Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd.
Whether the High Court has correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent/claimant one more opportunity to cross-examine…
Allowed- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 2 Jan 2025
- Citation
- [2025] 1 S.C.R. 151
- Case no.
- CIVIL APPEAL No. 51/2025
- Bench
- Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra
Issue for consideration
Whether the High Court has correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent/claimant one more opportunity to cross-examine appellant/respondent’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such – Art.227 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.18, 29A – The respondent/claimant cross-examined RW-1 – The unrestrained cross-examination of RW-1 by the respondent/claimant already exceeded 12 hours, however, the respondent/claimant was unsatisfied and
Source: Indian Supreme Court Judgments dataset, AWS Open Data, CC BY 4.0. A brief, not legal advice — read the judgment itself before relying on it.
More from the Supreme Court of India
- [2026] 10 S.C.R. 295Service law and pensionary benefits – Claim ofSupreme Court AllowedChhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya and Others v. The State of Gujarat and Others
- [2026] 10 S.C.R. 277Tax/Taxation – M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 – Entry Tax Act 1976Supreme Court DismissedAddl. Commr. Commercial Tax & Ors. v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Anr.
- [2026] 10 S.C.R. 289Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings arising assaultSupreme Court AllowedSachin Gupta v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.
- [2026] 10 S.C.R. 259Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction solely on the basis of, when not justifiedSupreme Court AllowedSantosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim