Supreme Court of India

SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD. versus AKSH OPTIFIBRE LTD. AND ANR.

Decided: 12 August 2005
Judges listed: Y.K. SABHARWAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Disposed off

Citations

Official

[2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 699 · 2005 INSC 360

Also cited as

(2005) 7 SCC 234 (47 citing judgments)
AIR 2005 SC 3766 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown

2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 15 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

M/S EMINENT COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. 4 February 2026 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 23
MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED versus SANTOSH CORDEIRO AND ANOTHER 5 January 2026 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 16
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. versus BCL SECURE PREMISES PVT. LTD. 9 December 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 27
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. versus SANJAY KUMAR 5 August 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 25
BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) versus EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED 18 July 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 14

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph¶

The direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment remanding the application under Sectin 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for fresh decision by the trial court is confirmed. On remand, the trial court would decide the application in the light of the majority opinion within two months of receipt of the judgment of this Court. B.S. Appeal disposed of.

p. 751, margin A