This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 5 of Volume 5, embodies landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court on issues like foreign seated arbitration, power to extend arbitration timeline, judicial interference in Panchayat elections, spectrum allocated to Telecom Service Providers, and more.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) r/w Ss. 2(1)(f) and 2(2) — International commercial arbitration — Foreign seated arbitration: Petition seeking appointment of arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration, arising out of buyer and seller agreement (BSA), where parties indicate the geographical location of arbitration and also governing law of a foreign country i.e. Republic of Benin, a country in West Africa, not maintainable, [Balaji Steel Trade v. Fludor Benin S.A., (2026) 5 SCC 802]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 21 — Issuance of notice under, prior to arbitration: Non-issuance of notice under S. 21, A&C Act, prior to arbitration is not fatal to party if claim is otherwise valid and disputes arbitrable, [Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2026) 5 SCC 758]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 29-A and 2(1)(e) and S. 42 — Power to extend the time period under S. 29-A(4): Interpretation of expression “Court” in S. 29-A, A&C Act, clarified, [Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule, (2026) 5 SCC 667]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 31(7)(a) & (b) and S. 36 — Claim of compound interest: Non-issuance of notice under S. 21, A&C Act, prior to arbitration is not fatal to party if claim is otherwise valid and disputes arbitrable, [HLV Ltd. v. PBSAMP Projects (P) Ltd., (2026) 5 SCC 782]
Constitution of India — Arts. 243-O & 40 and Art. 226 — Panchayat election matters: Art. 243-O of the Constitution, introduced by the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, places an express embargo on judicial interference in matters relating to elections to the Panchayats. The need for such judicial restraint is further reinforced by the non-obstante clause of Art. 243-O. Mandate of Art. 243-O of the Constitution must be adhered to in both letter and spirit, [Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa, (2026) 5 SCC 747]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 36, 10, 14 and 238 — Spectrum allocated to Telecom Service Providers (TSPs)/corporate debtor: Spectrum allocated to Telecom Service Providers (TSPs)/corporate debtor cannot be treated as an asset amenable to insolvency proceedings, [SBI v. Union of India, (2026) 5 SCC 693]
