Landmark Supreme Court of India rulings, explained in clear, plain language.
Filter by Act / Section
Showing 6 of 6 judgments
Can the High Court under Section 11 extend an arbitral mandate under Section 29A?
South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs India Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that waiver and acquiescence barred the appellant from objecting to a sole arbitrator, and clarified that only the court under Section 2(1)(e) — not the High Court under Section 11 — can extend an arbitral mandate under Section 29A.
Can a governing law clause fix the juridical seat of arbitration?
Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs Parshva Innovation
The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order appointing an arbitrator, holding that Goa, not Delhi, was the juridical seat of arbitration under the Franchise Agreement.
Can non-signatory partners be joined in arbitration if their rights are substantially affected?
Hemant D. Shah HUF & Anr. vs Chittaranjan D. Shah HUF & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that 3rd and 4th respondents are veritable parties to arbitration despite not being signatories to the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause, as the dispute substantially affects their rights.
Can SRA sue Operational Creditor on same contract after CIRP extinguished OC's claim?
Modern Asset vs KNK Construction Private Limited
The Supreme Court upheld the arbitration appointment for the SRA's claim but directed that the Operational Creditor may raise a counterclaim solely for set-off, without any positive recovery, to ensure equity within the clean slate framework of the IBC.
Can a parent License Agreement's arbitration clause override independent JVA and MOU clauses?
Shubham Equipment Private Limited & Anr. vs Rothwell Water Company Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court appointed a sole arbitrator for disputes under the JVA and MOU, holding that these agreements operate independently of the License Agreement which provided for arbitration in Korea.
Can the venue of arbitration proceedings determine the juridical seat of arbitration?
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd & Ors. vs M/s GSCO (Gurmeet Singh and Company) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that the District Court, Sundargarh had jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petitions and that those petitions were filed within the limitation period.
You have reached the end — all 6 judgments loaded.
