SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 15
The Supreme Court, recently, set aside a Madras High Court order that had deleted compensation awarded to a dredging contractor and reiterated that appellate courts cannot interfere with arbitral awards merely because they prefer a different interpretation of the contract. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that courts hearing appeals in arbitration matters have a narrow and limited role. Once an arbitral award has been examined and found free from serious flaws, an appellate court cannot re-enter the dispute or reassess the merits.
“If an award is not liable to be disturbed under Section 34 of the Act, the same could not have been interfered with in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Act,” the court held. Emphasising why restraint is central to arbitration, the top court added, “In the event, the courts are allowed to step in at every stage and the arbitral awards are subjected to challenge before the courts in hierarchy before court of first instance, through regular appeals and finally by means of SLP/Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, it would obviate/frustrate and defeat the very purpose of the Act.”
Case Title : Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and Ors
Case Number : SLP(C) Nos. 10944-10945 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 30
The Supreme Court has held that an application seeking extension of time for an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act lies before the civil court, even in cases where the High Court has appointed the arbitrator. The court clarified that the High Court's role ends with the appointment of the arbitrator and does not continue during the arbitration. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan said the jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Section 11 is limited in scope and comes to an end once the arbitral tribunal is constituted.
Relying on its own ruling in Kamal Gupta v. L.R. Builder (2025), the court held, "Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 stands exhausted upon the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. There is no residual supervisory or controlling power left with the High Court or the Supreme Court over the arbitral proceedings after appointment is made. To read Section 11 as conferring such enduring control would be to conflate appointment with supervision, a conflation which the Act as well as the precedents on the subject prohibit,” the Court observed.
Courts Cannot Substitute Plausible Arbitral View Merely Because Another Is Possible: Supreme Court
Case Title: Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. National Highways Authority of India
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4513 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 17
The Supreme Court has reiterated that courts should exercise minimal interference with arbitral awards and cannot substitute an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of a contract merely because another view is possible. The court also held that although the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) and the Welfare Cess Act were brought into force in the mid-1990s, they could not be given effect to for several years due to the failure of governments to constitute statutory Welfare Boards and put the implementation machinery in place.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made these observations on January 20 while deciding a batch of appeals arising from arbitral awards passed in disputes between contractors and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The court said, “If an arbitral tribunal's view is found to be a possible and plausible one, it cannot be substituted merely because an alternate view is possible. Construction and interpretation of a contract and its terms is a matter for the arbitral tribunal to determine. Unless the same is found to be one that no fair-minded or reasonable person would arrive at, it cannot be interfered with.”
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo, Asset Disclosure In IMAX–E-City Arbitration Dispute
Case Title : E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. IMAX Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2537/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 22
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the E-City group to maintain status quo over all its assets and disclose details of its movable and immovable properties while taking up a fresh challenge to the Bombay High Court's decision that revived enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in favour of IMAX Corporation. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan issued notice on a special leave petition filed by E-City Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another group entity, challenging the Bombay High Court's December 30, 2025 decision allowing enforcement of the arbitral awards. Before the Supreme Court on Friday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for IMAX, stated that since the matter was now pending before the apex court, the company would not proceed with the execution of the arbitral awards for the time being. Recording the statement, the bench granted liberty to both sides to file their submissions.
Parties Cannot Rely On Pre-Arbitration Steps They Frustrated: Supreme Court
Case title – M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 5
The Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, set aside a Kerala High Court judgment which had held that an arbitral tribunal cannot decide disputes beyond a specific issue referred to it and that a party cannot raise additional disputes without issuing a separate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court noted that the conduct of the State showed that it never treated the Adjudicator's decision as final and binding and had itself sought to reopen all disputes by asking for the entire decision to be declared null and void. The Court held that a party cannot take advantage of its own conduct to defeat arbitration.
Case Title – Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited v. Santosh Cordeiro and Another
Case Number : Civil Appeal no. 36 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 4
The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court order appointing an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a leave and licence agreement for office premises of Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited at Malad, Mumbai, holding that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the High Court was right in allowing the application filed by the licensor and appointing a sole arbitrator, as the court's jurisdiction at that stage was confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 the court stated that, “it will be clear that Section 41 is a provision conferring jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court for certain types of disputes and cannot be interpreted to mean that ex proprio vigore (by its own force), it neutralizes arbitration clauses in agreements.”
It also referred to later Supreme Court decisions, including Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. and the seven-judge bench ruling in In re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, to reiterate that conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court is not by itself decisive of non-arbitrability.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Public Works Department
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 447/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 77
The Delhi High Court recently allowed IIM Jammu to be impleaded in arbitration-related proceedings over the construction of its permanent campus at Jagti, despite the institute not being a signatory to the arbitration agreement. The order, pronounced by Joint Registrar Deepak Dabas, held that the institute is a necessary party because it is the ultimate beneficiary of the premises and of all acts or omissions of the contractor. He held, "I am of the considered view that IIM Jammu is entitled of being impleaded as a party in the present matter as the premises in question have been constructed for applicant/IIM Jammu. IIM Jammu is beneficiary of the premises in question and all the payment for construction of premises has been made/is to be made by IIM Jammu. IIM Jammu is the ultimate beneficiary/sufferer of all the acts/omissions of petitioner,".
Mere Conduct Of Arbitration Under DIAC, By Itself, Doesn't Make Delhi The Seat: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Arun Mehrotra v. Kishan Lal
Case Number : FAO(COMM.) 123/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 85
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a district court order that refused to hear a challenge to an arbitral award. It held that arbitration conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre does not, by itself, make Delhi the seat of arbitration. The Court said that where no seat is expressly designated, courts where a part of the cause of action arises can exercise jurisdiction. Once a competent court is approached first, Section 42 requires that all further court proceedings arising from the same arbitration be heard by that court alone. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan said courts often confuse the seat of arbitration with the venue of hearings.
The Bench said the seat is the juridical centre of the arbitral proceedings. It determines which court exercises supervisory jurisdiction. The venue, by contrast, is only the place where hearings are held for convenience. “The two concepts are distinct and cannot be used interchangeably,” the Court observed. It added that merely because arbitral proceedings are conducted at a particular place does not, by itself, confer exclusive jurisdiction on courts there.
Case Title : Vedanta Limited v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : I.A. 25230/2025 & I.A. 25279/2025 in ARB.P. 853/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 88
The Delhi High Court has rejected Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s claim that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in its dispute with Vedanta Limited, after GSPC argued that a foreign joint venture partner had been deliberately left out of the proceedings. Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the jurisdictional objection, which was raised through a recall application, could not be examined at this stage because the arbitral tribunal is still considering whether Vedanta's joint venture partners, including Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Limited and ONGC, are necessary parties to the arbitration.
It held that “In case the learned Arbitral Tribunal rejects the said Application, then the entire issue that is now sought to be raised before this Court becomes redundant. Therefore, the present Application, at this juncture, seems to be premature.” “Without the consent of the Respondent, this Court will not have the jurisdiction to alter Paragraph No.33 of the Judgment dated 28.07.2025. The Respondent is correct in stating that it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the Judgment dated 28.07.2025,” Justice Prasad held.
Case Title : IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Unison Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 197/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 101
The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside an arbitral award arising out of an insurance dispute between IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Unison Hotels Private Limited, holding that the tribunal's two-year delay in pronouncing the award after reserving it had vitiated its findings. The case was heard by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan. The court reiterated that the object of arbitration is speedy dispute resolution. It also observed that “it is trite law that the justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done.”
“Inordinate delay jolts the confidence of the parties as to whether the submissions were effectively weighed”, the court observed. Holding that the prolonged delay had impacted the tribunal's consideration of the jurisdictional objection and rendered the award patently illegal and unsustainable, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the arbitral award dated March 6, 2023.
Delhi High Court Allows NHPC To Pursue Delayed Challenge To Parbati Project Arbitral Award
Case Title : NHPC Limited v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, M/S Patel-L&T Consortium-Parbati HE Project Stage-III
Case Number : I.A. 1707/2020 & I.A. 7844/2022 IN O.M.P. (COMM) 338/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 90
The Delhi High Court has allowed NHPC Limited to pursue a delayed challenge to an arbitral award arising from works executed for the Parbati Hydroelectric Project, after accepting its explanation for the time spent litigating before courts later found to lack territorial jurisdiction. Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that NHPC approached the Delhi High Court within 30 days of the Supreme Court settling the jurisdiction question. The court also took into account that NHPC first had to obtain the return of its papers from the Commercial Court at Gurugram and then refile them in the format required in Delhi.
“In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not active in pursuing the matter,” the court said. After the Supreme Court's ruling, NHPC refiled its petition before the Delhi High Court and sought exclusion of the time spent before the Faridabad and Gurugram courts. Accepting that NHPC had pursued the proceedings diligently and in good faith, the High Court allowed the application, permitting the challenge to proceed.
Delhi High Court Moves Interim Relief Plea From Court To Arbitration Forum After Parties Consent
Case Title : IPEX Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Constructions & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 492/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 103
The Delhi High Court has moved a plea for interim relief out of the courtroom and into arbitration after the parties agreed that their dispute should be resolved through arbitration. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was hearing a petition arising from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 3 November 2025 between IPEX Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Krishna Constructions, in which interim protection was sought. Upon the parties' consent, the Court referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed Senior Advocate Vibha Mahajan Seth, empanelled with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, as the sole arbitrator. The arbitration will be conducted under the center's rules.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. Kochi Aroor Tollways Pvt Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 170/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 100
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a challenge by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an arbitral award granted to Kochi Aroor Tollways Private Limited (KATPL), upholding a compensation amount of approximately ₹12.18 crores. The award addressed losses KATPL sustained on the Edapally–Vyttila–Aroor road stretch in Kerala, specifically due to incorrectly fixed toll rates, delays in declaring the Commercial Operation Date, and the costs associated with issuing free monthly passes to locals.
The Court observed that the "Arbitral Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the user fee rates notified by NHAI were not in accordance with the provisions of the Concession Agreement read with 2008 Rules and the Amendment Rules of 2011. Hence, Arbitral Tribunal worked out the user fee rates in accordance with the Concession Agreement. The finding of the Arbitral Tribunal is based on the contractual framework between the parties read with the relevant Rules and does not disclose any perversity or patent illegality".
Arbitral Tribunal Is A 'Creature of Contract': Delhi High Court Upholds ₹25 Lakh Award To Carlsberg
Case Title : Pali Hills Breweries Private Limited v. Carlsberg India Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 595/2020, I.A. 12441/2020, I.A. 12442/2020, I.A. 12443/2020, I.A. 1083/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 68
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Pali Hills Breweries Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs 25 lakh to Carlsberg India Private Limited under a brewing contract, while partly allowing the company's challenge by setting aside the arbitrator's rejection of its storage-rent claim. The court held that the amount was a genuine estimate of loss agreed to by the parties. Justice Jasmeet Singh said the High Court could not step in to re-decide the dispute or re-examine the evidence. He said the court's role is limited and it cannot sit as an appeal court over an arbitral tribunal.
The court noted that the arbitral tribunal gets its authority from the contract signed by the parties and must decide the dispute within the limits of that contract. “The Tribunal is a creature of contract and is bound by the circumscribing limits of the terms of the Contract. It is upon the Tribunal to interpret the terms of the contract. The Tribunal, in the present case, has interpreted the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as reasonable compensation,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Against Bhushan Steel Following Tata Steel Takeover
Case Title: Tata Steel Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10431/2020 & CM APPL. 33016/2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 32
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral tribunal order that allowed arbitration to continue against Tata Steel, formerly Bhushan Steel, even after its resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was approved. A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma allowed Tata Steel's writ petition and quashed the tribunal's October 7, 2020 order. The court said that once a resolution plan is approved, it binds all creditors.
“The Resolution Plan had attained finality and would be binding in terms of Section 31(1) of the IBC,” the court said. Allowing arbitration on such claims, the court said, would undermine the IBC's objective of giving the successful resolution applicant a clean or “fresh slate.” The court noted that the resolution plan had specifically dealt with sub judice and contingent claims and assigned them a liquidation value of nil. Calling the arbitral tribunal's decision to continue the proceedings “patently illegal,” the court said the treatment of claims falls within the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors and cannot be reopened.
Case Title: Black Gold Resources Private Limitada v. International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd & Anr
Case Number: O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 78/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 41
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an unconditional performance bank guarantee can be invoked even if the contractor disputes the legality of the contract's termination, an issue the court said must be decided in arbitration. A single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh relied on precedents set by the apex court to hold that it cannot go into such questions while deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court clarified that it cannot go into the legality of termination at the interim stage. “This Court today in a Section 9 petition cannot adjudicate whether the termination of the Contract was right or wrong or whether the respondent No. 2 was entitled to recover the overburden charges already paid, as such issues touch the merit of the matter and are for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide,” Justice Singh observed.
Case Title: Om Prakash v. Smt Laxmi Maurya
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 57/2023, CM APPL. 11061/2023, CM APPL. 11062/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 54
The Delhi High Court has held that mere delay in pronouncement of an arbitral award does not by itself suffice to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") unless the delay is undue, unexplained and demonstrably prejudicial to the parties. The Delhi High Court has held that a delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award is not enough to set it aside, unless the delay is undue, unexplained and demonstrably prejudicial to the parties.
A Division Bench comprising of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed an appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act read with section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, thereby upholding an arbitral award directing repayment of a friendly loan along with interest. It further observed that the burden to prove repayment lay on the appellant who failed to produce any receipts or documentary evidence. On the objection regarding unregistered and insufficiently stamped mortgage deeds, the court observed that even assuming that the registration was mandatory, the documents could still be relied upon for collateral purposes under section 49 of the Registration Act.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Delkon India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 109/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 36
In a dispute involving public sector undertaking Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, the Delhi High Court set aside a ₹66.50 lakh interest component of an arbitral award that had directed BHEL to pay Delkon India Private Limited. A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that the contractual bar on interest was binding and could not be bypassed by classifying claims as arising from termination rather than from the contract.
The bench observed that arbitral discretion to award interest operates subject to the agreement between the parties and that, once interest is expressly excluded, the arbitrator has no authority to grant it for the period before the award. At the same time, the court declined to interfere with the compensation awarded on Delkon's counterclaims. It reiterated that where loss is established but precise proof of the amount is difficult, an arbitrator is entitled to adopt a reasonable estimation method, provided the compensation is not arbitrary.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 4/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 44
The Delhi High Court, while hearing an appeal under Section 37(1)(b), observed that an injunction granted by the Section 9 (power to grant interim measures) court ought not to have been granted. This injunction had restrained the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI) from proceeding in furtherance of its notice of intention to terminate, dated 23.12.2025.
Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), provides a right to appeal to the competent court against a court order that either grants or refuses to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Act, which deals with interim relief during arbitration proceedings The bench further observed that Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, fetters the Court's power to grant an injunction, and Section 20A of the Act mandates that an injunction cannot be granted if it would delay the progress of an infrastructural development. The bench observed that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the nation and its citizen and therefore in NHAI, because the citizens cannot be deprived of a well-constructed highway to ensure smooth and free movement.
Case Title: JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited & Ors. and connected matters
Case Numbers: O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 464/2025 and O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 489/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 14
The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited and its group companies from creating third-party rights in two solar power projects in Tamil Nadu and Bihar, holding that the share purchase agreements signed with a French investor had already come to an end on their own terms. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in an order dated January 6, 2026, said courts cannot use interim powers to keep a contract alive when the agreement itself provides for its termination When such a clause is triggered, unsigned emails and draft proposals cannot be used to suggest that the deal still survives.
“Effect must be given to the word 'automatic' as it appears in Clause 5.6. If contingencies and carve-outs were to be read between the stage of a CP(s) not being fulfilled on CLSD and that of termination of the said Agreement, the word “automatic” would lose its meaning", the court said.
“It would be unwise to rewrite the terms of the contract,” the court observed, adding that this was a commercial transaction deliberately structured to collapse if approvals were not obtained. Once the long stop date passed, the agreement had a built-in “self-collapsing mechanism,” and there was nothing left for the court to preserve.
'Full and Final' Settlement Does Not Bar Arbitration On Fresh Disputes: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Ashutosh Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Pebble Downtown India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1294/2023; O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 152/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 55
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a “full and final” settlement does not automatically bar arbitration if fresh disputes arise from the settlement's implementation and the parties have agreed to arbitrate such disputes. A single-judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that an arbitration clause incorporated in a settlement agreement and reflected in a consent award constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court clarified that “execution of a full and final settlement may not preclude a party from taking recourse to arbitration if a dispute arises from the settlement itself,” This is particularly where the parties have expressly agreed to resolve future disputes through arbitration.
Case Title : Prasar Bharati v. Stracon India Ltd & Anr.; Stracon India Ltd v. Prasar Bharati
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 132/2020 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 179/2020 (with connected applications)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 75
The Delhi High Court has dismissed cross-appeals by Prasar Bharati and Stracon India Ltd, an overseas sports marketing company, upholding a single judge's ruling that only seven days of international cricket were missing under their BCCI broadcast marketing contract, and not seventeen as awarded by the arbitrator. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain agreed with the Single Judge that the arbitrator had wrongly excluded a 10-day India–Australia–New Zealand Triangular Series while calculating the shortfall.
The Division Bench rejected both sides' challenges. It refused to accept Prasar Bharati's attempt to rely on definitions from its separate agreement with the BCCI. "Unlike the BCCI Agreement, the Global Rights Agreement did not define the term "Cricket Season". It did not even state that as the Agreement was being executed in the middle of a Cricket Season, there shall be a proportionate reduction of the number of days ofnInternational Cricket for the first season. The definition of Cricket Season from the BCCI Agreement therefore, cannot be imported into the Global Rights Agreement to modify the terms thereof,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Orders Perjury Complaint Against Walmark Officials In Fortis Arbitration Case
Case Title : Walmark Holdings Limited v. Fortis Healthcare Limited
Case Number : CRL.M.A. 11201/2020 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 170/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 64
The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar General to lodge a criminal complaint for perjury against two officials of Walmark Holdings Limited for making false statements and swearing affidavits before the court in an arbitration-related dispute with Fortis Healthcare Limited. The court held that this was a fit case to invoke its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statements and swearing affidavits.
The court held that this was a fit case to invoke its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statements and swearing affidavits. The case concerned a draft term sheet dated December 6th, 2017. Walmark relied on the document while seeking interim reliefs against Fortis in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The High Court held that a case had been made out for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It directed the Registrar General to lodge a formal complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within four weeks.
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator After Earlier Plea Before UP Court Was Withdrawn
Case Title : Mr. Mohd. Khalid v. M/S Jai Mata Di Packaging Through Its Partners & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1115/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 60
The Delhi High Court has recently allowed a plea to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute between partners of a firm, rejecting an objection that sought to block the case by relying on an earlier, abandoned court proceeding. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said the objection under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act could not succeed because the earlier case filed in another court had been withdrawn without any decision. Section 42 is meant to prevent different courts from hearing the same arbitration dispute. It says that once one court has taken up the matter, other courts should not deal with it. The court clarified that this rule applies only when a court has actually taken up and dealt with the case.
“A withdrawn petition cannot be equated with a decided or pending application. To hold otherwise would be to confer upon an abandoned proceeding a jurisdiction-creating effect, which Section 42 neither contemplates nor permits. Jurisdiction under Section 42 crystallises only when a court validly assumes seisin; it does not survive the abandonment of proceedings by the party who invoked the court‟s jurisdiction in the first place.”
Arbitrator Cannot Grant Claims Contrary To Clear Contract Terms, Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Jay Gee Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS) 223/2010
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 50
The Delhi High Court, reiterating a settled law, has said that additional compensation cannot be granted where a claim runs contrary to clear contractual terms, even if an arbitrator has allowed it. Holding so, The court granted relief to Indraprastha Power Generation by setting aside portions of the arbitral award that were contrary to the contract with Jay Gee Construction A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that an arbitral tribunal cannot grant relief by ignoring express provisions agreed upon between the parties.
Case Title : Delhi Jal Board v. M/S Mohini Electricals Ltd
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 210/2022 & CM APPL. 36624/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 46
The Delhi High Court has held that financing charges under a FIDIC-based construction contract can be claimed only on amounts that are formally certified or have clearly become payable under the contract, and not on disputed or unverified claims. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla partly allowed an appeal filed by the Delhi Jal Board against a Single Judge order that had upheld an arbitral award in favour of Mohini Electricals Ltd., setting aside the portion of the award that granted financing charges on uncertified claims.
The court said an arbitrator cannot ignore mandatory payment conditions written into the contract. "Self-serving documents, unsupported by corroborative proof, cannot be treated as evidence of actual expenditure. Reliance on such material renders the impugned award unsupported by evidence and squarely places it within the category of a finding based on “no evidence,” the bench said.
Case Title: Natasha Oberoi v. Rajaraman Shankar & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 373/2025 & I.A. 22577-78/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 47
A single judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that arbitration requires clear and demonstrable consent. The court observed that "Thus, the mere existence of a document, despite it containing an arbitration clause, and persons, even if they are party to it, would not qualify as an ―arbitration agreement‖ unless it is signed by the parties, including the party seeking to invoke the clause as also the party against whom enforcement is sought." “The naming of an interested party as an adjudicator between the parties,” the court said, “may be an indication of the clause not intending to be a binding process to decide their substantive rights and liabilities, but an in-house, pre-escalation, resolution-oriented mechanism.” On these findings, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement and that interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not available.
Case Title: SJVN Ltd. v. Patel Gammon Joint Venture
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 9/2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 15
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by SJVN Limited challenging an arbitral award that granted payment to Patel Gammon Joint Venture for transporting excavated material during a hydroelectric project in Himachal Pradesh.
The Delhi High Court single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld the substance of the arbitral award but held that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Singh reiterated that courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards and that the scope of interference under Section 34 is very "narrow.” On jurisdiction, the court said the contract conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts in Himachal Pradesh. Since the arbitration clause provided for multiple venues, including Delhi, the judge held that Delhi could not be treated as the juridical seat of arbitration.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹10.54 Crore Arbitration Award Against CADA In Beed Irrigation Project
Case Title : The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Command Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Hule Constructions Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2022 with Civil Application No. 10992 of 2022 in CARBA/2/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 53
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld a Rs. 10.54 crore arbitral award arising from delays in the repair and renovation of 19 minor irrigation tanks in Beed district, holding the Command Area Development Authority responsible for stalling the project. A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav dismissed an appeal filed by senior officials of the authority and affirmed the Commercial Court's refusal to set aside the award.
The bench agreed with the arbitrator that the department could not rely on contractual clauses barring compensation after being found in breach of its own obligations. "Notwithstanding the clauses in the contract, when the party has failed to standby it's part of the contract, it is not available for the defaulting party to insist upon implementation of the clauses of the contract providing for no claim for idling of machinery or escalation of price. The argument raised is, thus, rejected.”, it said.
Individual Members Can't Stall Housing Society Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Reaffirms
Case Title : Real Infrastructure Company through its Partner Keshavji Damji Minat V/S Tilak Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.40791 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 43
The Bombay High Court has held that an individual member of a cooperative housing society cannot refuse to vacate her flat and delay redevelopment after the society has approved the project and executed a development agreement. Justice Sandeep V. Marne reiterated members are bound by the development agreement signed by the society. "The individual members of the Co-operative Society are bound by covenants in the Development Agreement executed by the Society with the Developer and individual rights of a member are subservient to the obligations of the Society under the Development Agreement.", it said.
Case Title : Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as OVOT Pvt. Ltd.) & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 983 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 50
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. seeking interim relief against Vijay Sales, holding that such relief cannot be granted once a foreign arbitral award has already been found unenforceable against that party. Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the foreign arbitral award in the case was passed only against Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. Vijay Sales was not a party to the arbitration and had already been deleted from the award enforcement proceedings by an earlier court order that had attained finality.
“Once it is held in enforcement proceedings that there is no underlying liability against a third-party, Section 9 route cannot be adopted to fasten the very same liability against that party in an indirect manner. In the present case, it is held by the enforcement court that Vijay Sales has no liability to pay to the Petitioner under the award and enforcement proceedings are dismissed against it,” the court observed.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. M/s Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 33 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 35
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award that granted toll loss compensation to a private concessionaire by treating pre-contract Minutes of Meeting as a binding part of the contract. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the arbitral tribunal had misread the contract, effectively converting a force majeure clause into a guaranteed revenue mechanism. The Court said this interpretation was an “impossible view,” “irrational,” and suffered from “manifest perversity,” and held that it violated the fundamental public policy of Indian law.
The court held that treating the meeting notes as a binding amendment effectively rewrote the contract and upset its basic risk-sharing structure. "What the Learned Arbitral Tribunal and the Section 34 Court have done is turn this on its head. They have simply taken the observations in the MOM to treat them as an amendment not just to the benchmark for compensating for a force majeure event but even for circumstances that do not even constitute a force majeure event," the court observed.
Case Title : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Om Constraction on behalf of Om Constraction Nice Projects Limited JV
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 28685 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 36
The Bombay High Court has set aside a Rs 19.82 crore arbitral award against state-run Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., holding that the arbitral tribunal followed an “unusual process, unknown to law” and wrongly prevented the company from raising a defence that struck at the validity of the contract itself. Justice Sandeep V Marne said the arbitrator shut out HPCL from raising objections based on suppression and fraud after those facts came to light.
Justice Sandeep V Marne said the arbitrator shut out HPCL from raising objections based on suppression and fraud after those facts came to light. This, the court said, was against the most basic notions of justice. “It is clearly against the most basic notions of justice to disallow a party to raise the defence of validity of contract after it discovers the act of suppression,” the court observed, adding that the resulting award was “patently illegal.”
Bombay High Court Cautions Against Injunctions On Third Parties In Arbitration Cases
Case Title: Messse Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions India Limited & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 40115 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 40
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea seeking interim relief pending arbitration by Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd, the Indian arm of German exhibition organiser Messe Frankfurt, seeking interim relief to stop two trade exhibitions in Mumbai, reiterating that courts must be cautious while granting orders directly against third parties under the arbitration law.
Justice Sandeep V Marne said that while there is no absolute bar on granting interim relief against non-signatories, such power cannot be stretched in every case. "Though there may not be complete prohibition in law to make an order directly against a third party under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, such power needs to be exercised sparingly. No case is made out by the Petitioner for exercise of such power against Respondent No. 6.", the court said. Crucially, the court noted that the exhibitions were being organised by a separate entity that was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Since the interim reliefs were sought directly against that third party and not as a consequence of restraining a contracting party, the court said such relief could not be granted on the facts of the case.
Interim Relief Can't Undo Completed Sale Or Replace Enforcement In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Telford Marine Dmcc v. Bhambhani Shipping Limited And Another
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 727 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 42
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to stop the sale of a vessel and secure an arbitral award, holding that once a sale is completed, the court cannot restrain the transaction or use interim relief to indirectly enforce an award. Justice Sandeep V. Marne said interim protection under the arbitration law is meant to prevent imminent dissipation of assets.
It cannot be used to undo a concluded transaction or as a substitute for enforcement proceedings. “The sale of the Ship has taken place. Whether it is a valid transfer within the meaning of Section 42 of the Merchants Shipping Act is not required to be adjudicated in the present petition,” the court said. “Section 9 remedy would ordinarily be available only when it is demonstrated that the award creditor is in the process of seeking enforcement of the award but there is imminent danger of dissipation of the assets,” It added.
Arbitration Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Contractually Agreed Monetary Limits: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/S. Sowil Limited v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Bhusawal
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 51
The Bombay High Court has held that where parties have contractually agreed to restrict arbitration only to disputes up to a specified percentage of the contract value, courts cannot compel arbitration for claims exceeding that agreed limit. Justice Sandeep V. Marne emphasised that arbitration is founded on party autonomy, under which parties are free to determine not only whether disputes will be arbitrated but also which categories or value of disputes will be subject to arbitration. Emphasising this principle, the Court observed, “Once arbitration agreement is arrived at, it does not mean that every dispute has to be resolved only by arbitration.
It is for parties to decide whether all or selective disputes are to be resolved by arbitration. Parties here have clearly intended that claims of only particular value would be adjudicated through arbitration while claims exceeding the agreed value would be resolved through other remedies. It is for the parties to agree as to whether the disputes would be resolved through arbitration or not and the Court cannot force the parties to have the disputes resolved through the mechanism of private arbitration.”
Bombay High Court Says Arbitrator Right To Decide Claim on Work Performed, Not Alleged Admission
Case Title : Kanti Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Witty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33334 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 49
The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award after finding that the contractor itself chose to press a claim based on the value of work carried out, and could not later ask the court to enforce a higher amount on the basis of an alleged admission of liability. Dismissing a petition filed by Kanti Builders Pvt Ltd, the Court said the arbitral tribunal was justified in deciding the dispute on evidence of work executed rather than on letters or a dishonoured cheque relied upon later. Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld the approach of the sole arbitrator, noting that the tribunal had undertaken a detailed factual exercise to assess what was actually payable under the construction contract.
The Court observed that “the Tribunal rightly not got swayed by alleged admissions contained in the letter dated 12 August 2021 and undated letter.” It said the arbitrator had examined the exact liability under the contract instead of mechanically accepting claimed figures.
'Karta' Personally Liable if HUF is Unable to Satisfy Arbitral Award: Bombay HC
Case Title: Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises HUF & Anr.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 5306 of 2025 in Comm. Execution Application No. 19 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 31
The Bombay High Court declared that a 'Karta' has a personal and unlimited liability for satisfying unpaid arbitral dues of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), thereby enabling creditors to proceed against the Karta's private assets without a separate decree. In a major boost for award creditors, the Bench of Justice R.I Chagla held that the "seat court" retains the jurisdiction to execute an arbitral award and provide interim relief, even if the judgment debtor's assets are situated outside of its territorial jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the arbitral tribunal's refusal to pass a separate money award against the Karta did not bar execution against him, as questions of Hindu law liability “never and could never even arise for consideration before the Arbitral Tribunal.” Since the HUF admittedly carried on business, the Karta's personal assets were held reachable in execution.
Case Title: Sunfield Global Pte Limited v. Liberty Investments Private Limited
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) NO.34540 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 29
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a Singapore-based company, holding that once a foreign-seated arbitral tribunal is constituted, Indian courts should be slow in entertaining unless the party shows that the tribunal cannot provide an effective remedy. Justice Bharati Dangre clarified that this principle applies even to foreign-seated arbitrations.
While Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for interim relief) can be invoked in such cases, the bar under Section 9(3) (bar on relief after constitution of arbitral tribunal) still operates after the tribunal is in place. “Without taking recourse to the remedy available to move the Arbitral Tribunal, the Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Section 9… in the wake of the embargo created under sub-section (3) as the Tribunal is already constituted and the better course available to a party is to approach the Tribunal, and in this case, I do not find that the Tribunal is lacking power to consider such a request,” the court said.
Case Title: Ramesh Venkateshwar Somani v. Rajesh Somani & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition NO. 210 OF 2023 along with Interim Application No. 379 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 28
In Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 210 OF 2023 The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award involving a long-standing family dispute over shares in a demerged company. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held the arbitral tribunal's decision—that a later sale to a bona fide purchaser takes precedence over an earlier conditional arrangement—to be a plausible and well-reasoned conclusion. “The finding that the 2012 Agreement was a much wider Agreement would not mean that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal exceeded its scope.
The Learned Arbitral Tribunal was fully entitled to compare the competing considerations that were clamouring for favourable consideration by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, between the two instruments, in order to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.Likewise, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal's reference to and reliance on the sale of office premises does not result in the Learned Arbitral Tribunal having gone outside the scope of the reference to arbitration as set out in the Reference Order”, the court held.
Case Title: Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt Ltd v. Evertop Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 34791 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 27
The Bombay High Court held that the principle barring specific performance of a terminated contract is not an absolute rule and is subject to an exception where subsequent conduct of parties indicates revival of contractual obligations, particularly in arbitration proceedings. Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt. Ltd, challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of Evertop Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
It observed: “In my view therefore, the principle of impermissibility to seek specific performance of terminated contract is subject to exception of intervening event of revival of contract. The principle would apply only to a case where the contract is treated as at end by Plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. In a case where the contract is terminated, but subsequently parties act in performance of contract, Plaintiff would not be debarred forever from seeking specific performance merely because at one point of time, he elected to put an end to the contract.” The court clarified that the bar against seeking specific performance of a terminated contract applies only where the plaintiff treats the contract as finally ended as on the date of filing proceedings.
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To Aditya Birla Housing In Dispute With Axis Bank
Case Title : Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd v. Axis Bank Ltd & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 104 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 37
The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd after finding that Axis Bank, despite knowing that its loan was being taken over, allowed borrowers to misuse a small unpaid balance to continue operating an overdraft account and retain custody of mortgaged title deeds. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that interim measures were necessary to protect the subject matter of arbitration between Aditya Birla Housing and the borrowers, even though the relief operated against Axis Bank, which is not a party to the loan agreement.
The court observed that in the arbitration between Aditya Birla Housing and the borrowers, relief would necessarily be sought in respect of the mortgaged property. “This is how the arbitral proceedings are bound to affect the Axis Bank,” it said. It further held, “If the interim measures are not granted against Axis Bank, it would frustrate the Petitioner's claim against the borrowers by selling the subject property. Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if interim measures are not granted.” On that basis, the court concluded that "making interim measures against the third party–Axis Bank is clearly warranted in the facts of the present case."
Case Title: Sharekhan Limited v. Monita Kisan Khade & Anr.
Case Nos.: Arbitration Petition Nos. 532 & 557 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 18
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that mere violation of SEBI's trade confirmation circular does not automatically make a broker liable for market losses, and it set aside arbitral awards that directed stockbroker Sharekhan Limited to reimburse investors for losses sustained in Futures and Options (F&O) trading. The Single Bench on 24th December, 2025, decided that investors who authorised an individual to trade on their behalf could not thereafter retract those trades and shift losses to the broker.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that clients who “relied on skills and took the risks in the volatility of the stock market, cannot later turn around and disown the trade transactions”, noting that regulatory violations may invite disciplinary action but do not automatically create civil liability for losses. behalf and consciously accept the risks of market volatility, they cannot later deny responsibility for those trades merely because the broker failed to maintain written or recorded pre-trade confirmations. In cases of blatantly unauthorised trading, the investor cannot be saddled with losses and the broker would be liable. However, where investors admit authorising a third party to trade for them, they cannot disown the resulting trades or losses.
Following the principles laid down in cases of Ulhas Dandekar v. Sushil Financial Services Private Limited, Erach Khavar v. Nirmal Bang Securities Private Limited and Peerless Securities Limited v. Vostok (Far East) Securities Private Limited, the court noted that SEBI/NSE circular violations may attract regulatory action but do not automatically create civil liability for market losses.
Case Title: Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Versus : Remi Sales And Engineering Limited
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 232 Of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 19
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), holding that once goods are put to use by the buyer, such conduct amounts to deemed acceptance under section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 ("SOGA"), the buyer cannot later reject the goods on the ground of alleged defects. A claim for damages can be filed for breach of warranty but goods cannot be rejected, the court ruled.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne refused to interfere with an arbitral award that directed Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (“Petitioner”) to pay over ₹4.25 crore to Remi Sales and Engineering Limited (“Respondent”) for stainless steel tubes supplied under a purchase order.
The Court observed: “Thus clause 6(b) does not constitute contractual variation with deeming fiction of 'acceptance' under Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act and even if it is held to be contractual variation, Petitioner has failed to prove that the tubes were not in accordance with specifications. In my view, therefore the provisions of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act have rightly been invoked by the Arbitral Tribunal. The act of the Petitioner of inserting the tubes in the heat exchangers constitutes the act of doing something which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.”
Case Title: Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Appeal (CARBA) (L) No. 38267 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 20
The Bombay High Court has recently restored enforcement proceedings initiated by IMAX Corporation for execution of foreign arbitral awards against E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd for breach of contractual obligations, holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies even between different stages of the same enforcement petition. The court said it cannot revisit an objection of limitation merely because subsequent judgments may have taken a different legal view.
Allowing IMAX's appeal, the court's division bench observed that the limitation issue had already been decided by the Supreme Court and could not be reopened by the court. It clarified that res judicata applies even between different stages of the same proceedings, and a subsequent change in legal interpretation does not permit a court to revisit a binding earlier order. It said enforcement courts cannot re-examine the merits of a foreign award or expand the scope of “public policy” objection.
Case Title: Phalke Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Adit Enterprises
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 11
The Bombay High Court has held that a civil suit filed by individual members of a housing society against a developer does not amount to abandonment of the arbitration clause in a redevelopment agreement. The Court said such a decision can be taken only by the society acting as a collective body.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that once a co-operative housing society is formed, individual members give up their separate will to the collective will of the society. Courts cannot infer the society's intent from the conduct of its members.
The court held that support for the members' suit did not make it a suit by the society. Nor did it prevent the society from terminating the agreement and appointing a new developer. There was no basis to conclude that the arbitration agreement had been abandoned.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Passed With “Undue Haste” After Four-Year Delay
Case Title: Amit Engineers v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 847 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 5
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that it was passed in undue haste after nearly four years of inaction and without giving the parties any opportunity of hearing.
A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne found that the arbitrator acted with undue haste and in clear breach of natural justice.
Rejecting the explanation offered for the long delay, the Court said, “The explanation put forth by the Arbitrator for the delay is factually incorrect. The Arbitrator has not heard the parties before making the Award. No evidence is recorded. No arguments are heard.”
Setting aside the arbitral award, the court said that the arbitrator “clearly misconducted” himself by calling three meetings held years earlier hearings on “many occasions”, by taking shelter under a non-existent pandemic to explain the delay, and by suddenly rushing to deliver the award after learning that his substitution was being sought.
Software Ownership Disputes Involving IPR Not Arbitrable: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Anand Khosala v Punam Kumari Singh
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 228 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 10
The Bombay High Court has recently held that an arbitral tribunal was right in refusing to decide who owns a software product, saying such questions involve intellectual property rights that affect the public at large (rights in rem) and cannot be settled through private arbitration. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne said that deciding ownership of the “Test Magic” software would inevitably involve ruling on trademark and copyright rights, which are not meant for arbitration.
The court said any decision on whether the trademark or software belonged to Singh or the LLP would amount to deciding rights against the whole world (right in rem). It added that such questions cannot be settled in arbitration, and clarified that Khosla and the LLP were free to approach a civil court if they wanted to restrain Singh or her husband from using, selling, or licensing the software. Finding no ground to interfere, the court dismissed the petition.
Court Intervention In Arbitrator Appointment Required Only If Institution Fails: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Jalaram Fabrics v. Nisarg Textiles Pvt. Ltd
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 267 of 2024 with Interim Application (L) No. 35308 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 12
The Bombay High Court has held that court intervention for the appointment of arbitrators is required only when an arbitral institution fails to discharge its designated functions in appointing an arbitrator. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held that once parties agree to resolve disputes through an arbitral institution, the appointment procedure prescribed by that institution must be followed.
“In case of an institutional arbitration, application for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) needs to be made only when the institute fails to perform its functions. In a case where the arbitration institute proceeds ahead by appointing the arbitrators and conducts arbitral proceedings, it is not necessary to approach the Court under Section 11(6) merely because one of the parties refuses to concur in appointment of arbitrator by the institute.”, the court observed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Status Quo Ante Means Restoration, Can't Be Ordered Lightly: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The Visakhapatnam Port Authority v. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues (India) Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Boddeti Narendra Kumar.
Case Number : COMCA Nos.29 & 30 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 10
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently set aside an ad interim order passed during arbitration proceedings that directed restoration of possession of leased premises, holding that such relief amounts to a mandatory injunction and cannot be granted lightly. A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam said courts must record clear and justifiable reasons before directing restoration of an earlier state of affairs. "Such orders of status quo ante‟ are not to be passed lightly and certainly not for no reasons assigned in the order.
The order must contain justifiable reasons for an ad-interim order in the nature of mandatory injunction", it said. The court rejected attempts to defend the order in question by supplying reasons during the appeal, including arguments relating to the legality of taking possession.
An order, it said, must stand or fall on the reasons recorded in it and cannot be supplemented later. The bench said it would not get into disputed questions of fact, including whether the lease terms were breached or whether possession was taken lawfully, as those issues require factual examination and are already pending before the Commercial Court. Since the impugned order recorded no reasons and did not even contain a prima facie finding to justify restoration, the High Court set aside the ad interim order.
Case Title : M/s. Sunrise & Engineering Industries vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited & Anr. (and connected matters)
Case Number : C.M.A. No. 234 of 2025 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz (APH) 7
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh recently set aside a Trial Court's order that had earlier quashed thirteen arbitral awards against Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) and its subcontractors. The Division Bench comprising of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, upholding the arbitral awards, stated that an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to modulate liquidated damages if they are found to be exorbitant or if the delay is attributable to both parties, and noted that “the question of application of the clause for liquidated damages, without modification, would not arise”.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that liquidated damages cannot be imposed mechanically or in full once loss is quantifiable and delay is not solely attributable to the contractor. The Bench observed that where the employer admits that losses are already quantified, or where delay is shared between both parties, the arbitrator is empowered to reduce or modify the damages to ensure reasonable compensation. Conclusively, the Court held that “the learned Arbitrator cannot be termed to have exceeded his jurisdiction as such modification is permissible”.
Case Title: Zion Shipping Ltd v. Sarala Foods Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number: International Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 2/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 5
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that a claim for demurrage, which is essentially a charge demanded for delay in loading or unloading a ship, cannot be treated as an actual money debt until an arbitral tribunal finally decides who is at fault. Because of this, the court held that such a claim cannot be secured by attaching goods under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act while arbitration is still pending.
The bench said, “It is pertinent to note that the demurrage here is liquidated damages, and liability is being contested before the arbitrator. As no pecuniary obligation arises until adjudication is complete, the claim is a mere right to sue for damages, which cannot by itself justify securing the amount through attachment because Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC cannot be used to convert an unsecured claim for damages into a secured debt. ”
Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Angel One Limited v. S.X.J. Vasan
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.417 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 30
The Madras High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Angel One Limited to pay Rs 48.77 lakh with interest to its client, holding that the squaring off of shares by the broker was illegal. The court found no ground to interfere with the award under the limited scope of a challenge to an arbitral decision. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said the sole arbitrator's conclusion was based on a proper appreciation of evidence.
The court made clear that it could not re-examine the merits merely because another view was possible. "This finding of the sole Arbitrator to the effect that the squaring off done by the petitioner on 21.1.2016 was illegal is certainly a possible view on appreciation of evidence. Just because there is a possibility of taking a different view based on the evidence available on record, that cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding and the law on this issue is too well settled.", it said.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award After Railways Unilaterally Appointed Tribunal
Case Title : RPN Engineers Chennai Pvt. Ltd. v. The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.503 of 2022 and Application No.4187 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 27 T
The Madras High Court has recently struck down an arbitral award in a dispute with the Integral Coach Factory after finding that the Railways unilaterally appointed the arbitral tribunal, even though the contractor had clearly objected to the process. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the arbitral award stood “vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction” since the tribunal had been unilaterally constituted. Finding that the award had been passed without jurisdiction, the court set it aside, while leaving it open to the parties to seek the appointment of a fresh arbitral tribunal in accordance with law.
Bias of Even One Arbitrator Taints Entire Arbitral Award: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s.Muthu Construction v. Union of India
Case Number : Arbitration O.P.(Com.Div.) No.603 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 24
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that the bias of even a single arbitrator is sufficient to vitiate the entire award, even where the decision is unanimous. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said parties are entitled to an arbitral tribunal that is impartial in its entirety and not merely a neutral majority. Bias, the court held, violates Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires equal treatment of parties, and also goes against the fundamental policy of Indian law.
The court observed, “It is impossible to know whether or to what extent the participation of the biased member affected the tribunal's decision. It cannot be assumed that the presumed impartiality and independence of one of the co-arbitrators of the panel rendered it harmless. In other words, a party is entitled to an independent and impartial tribunal, which means that all the members of the tribunal must be impartial and without bias. In the absence of the same, the bias of even a single member will necessarily vitiate the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Relief To 93 Chennai Port Spillage Workers
Case Title: The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors.
Case Number: Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 509 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court rejected a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority, refusing to set aside an arbitral award that directed the port to reinstate spillage-handling workers and grant back wages, gratuity and other service benefits to 93 workers. A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the award did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and did not conflict with public policy. The court observed that the Port Trust, as a State instrumentality, is “is expected to act with a higher degree of fairness than ordinary employers”.
The court accepted the finding that the workers were under the “supervision and control” of the Port Authority and said the arbitrator had balanced the rights of workers who had served the port for decades.
The bench also recorded that the Port Authority had participated in the arbitration without raising any jurisdictional objection at the appropriate stage and could not later “turn around and question the very forum whose jurisdiction it had accepted.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Genebio Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. through Director, Arun Kumar Srivastava Versus Paradigm Enterprises through Director Ritika Pandey and others
Case Number : Matters227 No. - 3886 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 10
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that a challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not become not maintainable merely because it is not accompanied by a separate application seeking condonation of delay. The court said what matters is whether the party has, in the petition itself, set out reasons for the delay or sought the benefit of limitation law, and whether the court has applied its mind to those pleadings. Justice Jaspreet Singh, however, relying on earlier precedents, made it clear that courts cannot mechanically excuse delay simply because a petition is filed within the additional 30-day window allowed under the law.
“It is not merely because the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was not accompanied by a separate application seeking condonation of delay, per se would make the application not maintainable without considering as to whether in the pleading any ground was set out for condonation of delay or for grant of benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act or any prayer was made to the aforesaid effect or not,” the court said.
Case Title: Suryadev Pathak Versus Union of India and 4 others
Case Number: Writ C No. - 28215 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz (ALL) 3
The Allahabad High Court has held that it lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that it does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court ruled that it cannot entertain writ petitions seeking time-bound or expeditious disposal of arbitral proceedings when a specific statutory remedy lies before the competent civil court.
The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held “The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Consequently, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, 1996.”
The Court held that writ petition before the High Court for expeditious disposal of an arbitration was barred in lieu of the alternate remedy under Section 29A(4) to approach the Civil Court.
“The existence of a specific statutory remedy under Section 29A(4) before the competent civil court bars the maintainability of writ petitions seeking mandamus for expeditious disposal of arbitration proceedings, especially when the statutory period has expired.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Raghavendra & Anr. v. Vijaykumar
Case Number : Civil Misc. Petition No. 100019 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 9
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitration clause contained in a partnership reconstitution deed cannot be enforced b a person who has not signed the deed, and that in such circumstances, the court cannot appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti made the observation in an order dated January 7 while hearing a petition filed by two outgoing partners of Shree Raghavendra Industries, seeking appointment of an arbitrator under an arbitration clause contained in a reconstitution deed dated March 18, 2023.
The Court held that a reconstitution deed cannot bind a party who has not signed it. As there was no valid arbitration agreement, the Court declined to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Qatar Holding LLC v. Byju Raveendran
Case Number: AP.EFA No.1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 7
The Karnataka High Court passed an ad-interim order attaching 17,891,289 equity shares held by Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd. and beneficially owned by Byju Raveendran in Aakash Educational Services Ltd. The Single Bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said the direction was necessary to prevent the interim injunction granted on September 1, 2025, from being rendered ineffective due to subsequent developments and to safeguard the beneficial interest linked to the award debtor. Taking note of the submissions and the earlier restraint order, Justice Yadav held that an ad-interim arrangement was warranted at this stage.
Affirming the earlier restraint, the court directed that alienation of 17,891,289 shares held by Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd., insofar as the beneficial interest of the award debtor in Aakash Educational Services Ltd. is concerned, would stand protected by an order of attachment. The court clarified that the attachment is a provisional arrangement, subject to final orders to be passed on the interlocutory application. Notices were directed to be issued to Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd. and Aakash Educational Services Ltd., and the matter has been listed for further hearing after two weeks.
Calcutta High Court
Court Can Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Even After Its Expiry: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Heaven on Ocean Tourism Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : AP/2/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 18
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that an arbitrator's authority does not end automatically on expiry of the time limit prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court said that it retains the power to extend an arbitrator's mandate even after expiry of the time fixed and that in this case the parties had consented by their conduct. Applying this settled position, the court extended the mandate of the arbitrator in the case before it and refused to terminate the proceedings at an advanced stage.
Justice Arindam Mukherjee, sitting at the Circuit Bench in Port Blair, noted that the order appointing the arbitrator had fixed an 18-month period but did not state that this timeline was final or incapable of extension. “An order should not be read as status,” the court observed, adding that “in absence of any specific stipulation that the time cannot be extended it has to be construed that time can be extended.”
Case Title: Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited v. Bridge And Roof Company India Limited
Case Number: AP-COM 913 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 15
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that where an arbitral tribunal conclusively rejects claims as barred by limitation, such a determination amounts to an interim award and is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not under Section 37. While Section 34 provides the remedy for challenging arbitral awards, Section 37 is confined to appeals against limited procedural or jurisdictional orders passed during the arbitral process.
Explaining the law, the court observed, “The nomenclature assigned to an order by the arbitral tribunal is not determinative; rather, it is the substance and effect of the order that governs the issue of maintainability. The Court must therefore ascertain whether the impugned determination is in the nature of a jurisdictional ruling under Section 16 of the Act, amenable to an appeal under Section 37(2), or whether it constitutes an interim award finally deciding certain claims, thereby attracting a challenge under Section 34.”
Case Title : C & E Limited and Others Vs. Gopal Das Bagri and Others
Case Number : A.P.O. No. 184 of 2023 In AP No. 402 of 2020, IA No: GA 2 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 27
The Calcutta High Court has held that parties to an arbitration cannot introduce completely new material for the first time at the appellate stage (Section 37) of arbitration proceedings if such material could have been produced earlier but was not placed before the court when the arbitral award was initially challenged (Section 34). The court emphasised that an appeal at this stage is not an opportunity to cure evidentiary lapses or supplement the record belatedly.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation while deciding cross-appeals arising from an arbitral award dated February 29, 2020. The award had been set aside by a single judge of the High Court on July 27, 2023.
Case Title : Smt. Jaya Kar v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : IA No. GA 2 OF 2021 AP-550 OF 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 21
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an application seeking to challenge an arbitral award after finding that it was filed in the wrong proceeding. The Court held that once it appoints an arbitrator, it cannot entertain further applications in that case and that any challenge to an award must be filed separately under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Justice Gaurang Kanth said, “the present application came to be filed in the disposed of Section 11 proceedings owing to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake on the part of the learned Counsel, such an error cannot confer jurisdiction upon this Court where none exists. Procedural latitude, howsoever liberal, cannot be extended so as to defeat the statutory scheme of the Act, particularly when the remedy and forum for assailing an arbitral award are specifically delineated.” “Unlike in Swadha Builders, the proceedings under Section 11 herein had attained finality upon appointment of the Arbitrator, and this Court had not retained seisin over the matter nor granted any leave to file subsequent applications,” the court observed.
Council Members Changed Between Hearing and Award: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside MSME Award
Case Title : The Board Of Major Port Authority For The Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata v. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited
Case Number : A.P.O.T No. 195 of 2025; AP-COM 296 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 25
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council.It held that the award in this case could not stand because it was delivered by a differently constituted tribunal than the one that heard the parties A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi found that the dispute was heard over several years but the Council's composition kept changing. The members who finally delivered and signed the award were not the same in material part as those who had heard the matter on merits.
The court noted, “there is a change in the position of the Arbitral Tribunal between the last date of its meeting on May 12, 2021 and the date when the award was passed on April 28, 2022. At least two of the members of the Council stood changed in between the last two dates.” Allowing the appeal, the High Court stressed that arbitral proceedings must comply with natural justice. The bench said, “. That arbitral decisions must adhere to principles of natural justice is the public policy of India, is trite law. Any breach of the principles of natural justice or the award being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian laws allows re-appreciation of the award under Section 34 of the Act of 1996”
Arbitration | Mechanical Reliance On No Claim Certificate Is Non-Adjudication: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Chaitanya Kumar Dey v. Union of India
Case Number: AP-777 of 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 7
The Calcutta High Court held that mechanical reliance on a 'No Claim Certificate,' without examining whether the claims raised were covered by such document, amounts to non-adjudication. A Single Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth in an order dated January 9 explained that the mechanical reliance on such certificates, without examining the surrounding facts and evidence, amounts to non-adjudication and renders the award vulnerable to challenge.
The Court observed: “Even execution of a full and final discharge voucher does not bar a contractor from claiming further amounts, provided entitlement is established on the basis of adequate material. Mechanical reliance on a No Claim Certificate, without such examination, amounts to non-adjudication.” The court reiterated that arbitrators are duty-bound to examine the circumstances surrounding execution of discharge vouchers and cannot treat them as an absolute bar to genuine claims.
Case Title: Siddharta Chandra v. SK. Abdul Kasem & Ors
Case Number: FMA 1738 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 12
The Calcutta High Court held that the statutory bar in the Commercial Courts Act operates as an inherent subject-matter bar in arbitration related proceedings and cannot be waived by consent or conduct of the parties, even if no objection is raised before the court of first instance. Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation on January 13, while deciding an appeal filed by Siddharta Chandra challenging an order passed by the District Judge, Hooghly, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The respondent party argued that since no objection regarding maintainability or jurisdiction was raised before the Section 9 court, the appellant was precluded from raising it at the appellate stage. Rejecting this contention, the high court held that a statutory jurisdictional bar cannot be cured by silence, waiver, or acquiescence and non-argument before the designated court was entirely irrelevant.
Case Title: Jagannath Heights Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sammaan Capital Limited
Case No: IA NO. GA-COM/2/2025 In CS-COM/801/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 13
The Calcutta High Court rejected a Master's summons application filed by M/s Samman Capital Limited, that sought stay of a commercial suit on the grounds of an existing arbitration clause. Emphasizing the need for a specific prayer, the Court held that "the age old settled legal principle is that when a statute prescribes to do certain thing in a certain manner, the thing has to be done in the same manner or not at all. All other modes are expressly forbidden." It held that as none of the prayers in the Master's Summons sought reference to arbitration under Section 8, it deemed the application untenable.
The Judge additionally stressed that liberal construction is not permitted in this context, as it would "defeat the legislative intent" behind the enactment. The Bench clarified that the “provision under Section 8 being a specific statutory provision has to be applied strictly by way of a separate application with specific prayer and it would be of no relevance whether in the written statement, the defendant has raised the issue or not”.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Shyam Indus Power Solution Private Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 3672 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 6
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that courts enforcing arbitration awards cannot add interest on capital expenditure by default when the arbitral award is silent and there is no delay in payment. It also ruled that courts enforcing arbitration awards cannot redo the electricity pricing formula used to calculate payments to power distributors once an arbitral award has become final.
During execution proceedings, Shyam Indus asked the court to recalculate IRF and grant post-award interest on CAPEX. The High Court rejected both. On interest, the court said post-award interest is meant to ensure prompt payment and cannot be granted where there is no delay. “There was no delay on the part of the MPMKVVCL/Judgment Debtor to make a payment of the CAPEX amount; hence, the question of grant of interest on this amount does not arise,” the court said.
Parties Must Exhaust Contractual Dispute Resolution Before Court Appoints Arbitrator: MP High Court
Case Title: Anshul Chawla v. Taskis India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: AC-105-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 5
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a court cannot appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless the party seeking such appointment has first exhausted the dispute resolution mechanism contractually agreed upon between the parties. A Bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi dismissed three applications filed by former employees of Taskis India Private Limited, seeking appointment of an arbitrator, holding that the applicants were bound by the arbitration procedure stipulated in their employment agreements.
The Court observed, “Applicants have to first exhaust the procedure as agreed upon in terms of Clause 13 of the Employment Agreement and only after that, if occasion so arise, they can approach the competent Court for redressal of their grievance.” Referring to the comprehensive procedure laid down under the MCIA Rules for appointment, challenge, and replacement of arbitrators, the Court held that the applicants could not bypass the agreed mechanism and directly seek appointment of an arbitrator from the Court.
Case Title: Athletics Sangh Madhya Pradesh Bhopal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 4181 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 4
The Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that arbitration challenges arising from non-commercial disputes with no determinable monetary value cannot be heard by Commercial Courts, even if such courts function at the level of a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The court clarified that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies only when two conditions are met, the dispute must be commercial in nature and must have a specified value as defined under the law. Justice Vivek Jain said that where these requirements are absent, Commercial Courts do not have jurisdiction.
The court observed: “In the present case, since there is no specified value of the claim, therefore, the application could not have been transferred to the Commercial Court and it should continue only as per the Act of 1996 before the Court as defined in Section 2(e) as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which shall be the Principal District Judge or any District Judge under him.” While reaffirming that the Commercial Courts Act can override the Arbitration Act in appropriate cases, the court made it clear that such overriding effect applies only to commercial disputes of specified value.
Case Title: Steel Authority Of India Ltd. v. M/S R Haranadha Reddy
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 14 of 2009
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 9
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur set aside a district court order that rejected SAIL's objections to a Rs 1.54-crore arbitration award, with its reasoning confined to just two paragraphs. The High Court said such a dismissal, without dealing with the objections raised, cannot be sustained. Justice Vivek Jain, while ordering a fresh decision through a reasoned order observed, “Such a non-speaking order passed in course of proceedings under Section 34 cannot be upheld by this Court, because there is no reasonable consideration of the grounds raised by the appellant in the application under section 34.” the court said.
“Though there may not be requirement of having a discussion like a judgment in civil suit, but each and every ground raised must have had some consideration, in at least a couple of lines to show the reasoning of the Court that how the ground raised does not fall within the purview of the grounds as enumerated in Section 34(2) of the Act of 1996,” the court observed.
Case Title : Maverick Developer And Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. Project Officer
Case Number : ARBITRATION CASE No. 112 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 8
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has held that disputes arising out of works contracts with municipal corporations covered by the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 cannot be taken to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and must instead be decided by the state's statutory arbitration tribunal. Justice Vivek Jain held that although municipalities are described in the Constitution as institutions of local self-government, this does not place them beyond the financial and supervisory control of the State Government.
Rejecting the contractor's argument, the court observed, “The self-government as prescribed in Article 243-P(e) has to be understood in the manner of self-government of the Municipal area or the local area for which the Municipality is functioning. It cannot be construed to be a self-government institution vis-à-vis the State Government and to bring it out of financial and supervisory control of the State Government.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Athira K.S. v. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Arb.A No. 23 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 8
The Kerala High Court has held that its role is limited when hearing an appeal against an interim order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. At this stage, the court cannot examine whether the arbitrator was properly appointed or has the authority to act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice S Manu said such objections must be raised before the arbitral tribunal itself.
“Competency of the Arbitral Tribunal is a matter to be raised before the Tribunal by the party having a contention that the Arbitrator is incompetent. Such a contention cannot be considered in this arbitration appeal,” the court said. “If there is serious dispute regarding the propriety of engagement of the arbitrator, the same shall also be raised before the arbitral tribunal,” the court said. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate relief from the arbitrator.
No Substantive Review Maintainable Against Orders Appointing Arbitrators: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P. Mathew & Ors.
Case Number: R.P. 1582 of 2025 in A.R. No. 179 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 6
The Kerala High Court ruled that only limited procedural correction and not a substantive review is permissible of orders appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A single-judge bench of Justice S Manu said the law on arbitration is a self-contained code and does not permit courts to reopen such orders on merits, as that would slow down arbitration instead of speeding it up.
The court cautioned that allowing substantive review of Section 11 orders would cut directly against this objective, observing that “being a self-contained and exhaustive code on arbitration law, the Act carries the imperative that what is permissible under the law ought to be performed only in the manner indicated, and not otherwise.”
The court clarified that only a narrow procedural review is possible to correct obvious or patent errors. Anything more would amount to reopening the merits, which the Act does not allow. The court warned that “entertaining petitions for substantive review against orders issued under Section 11 of the Act would defeat the purpose and object of arbitration law.”