Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-05-02 allowed

Purushottam S/o. Tulsiram Badwaik vs Anil & Ors

Bench: 2 — Uday Umesh Lalit

In Brief

A partnership agreement dated 2005 contained an arbitration clause referencing the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, even though the 1996 Act was already in force. When disputes arose and the appellant invoked arbitration under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, the trial court and High Court rejected the claim, treating the reference to the 1940 Act as a fundamental mistake that invalidated the arbitration clause. The Supreme Court held that an incorrect reference to the 1940 Act does not invalidate an arbitration agreement; provided it satisfies Section 7 of the 1996 Act (a written agreement to submit disputes to arbitration), the 1996 Act governs. The Court stressed that courts should promote alternative dispute resolution and not deny parties' intent to arbitrate based on outdated statutory references.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Arbitration and Conciliation Arbitration Agreement Statutory Interpretation Alternative Dispute Resolution

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login