing two unconditional bank guarantees from State Bank of India. When the equipment was not delivered, Dwarikesh invoked the guarantees, but Prem obtained ex parte injunctions res

NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATIONversusSINGER COMPANY AND ORS.

1992 INSC 1517 May 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) entered into a contract with Singer Company for equipment supply, stipulating that Indian law would govern the contract and Delhi courts would have exclusive jurisdiction. A dispute was referred to an ICC arbitral tribunal, which chose London as the seat and rendered an int

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1988 INSC 637 March 1988Dismissed

Continental Construction entered into a contract with the State of Madhya Pradesh for construction work and later claimed extra costs due to a rise in material and labour prices, alleging the State's delay in work allotment. The Superintending Engineer refused payment and declined to refer the dispute to arbitration, p

NATRAJ STUDIOS (P) LTD.versusNAVRANG STUDIOS & ANR.

1981 INSC 47 January 1981Appeal(s) allowed

Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. held a "leave and licence" agreement with Navrang Studios for the use of two film studios, associated premises and equipment. After Navrang sought possession in 1979, Natraj filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes claiming to be a monthly tenant, and also challenged the arbitration clause in t

M/S COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD.versusM/S APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD.

2015 INSC 8376 November 2015Case Partly allowed

The parties entered into a contract for the construction of a cargo ship, which later gave rise to arbitration before a former Supreme Court judge who awarded in 2009. The respondent sought to set aside the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, alleging the arbitrator’s legal misconduct, and appl

BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO.versusKAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICE, INC.

2012 INSC 3796 September 2012Reference answered

The dispute arose from a contract between Bharat Aluminium Co. and Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. that provided for arbitration in London under English law, but governed the contract by Indian law. After two awards were rendered in England, the appellant sought to set aside the awards under Section 34 of the

GOA, DAMAN AND DIU HOUSING BOARDversusRAMAKANT V.P. DARVOTKAR

1991 INSC 2226 September 1991Dismissed

The Goa, Daman and Diu Housing Board entered into four construction contracts with Ramakant V.P. Darvotkar, which were later terminated for alleged abandonment of work. The Board sued for damages, but the parties were bound by an arbitration agreement; an arbitrator was appointed and awarded the respondent sums exceedi

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.versusYADAV ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR

1982 INSC 626 August 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a contract between Food Corporation of India and Yadav Engineer that contained an arbitration clause. Yadav Engineer filed a suit seeking a declaration that the contract was subsisting and an interim injunction against the corporation. The corporation appeared, sought time to reply to the injunct

INDIAN OIL CORPORATIONversusINDIAN CARBON LTD.

1988 INSC 946 April 1988

Indian Oil Corporation (petitioner) sold raw petroleum coke to Indian Carbon Ltd (respondent) under three agreements that provided for shifting of coke and interest on unpaid stock. After payment default, Indian Oil obtained attachment of coke, terminated the agreements and the dispute over interest and shifting charge

N.KHOSLAversusRAJLAKSHMI (DEAD) AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1386 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The father of the parties gifted three plots of his ancestral property to his three daughters, but later revoked the gift and paid each daughter Rs.10,000 in cash. After the father's death, the sons partitioned the entire property among themselves, leading the daughters to claim the gifted plots. The dispute was referr

STEEMAN LTD.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

1997 INSC 2366 March 1997Dismissed

The petitioners, Steeman Ltd., were contracted to construct the Sitla Bridge in Himachal Pradesh. Disputes over progress and payments led to the imposition of a penalty and rescission of the contract, which the petitioners successfully appealed, allowing work to continue and the matter to be referred to arbitration. Af

CANARA BANKversusNUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

1995 INSC 1606 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Canara Bank appealed a decision of the Company Law Board (CLB) that had refused to register bonds purchased from Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. The CLB had been hearing the bank's application under Section 111 of the Companies Act when the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities

TARAPORE & COMPANYversusCOCHIN SHIPYARD LTD. COCHIN & ANR.

1984 INSC 556 March 1984Appeal(s) allowed

Tarapore & Co. entered into a works contract with Cochin Shipyard Ltd. for the construction of a building dock, which included a clause (Clause 40) referring all disputes to a sole arbitrator. The contractor later claimed compensation for the increased cost of imported pile‑driving equipment and technical know‑how, and

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.versusINTNL. SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE AGENCY LTD.

2003 INSC 676 February 2003Dismissed

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others entered into a contract with International Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd. containing an arbitration clause. A non‑speaking award was made and later declared a rule of court, leading to a decree. Various objections, a review petition, and multiple appeals were filed. Th

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusMANAGER, M/S JAIN AND ASSOCIATES

2001 INSC 756 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and others appealed against a decree passed by the High Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 after an arbitrator's award, where the appellants had not filed objections within the prescribed 30‑day period. The High Court had held that such a decree was not an ex‑parte decree and therefo

I.T.C. LIMITEDversusGEORGE JOSEPH FERNANDES & ANR.

1989 INSC 436 February 1989Dismissed

The appellant, I.T.C. Ltd., chartered two imported fishing trawlers from the respondents but later claimed the vessels were defective and that the charter party was void due to a mutual mistake about the refrigeration system and alleged violation of import licence conditions. The respondents filed an application under

TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARDversusM/S. SATYANARAYANA BROTHERS PVT. LTD.

2009 INSC 12155 November 2009Disposed off

The Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board entered into a contract with M/s. Satyanarayana Brothers Pvt. Ltd. for the Veeranam drinking‑water project. The contractor failed to complete the work within the extended time, leading to arbitration. After several awards and appeals, the Supreme Court found that the sole ar

MALLIKARJUNversusGULBARGA UNIVERSITY

2003 INSC 6045 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a contractor, executed a contract with Gulbarga University for constructing an indoor stadium. Clause 30 of the contract stipulated that any dispute would be decided by the Superintending Engineer of the Gulbarga Circle, whose decision would be final and binding. After the Engineer rendered an award, the

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. POPULAR CONSTRUCTION CO.

2001 INSC 4875 October 2001Dismissed

An arbitral award dated 29 August 1998 was forwarded to the Union of India with a request to file it in the Bombay High Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Union filed the award on 29 March 1999 and challenged it on 19 April 1999, initially invoking sections of the 1940 Act, later amending the petition to refer

K.V. GEORGEversusSECRETARY TO GOVT., WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM & ANR.

1989 INSC 3055 October 1989Dismissed

The appellant, a contractor, entered into a contract for constructing an embankment but failed to complete the work, leading to contract termination by the respondents. He filed an arbitration claim (Case No. 132 of 1980) seeking rate enhancement, interest and costs, while the respondents filed a counter‑claim. The arb

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.versusINDAG RUBBER LTD.

2006 INSC 5815 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation entered into an agreement with Indag Rubber Ltd. for a retreading plant and material, guaranteeing that retreaded tyres would achieve 46,000 km or 95% of the life of new tyres. The corporation alleged that the tyres failed to meet this guarantee and claimed compensation, w

SUKALU RAM GONDversusSTATE OF MP AND ORS.

1994 INSC 3005 August 1994Disposed off

In a criminal petition, the parties consented to refer a dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 to an arbitrator, limiting the reference to those two parties. The arbitrator, however, issued an award holding Respondent No.5 liable for a sum, despite Respondent No.5 not being a party to the reference. Respon

STATE OF GOAversusM/S. WESTERN BUILDERS

2006 INSC 4005 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa challenged an arbitral award granted to Mis. Western Builders. After the award, the State filed a petition under the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was dismissed on the ground that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governed the matter. The State then sought condonation of delay under Section 14

NEERAJ MUNJAL AND ORSversusATUL GROVER MINOR AND ANR.

2005 INSC 2615 May 2005Appeal(s) allowed

A complaint was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which the parties agreed to refer to arbitration. An arbitrator was appointed on 19‑May‑1995 and rendered an award on 19‑Aug‑1996, which the Commission accepted. The Supreme Court later held that the NCDRC could not refer the matte

BHAGAWATI OXYGEN LTD.versusHINDUSTAN COPER LTD.

2005 INSC 1845 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. (BOL) entered into a contract with Hindustan Copper Ltd. (HCL) for the supply of oxygen, which contained an arbitration clause. An arbitrator awarded Rs. 74,84,521.34 to BOL and granted interest at 18% per annum, dismissing HCL's counter‑claim. HCL challenged the award under Section 30 of the Indi

MILK FOOD LTD.versusM/S. GMC ICE CREAM (P) LTD.

2004 INSC 2325 April 2004

Milk Food Ltd. entered into a contract with GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd. containing an arbitration clause that referred disputes to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification. A suit for injunction was filed, and Milk Food obtained a stay under Section 34 of the 1940 Act. The parties later agre

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusL.K. AHUJA & CO.

1988 INSC 925 April 1988Dismissed

The Union of India entered into four construction contracts with L.K. Ahuja & Co., which were completed and final bills were accepted. Later the respondent claimed a balance of Rs 1,91,137 and sought arbitration, but the government replied that no dispute existed. The respondent filed an application under Section 20 of

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.versusM/S. ANNAPURNA CONSTRUCTION

2008 INSC 3105 March 2008Disposed off

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd entered into a contract with M/s. Annapurna Construction which later gave rise to a dispute. An arbitrator was appointed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and awarded a sum to the respondent; the award was set aside by the Supreme Court because the arbitrator failed to consider relevant contract cl

NANDYAL CO-OP. SPINNING MILLS LTD ..versusK.V. MOHAN RAO

1993 INSC 855 March 1993Dismissed

The respondent, K.V. Mohan Rao, entered into a building contract with Nandyal Co‑Op Spinning Mills Ltd. that contained a clause mandating that all disputes be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the owner’s Administrative Head, with no objection to the arbitrator being the owner’s representative. After the Admin

M/S. UPTRON INDIA LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2004 INSC 865 February 2004Dismissed

Uptron India Ltd entered into a contract with the Union of India to maintain community viewing sets in seven North‑Eastern states, but the government failed to make the agreed payments, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an award on 18 June 1990, which Uptron sought to have declared a rule of court before th

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSURENDRA, DEVENDRA AND MAHENDRA TRANSPORT CO.

2003 INSC 585 February 2003Case Partly allowed

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) entered into a contract with Sure... Transport Co. containing an arbitration clause (Clause XX) that referred all disputes to an arbitrator except matters whose decision was expressly provided for in the contract. Clause XII specifically excluded claims relating to transit loss, demu

N. KHADERVALI SAHEB (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.versusN. GURUSAHIB (DEAD) AND ORS.

2003 INSC 595 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

A partnership of four family members was dissolved and the partners' residual assets were allocated by an arbitration award dated 2 October 1972. Some partners objected to the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, contending that the award needed to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act,

M/S. M.K. SHAH ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1999 INSC 455 February 1999Case Partly allowed

The contractors M.K. Shah Engineers and Chabaldas & Sons were engaged by the State of Madhya Pradesh to construct the Barna Main Dam. Their contracts contained an arbitration clause requiring a prior decision by the Superintending Engineer (SE) and a 28‑day notice to challenge it before arbitration could be invoked. Th

CHAIRMAN AND M.D., N.T.P.C. LTD.versusM/S RESHMI CONSTRUCTIONS, BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS

2004 INSC 175 January 2004Dismissed

The dispute arose between NTPC Ltd. (appellant) and Mis. Reshmi Constructions (respondent) over the acceptance of a final bill for work completed. NTPC prepared its own final bill, obtained a No‑Demand Certificate from the contractor, and paid the amount, but the contractor protested, claiming the certificate was signe

BHAWARLAL BHANDARIversusM/S UNIVERSAL HEAVY MECHANICAL LIFTING ENTERPRISES

1998 INSC 4614 December 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Bhandari had given a short‑term loan of Rs 15 lakh to the respondent Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises. A dispute over interest and repayment was referred to arbitration; the arbitrator passed an award on 17‑Apr‑1985 and, after a four‑year delay, filed it in the Calcutta High Court on 23‑Mar‑1989 to be

SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD.versusONGC LTD. AND ORS.

1997 INSC 7884 December 1997Dismissed

Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd entered into a contract with ONGC Ltd for the installation of an oil platform, containing a clause that disputes would be governed by Indian law and arbitrated in London under ICC rules. A dispute led to arbitration, and the appointed umpire issued an award. ONGC filed a petition in the Bo

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATIONversusM/S SUMAC INTERNATIONAL LTD.

1996 INSC 14334 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The U.P. State Sugar Corporation entered into a contract with M/s Sumac International Ltd. for the supply and installation of a sugar plant, requiring the seller to furnish several irrevocable bank guarantees payable on demand. The contract was not completed within the stipulated or extended time, leading the appellant

A. AYYASAMYversusA. PARAMASIVAM & ORS.

2016 INSC 9484 October 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a partner in a hotel partnership, filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to refer a civil suit filed by the other partners to arbitration. The respondents argued that serious allegations of fraud and mis‑appropriation of funds made the dispute non‑arbit

VISHNU (DEAD) BY L.RSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 6714 October 2013Dismissed

The appellant, a contractor, entered into five irrigation contracts with the State of Maharashtra in 1983. After abandoning the work in 1985, he sought damages and later invoked Clause 30 of the contracts, claiming it was an arbitration clause that made the Superintending Engineer’s decision binding as an arbitral awar

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusM/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION CO.

2005 INSC 4794 October 2005Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan awarded a construction contract to Nav Bharat Construction Co., which later terminated the contract for delay. The contractor filed multiple claims, of which the district court initially referred only one claim to arbitration; the High Court later ordered all four claims to be referred. Subsequen

SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ORISSA & ANR.versusSARBESWAR ROUT

1989 INSC 3014 October 1989Case Partly allowed

The Secretary to the Government of Orissa entered into a contract for works with S. Rout, which later gave rise to a dispute referred to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded interest, which the appellant challenged under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Supreme Court examined whether the arbitrator could awa

M/S ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 5974 September 2014Dismissed

The dispute arose from an arbitration under Clause 70 of a contract, where the arbitrator issued an award without recording any reasons, merely noting "sustained", "partly sustained" or "not sustained" in the column titled "findings". The Delhi High Court set aside the award, holding that the term "findings" required a

M/S. MILKFOOD PVT. LTD.versusM/S. GMC ICE CREAM (P) LTD.

2011 INSC 5444 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into a manufacturing agreement that contained an arbitration clause specifying Delhi as the venue and jurisdiction. The respondent sued the appellant in the Munsif Court, Gaya, and the appellant sought a stay of the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Subsequent applications were fil

INDIAN RAYON CORPN. LTD.versusRAUNAQ & COMPANY PVT. LTD.

1988 INSC 2044 August 1988Dismissed

The award in a dispute between Indian Rayon Corp. Ltd. and Raunaq & Co. was filed in the Calcutta High Court on 4 February 1977. The appellant claimed the award had been wrongly filed and sought a notice of filing; the court issued a notice on 30 July 1981. The appellant applied for a certified copy of the award on 18

ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.versusBUILDWORTH PVT. LTD.

2017 INSC 5874 July 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an arbitral award granting Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. price‑escalation, idling‑charges and interest against Assam State Electricity Board. The Board argued that the award exceeded the contractual ceiling for escalation, ignored the claimant’s contributory delay, and that interest could not be award

STATE OF GOAversusPRAVEEN ENTERPRISES

2011 INSC 4234 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa contracted Praveen Enterprises for construction work and included an arbitration clause that referred all disputes to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, CPWD. After terminating the contract, the contractor filed claims and the State filed counter‑claims; the State failed to appoint an a

M/S. FUERST DAY LAWSON LTD.versusJINDAL EXPORTS LTD.

2001 INSC 2554 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Mis. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. entered into a supply contract with Jindal Exports Ltd. which gave rise to a dispute arbitrated before the International General Produce Association, resulting in a foreign award dated 13 August 1996. The award was sought to be enforced in Delhi High Court, but the court dismissed the execut

RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. ETC.versusCHOKHAMAL CONTRACTORS ETC. ETC.

1989 INSC 1804 May 1989Remitted to Lower Court

The Supreme Court examined whether an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 could be remitted or set aside solely because the arbitrator or umpire did not give reasons. The Court held that unless the arbitration agreement, deed of submission, or a specific court order or statute requires reasons, an arbitrator is under

BHAGWAN DAS GOEL (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.versusPYARE KISHAN AGARWAL

2019 INSC 4644 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, invoking Clause 11 of a partnership deed of "Gupta Bus Service" dated 5 July 1960. The appellants objected, arguing that the partnership was unregistered and therefore barred by Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932,

T.N. GENERATION & DISTBN. CORPN. LTD.versusPPN POWER GEN. CO. PVT. LTD.

2014 INSC 2484 April 2014Dismissed

The appellant, a power distribution company, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the respondent, a power generator, and disputed accounting details and rebate claims arising from monthly invoices. The dispute was taken before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) which adjud

HARI SHANKAR SINGHANIA AND ORS.versusGAUR HARI SINGHANIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1974 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Three brothers dissolved their partnership in 1987 but later disagreed over the division of immovable assets. After numerous letters seeking an amicable settlement, the last correspondence was dated 29 September 1989. The appellants filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on 8 May 1992 to refer t

NTPC LTD.versusM/S. DECONAR SERVICES PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 1484 March 2021Dismissed

The dispute arose from two construction contracts awarded by NTPC Ltd. to M/s Deconar Services, wherein a 16% rebate was offered on the condition of simultaneous execution of both projects. The arbitrator held that the rebate was conditional and that NTPC's delay in handing over sites breached that condition, ordering

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusM/S. SHREYANS INDUS LTD. ETC.

2016 INSC 2434 March 2016Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court’s decision that the Commissioner of Excise and Taxation could not extend the three‑year limitation period for passing a sales‑tax assessment after that period had expired. The assessee, M/s Shreyans Indus Ltd., had filed returns for assessment years 2000‑01 to 2003‑04

B.V. RADHA KRISHNAversusSPONGE IRON INDIA LTD.

1997 INSC 2304 March 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant contracted to transport waste and finished products for the respondent. A dispute arose and the appellant invoked Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, leading to a sole arbitrator’s award of Rs 5,29,864.55 with 18% interest from 1 April 1983. The City Civil Court confirmed the award, but the High Cour

RENU DEVIversusMAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 574 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a partition suit of a joint Hindu family where a compromise decree dated 13‑Feb‑1978 allocated specific parcels of land to each party by metes and bounds, but it was not engrossed on stamp paper. A later decree dated 24‑May‑1979, executed on stamp paper, merely reproduced the earlier decree and cured

K.K. MODIversusK.N. MODI AND ORS.

1998 INSC 634 February 1998Disposed off

The dispute arose between two branches of the Modi family over the division of assets and companies following a 1989 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Clause 9 of the MOU referred any implementation disputes to the Chairman of the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI), whose decision was final and binding. Th

CAPT. (NOW MAJOR) ASHOK KSHYAPversusMRS. SUDHA VASISHT & ANR.

1987 INSC 334 February 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the inheritance of immovable and movable property of a deceased father and was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator's award directed payment of sums and stipulated residence rights, but did not actually create or extinguish any right in the immovable property. The first respondent objected that

ATUL SINGH & ORS.versusSUNIL KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

2008 INSC 94 January 2008Case Allowed

The plaintiffs, heirs of a deceased partner, sued the defendants for a declaration that a partnership deed dated 17‑Feb‑1992, which omitted the deceased partner, was illegal and void, and for rendition of accounts and share of profits. The defendants sought to stay the suit and refer the dispute to arbitration, invokin

M/S. RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA & COMPANYversusUNION OF INDIA

2009 INSC 12783 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The contractor, Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Co., completed civil works for the Union of India and later claimed losses due to delays and hold‑ups. An arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1940 examined the evidence and awarded relief, finding that the Union was at fault for delayed payments and other defaults. The Union cha

M/S GEO MILLER & CO. PVT. LTD.versusCHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD.

2019 INSC 9893 September 2019Dismissed

The appellant, M/s Geo Miller & Co., sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for three water‑treatment contracts dated 1979‑1985, alleging non‑payment by the respondent. The respondent contended that the cause of action arose when the final bills were presen

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusAMRITLAL CHATTERJEE

2003 INSC 4503 September 2003Dismissed

The State of West Bengal entered into construction work contracts with the respondent, who completed the work in 1990 and later claimed additional payment in 1993, leading to a request for arbitration. An arbitrator was appointed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 in September 1994, but failed to act, prompting the respon

HYUNDAI CORPORATION & ANR.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORAUON LTD.

2017 INSC 7023 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Hyundai Corporation entered into a contract with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) for offshore oil exploration, which contained Clause 13.2.8 (sub‑contractor liability) and Clause 17.3 (indemnity for costs arising from a change of law). A change in Indian tax law – Section 44BB/4488 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 –

THE STATE OF KERALA ETC. ETC.versusM/S. ARYA REFRIGERATION & A/C CO. ETC. ETC.

2004 INSC 4143 August 2004Disposed off

The State of Kerala entered into a contract with Mis Arya Refrigeration & A/C Co. for supplying and erecting a cold‑storage plant, which could not be installed because the State failed to construct the requisite building. The dispute was referred to arbitration; the arbitrator awarded a sum to the claimant. The State c

M/S RAVEECHEE AND COversusUNION OF INDIA

2018 INSC 5743 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Raveechee & Co. entered into a quarrying contract with the Union of India, which later gave rise to a dispute that was referred to arbitration on 26 September 1988. The Arbitral Tribunal awarded damages and, on the basis of being deprived of those sums during the pendency of the arbitration, granted interest penden

M/S. YASHWITH CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD.versusM/S. SIMPLEX CONCRETE PILES INDIA LTD. & ANR.

2006 INSC 3823 July 2006Dismissed

A dispute arose under an arbitration agreement between Yashwith Constructions and Simplex Concrete Piles. The Managing Director of the respondent appointed an arbitrator, who later resigned; the MD then appointed a substitute arbitrator pursuant to the agreement. The petitioner applied to the Chief Justice of the High

M/S. ESSAR CONSTRUCTIONSversusN.P. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY

2000 INSC 2783 May 2000Dismissed

Essar Constructions appealed a Supreme Court order dismissing its appeal against a High Court decision that had condoned delay in filing an application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The dispute arose from three arbitrators where two awards favored Essar and one favored the respondent, who sought to set

BURN STANDARD COMPANY LIMITEDversusMCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. AND ANOTHER

1991 INSC 873 April 1991Dismissed

Burn Standard Company Ltd., a Government undertaking, entered into a technical collaboration agreement with McDermott International Inc. to obtain foreign technical know‑how, requiring RBI permission under Section 28(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The agreement received approval from the Sec

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusJOGINDERPAL MOHINDERPAL

1989 INSC 763 March 1989Dismissed

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) entered into a contract with Joginderpal to supply paddy for shelling into rice at a 70% yield, with a shelling charge of Rs 2.20 per quintal. A dispute led to the appointment of an arbitrator who, in a speaking award dated 22 January 1982, disallowed FCI's claims for a penalty of Rs

C. VELUSAMYversusK INDHERA

2026 INSC 1123 February 2026Case Allowed

The appellant, C. Velusamy, and the respondent, K Indhera, entered into three sale agreements that later gave rise to arbitration. A sole arbitrator was appointed, and pleadings were completed on 20‑08‑2022, starting the 12‑month period for award under s.29A(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties

S. SATNAM SINGH & ORS.versusSURENDER KAUR & ANR.

2008 INSC 13822 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a partition suit concerning a residential house and the business of Bombay Cycle Company. The trial court passed a preliminary decree granting each party a one‑third share in the house, but later the parties sought to include the business assets in the partition. The High Court set aside the decree, h

CH. RAMALINGA REDDYversusSUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ANR.

1994 INSC 5732 December 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The contractor (appellant) entered into an excavation contract with the State Government and, after disputes, the matter was referred to an arbitrator who rendered an award on 29 July 1985. The award was filed in the court on 5 August 1985, the court gave notice of filing on 7 August 1985, and the respondents filed a p

DHARMA PRATHISHTHANAMversusM/S. MADHOK CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

2004 INSC 6322 November 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

Dharma Prathishthanam entered into a construction contract with Madhok Construction Pvt. Ltd. that contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940. When a dispute arose, the respondent unilaterally appointed Shri Swami Dayal as sole arbitrator, gave notice, and the arbi

INDIA METERS LTD., MADRASversusPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

1992 INSC 2292 September 1992Appeal(s) allowed

India Meters Ltd responded to a tender by offering to supply electricity meters on its own payment terms, including a request to waive a bank guarantee. The Punjab State Electricity Board issued a purchase order for 75,000 meters but retained its own payment conditions and required samples, also inserting an arbitratio

PURUSHOTTAM S/O TULSIRAM BADWAIKversusANIL & ORS.

2018 INSC 4462 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondents entered into a partnership agreement in 2005 that contained an arbitration clause referring to the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondents filed a suit seeking injunction, and the appellant moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act)

JATINDERversusM/S. CHOPRA LAND DEV. P. LTD. AND ANR.

2007 INSC 2432 March 2007Dismissed

The appellant Jatinder Nath entered into a development agreement with Chopra Land Developers for construction of a housing complex in Delhi, agreeing that any dispute would be arbitrated by a sole arbitrator in Faridabad and that the Faridabad courts alone would have jurisdiction. When a dispute arose, the arbitrator e

THE HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.versusGOVERNOR OF ORISSA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 1572 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. entered into a dam‑construction contract with the Government of Orissa. A dispute over escalation charges and other sums exceeding Rs 1 crore was referred to an Arbitration Tribunal, which directed the State to refer the matter to a Special Arbitration Tribunal under the proviso to sub‑s

GIRDHAR GOPAL GUPTA AND ORS.versusAAR GEE BOARD MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 892 February 2009Dismissed

The Gupta group, originally holding a 50.9% stake in Aar Gee Board Mills, alleged that the Garg group illegally allotted 9,507 equity shares, reducing the Gupta shareholding to a minority and constituting oppression and mismanagement under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company Law Board set aside

SHRI M.L. JAGGIversusMAHANAGAR TELEPHONES NIGAM LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 62 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

M.L. Jaggi challenged three telephone bills issued by Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. The dispute was referred to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, which makes the arbitrator's award conclusive and not open to court challenge. The arbitrator awarded the bills with a rebate on one but gave

RAJNI SANGHIversusWESTERN INDIAN STATE MOTORS LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 8741 December 2015Disposed off

The case involved four brothers who owned a family business and entered into an arbitration agreement in 1984 to partition the business. An arbitrator issued an award in 1987, but subsequent litigation in the Bombay, Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts resulted in family settlement schemes in 1994 and an amended settlement

CHIRANJILAL SRILAL GOENKA (DEAD) BY LRS.versusJASJIT SINGH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 5671 December 2000Set Aside

The dispute arose after the death of Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka, whose daughter claimed inheritance under a will, while his adopted son claimed rights based on a letter dated 26‑January‑1961 from his natural father promising him inheritance. An arbitrator held the will inoperative and declared the adopted son the sole h

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERSversusLUDHIANA STEELS PRIVATE LTD.

1992 INSC 3251 December 1992Disposed off

Ludhiana Steel Private Ltd. disputed a bill from Punjab State Electricity Board for electricity supplied between 6 Oct 1986 and 16 May 1988, alleging the meter under‑recorded consumption. The company sought injunctions and approached the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, but the In

DURGA CHARAN RAUTRAYversusSTATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

2011 INSC 7791 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Durga Charan Rautray, a contractor, completed a dam construction project for the State of Orissa but later claimed additional payments for price escalation, material supply, royalty refund and interest. The parties' contract contained an arbitration clause (clause 23) and the disputes were referred to an arbitral tribu

MAHESH LALL SEAL AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 5751 September 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellants' property was requisitioned in 1987 and acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Although a 1975 agreement fixed a price of Rs 18,98,000, the claimants received this amount in 1993 under protest and later sought higher compensation, leading the State Government to a

SOHAN LAL GUPTA (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS.versusSMT ASHA DEVI GUPTA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 4421 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a dispute between two family groups over shared assets, which was referred to a sole arbitrator who issued two awards. Seven members of one group objected, claiming they had not received reasonable notice and that the arbitrator’s request for a letter not to challenge the award violated natural justic

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.versusJ.C. BUDHARAJA, GOVERNMENT AND MINING CONTRACTOR

1999 INSC 3751 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (appellant) challenged an arbitral award that granted damages for delay in handing over a work site, which the contract expressly prohibited. The appellant also argued that the claim was barred by the three‑year limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held t

M/S SIKKIM SUBBA ASSOCIATESversusSTATE OF SIKKIM

2001 INSC 2361 May 2001Disposed off

Mis Sikkim Subba Associates was appointed by the State of Sikkim as the organising agent for state lotteries. A dispute over payments led to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940, where the arbitrator awarded the appellants Rs 37.75 crore in damages. The State sought to set aside the award under Section 30 of the

HARI DUTI BHARDWAJversusHARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, PUNCHKULA & ANR.

1989 INSC 1611 May 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board contracted a builder to construct an office building and stipulated that any dispute would be arbitrated by the Board's Superintending Engineer. Shri D.P. Gupta was appointed arbitrator, but the Board's Chairman ordered his reversion to his parent department on 4 April 198

M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2025 INSC 4291 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. entered into a works contract with the State of Rajasthan that contained Clause 22 prohibiting the contractor from claiming any interest on payments, arrears or balances. Disputes led to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940, where the arbitrator awarded the contr

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusARADHANA TRADING CO. AND ORS.

2002 INSC 1741 April 2002Dismissed

The Union of India entered into supply contracts with respondents and, after disputes, arbitrators were appointed by the Calcutta High Court. The arbitrators filed their award in the Calcutta High Court, and the court made the award a rule of court despite the Union’s claim that it should have been filed in the Asansol

GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAYS AND ANR.versusSARVESH CHOPRA

2002 INSC 1141 March 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, General Manager Northern Railways, entered into a construction contract with the respondent, Sarvesh Chopra, which contained both General and Special Conditions. Disputes arose and the respondent filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking arbitration of six claims. The trial c

INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2001 INSC 621 February 2001Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered two contracts awarded in 1977 for earthwork and aqueduct construction in Andhra Pradesh. The contractors claimed reimbursement for losses caused by a cyclone in November 1977 and floods in June 1978, but their claim letters did not comply with Clause 83 of the contract, which required any c

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search