Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Office for Alternative Architecture v. Ircon Infrastructure and Services Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 665Decided 13 May 2025
Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28104 of 2023)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Manoj Misra

Background

The dispute arose from the Delhi High Court's order appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, but which also went further and excluded certain of the appellant's claims from arbitration, treating them as "non-arbitrable" or "excepted" matters under the parties' contract. The appellant challenged only this exclusion, arguing that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator, a court should not be deciding which claims can or cannot be arbitrated.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that under Section 11(6A), a court's role at the arbitrator-appointment stage is confined strictly to examining whether an arbitration agreement exists. It should not go further and adjudicate which specific claims are arbitrable. Relying on a seven-judge bench ruling ("In Re: Interplay") and a subsequent three-judge bench ruling ("SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning"), the Court held that the Delhi High Court erred in splitting the appellant's claims into arbitrable and non-arbitrable categories at the referral stage. It set aside that portion of the High Court's order and allowed the parties to raise the arbitrability of specific claims before the arbitral tribunal itself.

Lesson Learnt

When approaching a court to appoint an arbitrator, only the existence of a valid arbitration agreement is examined at that stage: questions about whether particular claims can actually be arbitrated are left for the arbitrator to decide, not the court.

Office for Alternative Architecture v. Ircon Infrastructure and Services Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware