Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

60 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.versusIRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.

2025 INSC 13831 January 2025Dismissed

The appellant, C & C Constructions Ltd., contracted with IRCON International Ltd. to construct five road over bridges, but delays attributable to the respondent led the appellant to seek extensions of time under clause 49 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). The appellant gave a solemn undertaking not to claim

GAYATRI BALASAMYversusM/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

2025 INSC 60530 April 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court was asked to resolve a long‑standing controversy over whether courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can modify an arbitral award. The issue arose from the earlier decision in Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem, where the Court held that

M/S MOTILAL AGARWALAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2025 INSC 106228 August 2025Dismissed

The dispute concerned an arbitral award dated 12 November 2013 in favour of M/s Motilal Agarwala against the State of West Bengal. The State sought to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filing the application on 20 March 2014, arguing that it had only become aware of the

V.S. PALANIVELversusP. SRIRAM, CS, LIQUIDATOR, ETC.

2024 INSC 65928 August 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a former managing director of Sri Lakshmi Hotel Private Ltd., challenged the e‑auction of the company's property, alleging that the reserve price was under‑valued, that the liquidator failed to form a Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee, and that the liquidator violated Regulation 33 by not cancelling t

CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LIMITEDversusSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA

2025 INSC 57428 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., was contracted by the respondent, Software Technology Parks of India, to construct a building. The contract stipulated liquidated damages for delay, but the respondent granted several extensions of time before finally deducting Rs. 82,43,499 as liquidated damage

MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusVINCENT DANIEL AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 40827 March 2025Dismissed

The Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation sought to acquire land for a highway project and determined compensation using the circle rate fixed under the Indian Stamp Act, as prescribed by the Collector’s Guidelines. The landowners challenged the award, arguing that the compensation was excessive and that the "the

SOMDATT BUILDERS-NCC-NEC(JV)versusNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 11326 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Somdatt Builders‑NCC‑NEC (JV) against a Delhi High Court Division Bench order that set aside an arbitral award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute concerned whether the excess quantity of geogrid required for a reinforced earth wall, beyond th

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT LTDversusKAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED

2024 INSC 82724 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd entered into a dredging contract with Kamarajar Port Limited, a statutory undertaking, which later gave rise to disputes and arbitration. The arbitral tribunal awarded the appellant approximately Rs 21.07 crore with interest and costs, and the respondent sought correction under s.

M/S CHITHRA WOODS MANORS WELFARE ASSOCIATIONversusSHAJI AUGUSTINE

2025 INSC 56724 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioner, a welfare association, owned a resort property that the respondent was licensed to occupy for ten years on payment of monthly fees. The respondent repeatedly defaulted on those fees, leading to arbitration, a settlement reducing the fees, and subsequent execution proceedings ordering him to pay arrears

RAJAN CHADHA & ANR.versusSANJAY ARORA

2025 INSC 54623 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, shareholders of RBT Private Ltd., filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent, a fellow shareholder, willfully violated court and arbitral orders by removing assets and failing to pay loan EMIs. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 5 December 2023 held the respondent guilty of contempt a

M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD.versusGENERAL MANAGER & ANR.

2024 INSC 88922 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a construction contractor, entered into a works contract with the respondent and later referred their dispute to arbitration, resulting in the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The arbitral tribunal was required to render its award within 12 months of the completion of pleadings, extendable by six months

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITEDversusPURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 52321 April 2025Dismissed

Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and Puri Construction Ltd (PCL) entered into a Development Agreement for land development, later supplemented by a Supplementary Agreement and a Tripartite Agreement involving a bank. Disputes arose over alleged economic duress, non‑fulfilment of conditions precedent, and L&T's abandonment of the

ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED (NOW M/S ESL STEEL LIMITED)versusISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 52521 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Electrosteel Steel Ltd. (now ESL Steel Ltd.) filed a petition under Article 227 challenging an order that directed it to comply with an arbitral award dated 06.07.2018 passed by the West Bengal MSME Facilitation Council in favour of Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd. The award was rendered after the corporate debtor’s insolvency

RAHUL VERMA & ORS.versusRAMPAT LAL VERMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 29621 February 2025Dismissed

The dispute involved a partnership firm where two of the three partners had died, and the legal heirs of one deceased partner sought to enforce an arbitration clause in the partnership deed to resolve a claim for rendition of accounts. The respondents argued that the heirs, being non‑signatories to the deed and without

AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS.versusJYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.

2024 INSC 71020 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The AMP Group and the JRS Group entered into a Family Arrangement Agreement (FAA) containing an arbitration clause, and later sought to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition raised two questions: the scope of the referral court’s jurisdiction after the

M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITEDversusSNEHASIS NANDA

2025 INSC 37120 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Snehasis Nanda, bought a flat and entered into a sale agreement with a borrower, while Citicorp Finance (the appellant) granted a home loan to the borrower and transferred part of the loan amount to the bank to foreclose the borrower's existing loan. Nanda claimed that under a purported Tripartite Agree

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusSANDEEP GURAV

2025 INSC 102119 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Geojit Financial Services Ltd. filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the three‑month limitation period began on the date the award was received because the appellant's earlier applicati

BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV)versusEASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

2025 INSC 87418 July 2025Dismissed

The appellant and Eastern Coalfields Limited entered into a contract for transportation of goods that contained Clause 13, which the appellant claimed was an arbitration agreement. The appellant filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator,

DISORTHO S.A.S.versusMERIL LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 35218 March 2025Case Allowed

Disortho S.A.S., a Colombian company, and Meril Life Sciences, an Indian company, entered an International Exclusive Distributor Agreement for medical products in Colombia. Clause 16.5 of the agreement states that Indian law governs the contract and Gujarat courts have jurisdiction, while Clause 18 provides for concili

DANI WOOLTEX CORPORATION & ORS.versusSHEIL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2024 INSC 43316 May 2024Dismissed

The dispute involved Dani Wooltex Corporation (appellant) and Sheil Properties (respondent) arising from parallel arbitrations concerning a development agreement and a memorandum of understanding. While the arbitration concerning Marico Industries concluded with an award in 2017, the arbitration concerning Sheil's clai

ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusM/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS

2025 INSC 50716 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondent No.1 formed an LLP governed by an agreement containing an arbitration clause (Clause 40). Disputes arose over the ITF project, and the appellant issued a Section 21 notice of arbitration only to respondent No.1 and filed a Section 11 application appointing an arbitrator, also only naming re

M/S INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTIONversusNATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.

2025 INSC 69915 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Interstate Construction, executed work orders for a power project for the respondent, NPCC, and later disputed certain recoveries, leading to arbitration. The arbitral tribunal awarded the appellant principal sum plus interest, distinguishing pre‑reference, pendente‑lite and future interest periods.

M/S GAYATRI PROJECT LIMITEDversusMADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

2025 INSC 69815 May 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Gayatri Project Ltd., entered into a works contract with the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation and invoked arbitration under Clause 67.4 of the contract, resulting in a 2011 award in its favour. The respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,

SANJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.versusSARDAR INDERJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 98814 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents, both claiming to be trustees of a charitable trust, were involved in a dispute that led the respondents to file a suit for perpetual injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit under Section 92 of the CPC, prompting an appeal during which the parties agreed to arbitration and later ac

M/S DHANBAD FUELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR

2025 INSC 69614 May 2025Dismissed

The Union of India filed a money suit of over Rs 8.73 crore in a Commercial Court in August 2019 without first complying with the pre‑institution mediation requirement of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant, Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd., raised a preliminary objection and sought rejection of the pl

KAMAL GUPTA & ANR.versusM/S L.R BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ETC.

2025 INSC 97513 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an oral family settlement reduced to a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) signed by Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG) but not by KG's son Rahul Gupta (RG). PG and others filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointme

M/S HARCHARAN DASS GUPTAversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 68913 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a MSME supplier based in Delhi, entered into a contract with ISRO for construction of staff quarters, which contained a clause fixing Bengaluru as the seat of arbitration. Disputes arose and the supplier invoked the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Development) Act, 2006, prompting the Delhi Facilita

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITYversusPARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.

2025 INSC 97112 August 2025

The Paradip Port Authority (formerly Paradip Port Trust) and Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. entered into a 1985 agreement for a captive berth, with tariff rates subject to periodic revision. Dispute arose when the Authority unilaterally increased rates in 1993, leading to arbitration, an appellate authority order, and a High

OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTUREversusIRCON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES LTD.

2025 INSC 66512 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Office for Alternative Architecture, challenged a Delhi High Court order that, while appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, excluded certain claims as non‑arbitrable. The appellant argued that the court should only examine whether a prima facie arb

DUSHYANT JANBANDHUversusM/S HYUNDAI AUTOEVER INDIA PVT. LTD.

2024 INSC 96611 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an assistant manager, was terminated by the respondent employer alleging absenteeism, after a show‑cause notice and disciplinary inquiry. The appellant filed a petition under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act for unpaid wages and later approached the Industrial Tribunal under Section 2(A) of the

MOHAN LAL FATEHPURIAversusM/S BHARAT TEXTILES & ORS.

2025 INSC 140910 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a husband and wife, entered into a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause and later appointed a sole arbitrator, Mr. Anjum Javed, to resolve disputes with the respondents. The arbitrator repeatedly demanded administrative expenses, which the respondents challenged under Sections 14 and 15 of

MITC ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.versusM/S RENUKA REALTORS AND ORS.

2025 INSC 130010 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.2.5 crore. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the mandatory pre‑institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant cha

AC CHOKSHI SHARE BROKER PRIVATE LIMITEDversusJATIN PRATAP DESAI & ANR.

2025 INSC 17410 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The stock broker AC Chokshi Share Broker invoked arbitration under BSE Bye‑law 248(a) to recover a large debit balance that accrued in the wife’s trading account after the 2001 market crash, alleging that the husband had orally agreed to be jointly and severally liable. The arbitral tribunal held both spouses jointly l

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusBCL SECURE PREMISES PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 14019 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) floated a tender for a tank‑truck locking system and awarded a purchase order to AGC Networks Ltd., which later engaged BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. (BCL) as a sub‑vendor. HPCL alleged non‑performance by AGC and denied any contractual relationship or payment liability to BCL

K. MANGAYARKARASI & ANR.versusN.J. SUNDARESAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 6879 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioners filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for alleged infringement of the trademark ‘SRI ANGANNAN BIRIYANI HOTEL’. The respondents filed a Section 8 application invoking arbitration clauses in two assignment deeds of the trademark, alleging that the deeds were fraudulently executed. The Co

NBCC (INDIA) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

2025 INSC 549 January 2025Matter referred to larger bench

NBCC (India) Ltd., a micro‑small enterprise, entered into several construction contracts with the State of West Bengal and later filed a memorandum under Section 8 of the MSMED Act, 2006 after the contracts were executed. The enterprise then referred a payment dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Cou

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHERversusR.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 488 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

R.K. Pandey, a former lab assistant of a state‑run medical college, claimed that his superannuation age should be 60 years and sought relief through arbitration, relying on an alleged 1957 arbitration agreement between the municipal board and the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. He unilaterally appointed two arbitrators who

GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED

2024 INSC 8537 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Goqii Technologies (appellant) entered a Master Services Agreement with Sokrati Technologies (respondent) containing an arbitration clause (Clause 18.12). After paying over Rs 5.5 crore, Goqii raised concerns based on an independent audit reporting alleged overcharges and fraudulent practices, and invoked arbitration u

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR.versusAMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2025 INSC 11907 October 2025Disposed off

Lifestyle Equities sued Amazon Technologies for alleged trademark infringement and obtained a money decree of Rs.336.02 crore. Amazon appealed and sought a stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3) of the CPC without depositing the decretal amount. The Delhi High Court granted an unconditional stay, prompting

M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. & ANR.versusM/S BANSAL INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6407 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants Jindal Steel issued a work order to Bansal Infra and obtained an unconditional bank guarantee to secure an advance payment. After alleged delays, quality deficiencies and termination of the contract, the appellants threatened to encash the guarantee unless a debit balance was paid. Bansal filed a Section

M/S ALCHEMIST HOSPITALS LTD.versusM/S ICT HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 12896 November 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a private hospital, entered into a software implementation agreement with the respondent, a digital health‑technology firm, which contained Clause 8.28 purportedly providing for arbitration. After repeated technical failures, the appellant invoked the clause and sought appointment of a sole arbitrator un

ARABIAN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2025 INSC 6306 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Arabian Exports Private Limited (the appellant) claimed insurance proceeds for flood damage amounting to Rs 5,71,69,554 against National Insurance Company Ltd. (the respondent). After a long delay, the respondent offered a much lower sum of Rs 1,88,14,146, which the appellant accepted by signing an undated voucher and

THE STATE OF JHARKHANDversusTHE INDIAN BUILDERS JAMSHEDPUR

2025 INSC 13085 December 2025Directions issued

The State of Jharkhand appealed a High Court order that restored an arbitral award allowing claims that the civil court had struck down as prohibited by specific contractual clauses. The High Court had relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, hold

S.V. SAMUDRAMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

2024 INSC 174 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a civil engineering contractor, entered into a contract with the Karnataka State Public Works Department and later sought arbitration for alleged delays and non‑payment, obtaining an award of Rs.14,68,239 with 18% interest. The Civil Judge, invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, red

MMTC LIMITEDversusANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PVT. LIMITED

2025 INSC 12793 November 2025Dismissed

MMTC Limited entered a Long Term Agreement with Anglo American Metallurgical Coal for the supply of coking coal, but a dispute arose over the price and unlifted quantities, leading to an arbitral award in favour of Anglo. MMTC challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was reje

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.versusM/S G & T BECKFIELD DRILLING SERVICES PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 10662 September 2025Dismissed

The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated 21 November 2004 in favour of G & T Beckfield Drilling Services, directing ONGC (the respondent) to pay a sum of US$6,56,272.34 together with interest at 12% per annum from 12 December 1998, the date the claim was affirmed. ONGC challenged the award under Section 34 of the

M/S R. K. TRANSPORT COMPANYversusM/S BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. (BALCO)

2025 INSC 4382 April 2025Dismissed

The parties entered into a contract for bauxite mining, and an arbitral award dated 9 April 2022 was issued in favour of the appellant. The respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 11 July 2022 to set aside the award. The issue before the Supreme Court was whethe

SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.versusDEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 262 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Serosoft Solutions and Dexter Capital Advisors were in arbitration over unpaid fees. During the arbitration, the respondent sought additional time to cross‑examine the appellant's witness RW‑1, which the arbitral tribunal rejected, holding that sufficient opportunity had already been given. The respondent appealed to t

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

M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S APTECH LTD.

2024 INSC 1551 March 2024Case Allowed

The petitioners, an Afghan franchisee, sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes over royalty payments and renewal of franchise agreements with the respondent. The key issues were whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to a Section 11

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