Supreme court
Clause Saying 'Can Be Settled By Arbitration' Does Not Create Mandate To Arbitrate : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday (April 17) held that an arbitration clause employing the word “can” does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed against the Bombay High Court's decision, which held that Clause 25 of the Bill of Lading containing the arbitration agreement lacked the essential attributes of a valid arbitration agreement as it stated that the dispute 'can be settled by arbitration'. “…the...
Landlord's Bona Fide Need To Be Assessed As On Date Of Eviction Petition Unless Subsequent Events Cause Material Change : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in eviction petitions, the adjudication of a landlord's bona fide need must ordinarily be assessed as on the date when the eviction suit was filed, unless a subsequent event materially changes the ground of relief. Applying this principle, the Court remanded a 31-year-old eviction dispute to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.A Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Bombay High Court's order dismissing the landlord's...
Plaint Can't Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 As Barred Under Order II Rule 2 CPC : Supreme Court
In a significant clarification regarding the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC. The Court observed that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the inquiry must be confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint. It is impermissible for courts at this stage to undertake a detailed comparison of pleadings or examine whether a subsequent...
Wife & Her Family Cannot Be Prosecuted For 'Dowry-Giving' Based On Her Complaint Against Husband For Taking Dowry : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 16) held that a woman or his family members could not be subjected to proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act for 'giving' dowry based on the averments made by them in their complaint against the 'dowry takers'. A bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed an appeal filed by a husband who sought to have an FIR registered against his wife and her family. The husband argued that because his wife had admitted to...
Supreme Court Daily Round-Up : April 16, 2026
Links to today's reports :Bank Liable For Delay In Presenting Cheque : Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Under Consumer Protection ActSale Of Liquor In Tetra Packs: Supreme Court Allows Petitioner To Raise Concerns Before UP Authority'Can't Compel People To Vote' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking To Make Voting MandatoryAir Force Act | Disciplinary Proceedings Can't Be Initiated Against...
Supreme Court Upholds COFEPOSA Detention Of Kannada Actress Ranya Rao In Gold Smuggling Case
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the preventive detention order passed by the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) against Kannada actress Ranya Rao alias Harshavardhini Ranya for allegedly smuggling gold into the country. The Court also upheld the detention of her aide Sahil Sarkariya Jain under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA).A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed...
Supreme Court Issues SOP Mandating Strict Timeline Framework For Filing Legal Aid Appeals
The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 16) issued a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribing binding timelines for translation, transmission, and filing of records in legal aid appeals, alongside directions for the creation of a unified digital platform to enable real-time monitoring. The issue relates back to 2017, when the Supreme Court first took note of delays in legal...
Distinction Between 'Seat' & 'Venue' Of Arbitration : Supreme Court Summarises Principles
The Supreme Court has reiterated that merely conducting arbitral proceedings at a place different from the designated seat of arbitration does not confer jurisdiction on the courts of that location. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's decision, which had refused to entertain the Appellant's Section 34 plea for challenging...