Supreme Court
Case Title : Vedanta Limited vs Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Limited
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7569/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 100
The Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing Vedanta Ltd's writ petition challenging an arbitral order in its dispute with Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd over the purchase and supply of LAM Coke. The court also imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the company.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed Vedanta's special leave petition, observing:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, however, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) which shall be paid to 'Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA)' within two weeks from today.”
Supreme Court Allows Set-Off Defence Against Ujaas Energy Though Counterclaim Extinguished Under IBC
Case Title : Ujaas Energy LTD. v. West Bengal Power Development Corporation LTD.
Case Number : SLP (C) 29651 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 122
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. to raise a plea of set-off as a defence in arbitration proceedings against Ujaas Energy Ltd., even though its counterclaim stood extinguished after approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih while granting the relief observed: “Upon a cumulative consideration of all relevant factors, we hold that the respondent, although not entitled to independently pursue its claim by way of counterclaim post approval of the resolution plan, ought to be permitted to raise the plea of set-off at least by way of defence. It is ordered accordingly.”
Case Title : MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7545 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 124
The Supreme Court has held that the primary ground for restraining MSA Global LLC (Oman) from continuing arbitration proceedings against Engineering Projects (India) Limited ceased to exist after arbitral tribunal member Andre Yeap resigned, whose alleged non-disclosure had formed the basis of the anti-arbitration injunction. Accordingly, setting aside the Delhi High Court's decision dated December 12, 2025, the Supreme Court restored the appeal to the Division Bench for fresh consideration. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that: “It appears to us that since the primary reason for injuncting the appellant from pursuing his anti-arbitration suit seems to have vanished, the validity of the order dated 25.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge can be re-examined by the Division Bench of the High Court.”
Case Title : ABS Marine Services vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3658-3659 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 127
The Supreme Court expressed shock at the stand taken by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration that a contractual clause made its decision final and beyond challenge, holding that such a term offended the rule of law. The court made the observationwhile setting aside a July 11, 2018 judgment of the Calcutta High Court and restoring an arbitral award of Rs 2.87 crore in favour of ABS Marine Services. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan observed: “It is shocking that the respondent administration with all seriousness at their command contend that under Clause 3.20 not only have they a right to decide wilfulness or neglect on the part of the manning agent in cases where liability is disputed, but also that such decision cannot be challenged in any court of law or before the arbitrator. We reject the contentions, since we have held the dispute to be within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.”
Case Title : Nagaraj V. Mylandla & Anr. v. PI Opportunities Fund-I & Ors.
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31866–68 of 2025 and 31945–31947 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 132
The Supreme Court of India held that enforcement of foreign arbitral awards cannot be resisted under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on a party's plea re-characterizing factual disputes as issues of public policy, particularly as courts cannot re-examine awards on merits at the enforcement stage. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vinod Chandran dismissed Special Leave Petitions filed by Nagaraj V. Mylandla and Sharada Mylandla against enforcement of a Singapore-seated arbitral award directing payment of Rs 6,614 million to PI Opportunities Fund-I, Rs 2,804 million to Millenna FVCI Limited, Rs 777 million to NYLIM I and Rs 1,093 million to NYLIM II. “By giving a different colour to a factual issue, it is not open to a party to the foreign award to seek to bring it within the ambit of Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act by raising a' public policy' ground. The doctrine of 'transnational issue estoppel' would bar the same," it observed.
Case Title : JioStar India Pvt Ltd vs Green Bean Sports Marketing
Case Number : Petition(s) for Arbitration No(s). 16/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 123
The Supreme Court issued notice in an arbitration petition filed by Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute with UAE-based Green Bean Sports Marketing arising out of a media rights sub-licence agreement relating to the Indian Premier League (IPL) for the territory of Bangladesh. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, after hearing counsel, directed issuance of notice returnable on May 15, 2026.
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd.
Case Number : SLP (C) Nos. 23846–23847 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 106
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that a party's conduct during arbitration is the clearest indicator of how it understood the arbitration agreement, and cannot later adopt a contrary interpretation to challenge the tribunal after an unfavourable award, while upholding an arbitral award against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
A Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed MCGM's challenge to an arbitral award passed in favour of R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., observing that the manner in which parties act upon a contract is the best guide to interpreting its terms.
“A party cannot keep a 'jurisdictional ace' up their sleeve and then claim that filing of the jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 would go back in time and wipe out the past conduct and acquiescence of the party which would clearly evince how the contractual terms were viewed by the parties. If the same is permitted, it will erode the basic principles of alternative dispute resolution and ethos of arbitration,” the bench observed.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Arbitrator Appointment In Gini & Jony–Benetton Dispute
Case Title : Gini AND Jony Ltd v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : SLP (C) 10279 OF 2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz SC 133
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Gini & Jony Ltd. challenging the Delhi High Court's order appointing an arbitrator in its dispute with Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. arising from a distribution agreement for sale of United Colors of Benetton apparel products, involving an unpaid amount of about Rs 91 lakh. After hearing the parties, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the special leave petition and said: “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to entertain the present SLP and to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.”
Case Title: Bharat Udyog Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Jai Hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Ambernath Municipal Council through Commissioner & Anr.,
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1127 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 129
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Bharat Udyog Ltd, holding that the State Government had no authority under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, which deals with issuance of policy directions regarding the levy and collection of octroi, to appoint an arbitrator between a Municipal Council and its agent. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed: “State Government has no authority under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 to appoint an arbitrator for the agent and the Municipal Council. The exercise of such power by the government cannot be equated to Section 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for there is no such agreement.”
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rs 11.93 Crore Damages In Favour Of ONGC For Lack Of Proof Of Loss
Case Title : UEM India Pvt. Ltd. v. ONGC Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 393/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 310
The Delhi High Court has struck down an award of Rs 11.93 crore in additional damages granted to ONGC Limited against UEM India Pvt. Ltd., finding that the arbitral tribunal fixed the amount without any proof of actual loss, without even recording that such loss was incapable of proof, and without explaining how the figure was arrived at. A bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the award violated the requirement of a reasoned decision under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court observed:
“In absence of a proof of actual damages and without recording a finding that actual damages could not be proved the tribunal proceeded to conclude that 10% of the contract value shall be a reasonable damages to be awarded over and above the LD. The basis for quantification is missing and the awarding of damages is vitiated for violating Section 31(3) of the Act whereby a reasoned award is to be passed.”.
Delhi High Court Declines Interference With Arbitral Award In TDI-DMRC Advertising Rights Dispute
Case Title : TDI International India Ltd Versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 69/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 212
The Delhi High Court on 24 February dismissed a petition filed by TDI International India Ltd., challenging an arbitral award in a dispute with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), holding that no grounds existed for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed: “...the grant of an ad hoc remission of 50% of the licence fee for the uninstalled area represents an exercise of contractual interpretation and factual appreciation. This Court is unable to hold that such an approach is perverse or patently illegal, or that it contravenes the public policy of India.”
Case Title : Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Tarjinder Kumar Bansal & Ors.
Case Number : CONT.CAS (C) 802/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 234
The Delhi High Court on 5 February held that parties cannot bypass the arbitral process by approaching the High Court directly for alleged violation of an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal. Any contempt proceedings must follow the procedural framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed a contempt petition filed by Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd and its directors, while noting that the respondents, Tarjinder Kumar Bansal and other former directors and associated persons, were accused of breaching the arbitral tribunal's interim orders.
The Bench held:
“Since the interim order dated 18.07.2015 was passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator under Section 17(1) of the A&C Act in the course of the arbitral proceedings, the petitioners cannot approach this Court by way of the present petition for any contempt thereof. The appropriate remedy under Section 27(5) of the A&C Act would lie before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who upon satisfaction, may make a reference for contempt before this Court.”
Case Title : Khurana Educational Society (Regd.) Versus Smt. Shashi Bala
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 71/2025 & I.A. 32778/2025 (Stay)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 236
The Delhi High Court has observed that interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is meant to preserve the fruits of arbitration and cannot be used to secure a claimant against speculative future contingencies.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar in a judgment delivered on February 26, observed:
“Section 17 of the A&C Act is designed to preserve the fruits of arbitration where a real and imminent risk is established; it is not intended to secure a claimant against speculative future contingencies. The record does not disclose any material indicating dissipation of assets, imminent frustration of enforcement, or any circumstance warranting such intrusive financial directions."
Case Title : Sadguru Engineers And Allied Services Pvt Ltd Versus National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd Represented By Its Managing Director & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 18/2026 & I.A. 1378/2026 (Ex.)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 211
The Delhi High Court has held that a determinable contract cannot be protected against termination. However, interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be granted to stay encashment of conditional bank guarantees if the proposed invocation is prima facie not traceable to the contract.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the order in a petition filed by Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt Ltd against National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
"The raison d'être of Section 9 of the A&C Act is to preserve and protect the subject matter of the dispute in the interregnum, so that the arbitral proceedings, when commenced, are not rendered nugatory. The power vested with the Courts under Section 9 is thus essentially protective and facilitative in character, intended to safeguard and secure the efficacy of the arbitral process and not to supplant it", the court observed
Case Title : Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 88/2026 (along with I.A. 6052/2026 & I.A. 6053/2026)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 276
The Delhi High Court refrained from granting interim relief to Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. in its dispute with Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd., the company that runs the Legends League Cricket tournament, over media and commercial rights linked to the league. A single-judge bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar instead asked the parties to attempt a settlement through mediation after both the parties agreed to the same. "Acceding to the same, the matter is referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (“Mediation Centre”) and the parties are directed to appear through their respective counsel before the Mediation Centre on 13.03.2026."
Case Title : RPG Cables Limited v BSNL
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 76/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 280
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral award allowing counterclaims to BSNL amounting to Rs. 12.63 crores in a dispute arising out of supply of optical fibre cables, holding that the supplier remained bound by its assurance regarding the life of the cables A single bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that when the supplier had assured that the life of the cables supplied by it was 32.8 years, which was beyond the tender requirement of 20 years then it was bound by the assurance. The court held that the arbitrator was correct in holding that “The mere expiry of the warranty period could not absolve the Petitioner of its responsibility in respect of the defective cables, particularly when the failure occurred much prior to the assured life period.”
Case Title : JSW Ispat Steel Limited (Now Known As JSW Steel Limited) Versus M/S Gas Authority Of India Limited
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 4/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 260
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by JSW Steel, formerly known as JSW Ispat Steel, and upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award passed in its favour, holding that the arbitral tribunal had rewritten the contract by applying the doctrine of business efficacy to convert fixed transportation charges into variable charges. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed, "Upon careful examination of the arbitral award, it is evident that the reasoning adopted by the tribunal represents a misapplication of the business efficacy principle in a manner that no reasonable person could have adopted. It is undisputed that in the present matter, Clause 4.03 of the contract was amended in 1998, replacing the earlier variable monthly service charge with a fixed transportation cost of Rs. 38,67,600/-"
Case Title : Supermint Exports Pvt Ltd v New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 286/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 261
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that a discharge voucher accepting an insurance settlement cannot be invalidated merely because the insured signed it under financial pressure, unless the insurer contributed to the alleged coercion, duress, or undue influence. Refusing to reopen a fire-insurance compensation dispute between Supermint Exports Pvt Ltd and New India Assurance Company Ltd, the Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting the company's attempt to claim additional compensation after it had accepted Rs 12.18 crore as “full and final settlement." “It has to be borne in mind that the decision to sign an unconditional no claim discharge voucher is ultimately of the signatory. The mere fact that the signatory may feel financial pressure, and therefore decide to sign the discharge voucher, would not ipso facto render the voucher unenforceable on the ground of fraud, coercion, undue influence, or even compulsion. Absent any contribution to the financial distress, even remote, by the opposite party, the compulsion and duress, if any, arises out of the claimant's own subjective decision, and the claimant cannot be permitted to take advantage thereof, to the prejudice of the opposite party", it held.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Jiostar In Legends League Cricket Media Rights Dispute
Case Title : Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 88/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 286
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief restraining Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited and another from transferring, assigning, or creating any third-party rights in the media and commercial rights relating to the Legends League Cricket Master T20 tournament, in a dispute with Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd., pending arbitration proceedings Referring to Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking restraint on third-party rights in the tournament's media and commercial rights, the bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that: “In view of the fact that the transfer of the rights as set out in prayer clause (c) would effectively result in a complete erosion of the subject matter of the dispute, this Court is of the prima facie view that it is necessary that the proposed transfer of the same by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 be interdicted”. The court further directed that “the Respondent No. 1 is therefore interdicted from, in any manner, creating any third-party rights, or transferring, assigning, or otherwise dealing with the media and commercial rights relating to the Legends League Cricket Master T20 tournament”.
Case Title : Kalanithi Maran vs SpiceJet Ltd
Case Number : OMP (COMM) 42 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 292
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea by SpiceJet Ltd. seeking to substitute the court-directed cash deposit of Rs. 144.51 crore with security in the form of a Gurugram property owned by the airline, holding that the request was an abuse of process as similar grounds had already been raised before the Supreme Court and rejected. Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order while dealing with applications seeking modification of directions issued on January 19, 2026, by which the Court had directed SpiceJet to deposit the balance decretal amount arising from an arbitral award in favour of Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that SpiceJet had earlier challenged the January 19, 2026, order before the Supreme Court on similar grounds, including financial difficulty, but the special leave petition was dismissed with costs after being termed an abuse of process. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the same arguments could not be repeated in the modification applications.
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹1.93 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of BEL-ACC In Dispute With NHAI
Case Title : M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s BEL-ACC (JV)
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 341/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 300
On 24 March, the Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award in favour of BEL-ACC (JV) granting Rs. 1.93 crore towards revised rates, overhead losses, and additional resource deployment. Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a petition filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), holding that it does not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held: “...the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal demonstrate that a careful balance between the contractual provisions, the conduct of the parties, and the principles of fairness were maintained.”
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator Though Arbitration Clause in Offers Not Repeated in Work Orders
Case Title : Moonwalk Infra Projects Private Limited v. Onstruq Interlayer Private Limited
Case Number : ARB. P. 1139/2025 & ARB. P. 1335/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 275
The Delhi High Court has held that the arbitration clause contained in techno-commercial offers formed part of the contract between Moonwalk Infra Projects Private Limited and Onstruq Interlayer Private Limited, even though the subsequent work orders did not repeat the clause, since the work orders were issued with reference to and on the basis of those offers. A Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that “the Work Orders do not stand in isolation but are intrinsically linked to and founded upon the petitioner's TCOs. The reference to the quotation is neither incidental nor merely descriptive; rather, it forms the very foundation upon which the Work Orders have been issued. In such circumstances, the technical specifications contained in the TCOs, including the arbitration clause, prima facie stand incorporated into the Work Orders through reference.”
Case Title : Air India Limited v. All India Aircraft Engineers Association & Anr.; National Aviation Company of India Limited v. Indian Aircraft Technicians Association & Anr
Case Number : FAO(OS) 125/2023 & FAO(OS) 126/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 289
The Delhi High Court dismissed Air India Limited's appeals and upheld arbitral awards directing the airline and its predecessor entities to pay wage arrears of Rs. 57.92 crore to the All India Aircraft Engineers Association (AIAEA) and Rs. 7.81 lakh to the Indian Aircraft Technicians Association (IATA). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that Presidential Directives (PDs) issued on wage revision and arrears for engineers and technicians, are binding administrative instructions but do not have the character of statutory law, and that an arbitral tribunal does not exceed its mandate by examining such directives when quantifying admitted dues. “This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that while PDs are binding administrative instructions, they do not partake the character of statutory law", it held.
Case Title : Proto Developers and Technologies Ltd v. Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 189/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 277
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Proto Developers and Technologies Ltd. to pay over Rs 12 crore to Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd., holding that where a party fails to specifically deny a claim and does not cross-examine the opposing witness on a crucial issue, the arbitral tribunal is entitled to treat the evidence as unrebutted and the claim as established. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan observed, “A party that declines to cross-examine a witness on a crucial aspect cannot subsequently contend that the said statement of the witness ought not to be relied upon. In the present case, the absence of a specific denial in the pleadings to the counterclaim and the failure to cross-examine the witness of the Respondent No.1, RW-2, on the issue of financial assistance of Rs. 9 crores entitled the Tribunal to treat that part of the evidence as unrebutted and to draw the corresponding evidentiary inference.".
Case Title : ERA Infra Engineering Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Anr.
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 47/2025 & I.A. 22290/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 296
The Delhi High Court has held that rejection of an impleadment application by an arbitral tribunal amounts to a jurisdictional determination under Sections 16(2) and 16(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and is therefore appealable under Section 37 of the Act. Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that while deciding whether a non-signatory can be added to arbitration proceedings, the tribunal necessarily rules on its own jurisdiction. Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that while deciding whether a non-signatory can be added to arbitration proceedings, the tribunal necessarily rules on its own jurisdiction. “The court on an application for impleadment passes a procedural order but the tribunal in arbitration determines whether it has jurisdiction vis-a-vis the rights and liabilities of a non-signatory to the agreement. While deciding the impleadment of a non-signatory the tribunal deals with the issue of jurisdiction and this falls within the ambit of Section 16(2) and 16(3) of the Act.”
Dues Cannot Be Withheld Till Eternity: Delhi High Court Upholds Award Against MMTC
Case Title : MMTC Limited v. M/s Knowledge Infrastructure & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 404/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 298
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award directing MMTC Limited to release withheld amounts of Rs 1.64 crore towards railway surcharge and Rs 56.93 lakh towards detention charges to Knowledge Infrastructure and another party, holding that the amounts could not be retained indefinitely when the alleged liability had not crystallised and the Railways had not processed the claims for years. “Five years have passed since the demands were raised and yet, the Railways had not processed the claims raised by the Respondents, particularly Claim No. 3 and 4, thereby withholding the same. The view taken by the learned Arbitrator that the claims cannot be withheld till eternity, cannot come within the four corners of the expression 'in contravention with the fundamental policy of India law‟ or 'in conflict with the most basic notions of morality and justice”, the Court observed.
Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award In Warehouse Fire Case Involving CWC–Indo Arya Logistics
Case Title : Central Warehousing Corporation v. Indo Arya Logistics (A Unit of Indo Arya Central Transport Ltd.)
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 75/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 252
The Delhi High Court on 10 March restored an arbitral award of Rs. 91,62,992 in a warehouse fire dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Indo Arya Logistics, holding that the Commercial Court had exceeded its limited powers by substituting its own view on negligence.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the arbitrator's inference (that Indo Arya Logistics was negligent) was a plausible view arising from the circumstances of the fire.
The Court held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the District Court could not interfere with an award unless the arbitrator's conclusion was contrary to public policy or patently illegal. It also reiterated:
“The mere fact that the cause of the accident is unknown does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering the damages… sometimes the fact that the accident occurred may itself constitute evidence of negligence."
Case Title : Synergy Consultants v. M/s T.D. Williamson India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 153/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 244
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld an arbitral award in a commission dispute between a consultancy firm and an oil and gas pipeline services company. The court affirmed the arbitrator's view that a representative appointed under a commercial agreement does not automatically become entitled to commission every time the company secures a project from the same customer.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed an appeal and affirmed an earlier decision refusing to set aside the award.
"A commercial arrangement of this nature, whereby a representative is appointed to promote products and assist in securing projects, reasonably admits of an interpretation that commission is linked to the services rendered and the extent of participation in the concerned transaction. The view adopted by the Arbitrator, that the representative would be entitled to commission commensurate with the work performed or assistance actually rendered, is a possible and commercially sensible interpretation of the agreement", it held.
Case Title : Man Industries (India) Limited Versus Gail (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 191/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 258
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of GAIL (India) Limited, reiterating that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited. The court said it cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb an award merely because another interpretation of the contract is possible, so long as the arbitrator's view is a plausible one.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the arbitral tribunal had interpreted the contract to mean that the price reduction schedule would apply if the supplier failed to adhere to the agreed monthly delivery schedule of pipes.
Case Title : Ramsethu Infrastructure v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 348/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 299
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award in favour of the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (IRWO), affirming the termination of a housing construction contract and forfeiture of the contractor's bank guarantee and security deposit. The Court held that obstruction by local residents and apprehension of hostility at the site did not fall within the force majeure clause and that the contractor's refusal to resume work amounted to abandonment of the project. The Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that, "The learned Arbitrator has interpreted the force majeure clause and has come to the conclusion that the present event on which reliance is placed by the Petitioner will not fall within the four corners of force majeure clause. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the learned Arbitrator. Even otherwise, as repeatedly held by the Apex Court, the interpretation of a contract, predominantly, is in the domain of the Arbitrator. An award cannot be set aside just because another view is possible or sometimes is even more preferable."
Case Title : Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 297
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals filed by Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited challenging arbitral awards in disputes arising from consultancy agreements for defence housing projects, holding that the consultant was not entitled to higher fees or compensation for delays. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “In the present case, the Tribunal has examined the contractual definition of “Project Cost” (Article 1.9), the structure of consultancy fees (Article 1.10), and the absence of any clause providing for escalation of consultancy fees. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the consultancy fee was not subject to revision merely because the cost of the project increased during execution cannot be said to be an interpretation that is implausible or contrary to the contract.
Case Title : SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.
Case Number : CS(OS) 868/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 259
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that the jurisdiction of civil courts is not barred merely because arbitration is seated outside India but said that the power to restrain such proceedings must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, refusing to stop arbitration initiated in London by Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. against SARR Freights Corporation and SARR Freights Limited.
Relying on the top court's ruling in Engineering Projects (India) Limited Versus MSA Global LLC (Oman), Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “The jurisdiction of Indian Civil Courts is not excluded merely because arbitration is seated abroad, and Courts retain residual equitable powers to prevent abuse of arbitral process.”
Case Title : Cosco Blossoms Pvt Ltd Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 568/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 255
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot rely solely on a defective surveyor's report while ignoring material evidence placed on record. The court observed that although a surveyor's report is an important piece of evidence in insurance disputes, it is not sacrosanct and cannot be treated as conclusive when it suffers from serious infirmities.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed,
“The Award is squarely based on a survey report which, though an important piece of evidence, is not a sacrosanct document and cannot be accepted at face value when it is clearly defective. The Arbitrator could not have relied solely on the survey report to deliver its findings while disregarding other vital evidence placed on record.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Ssv Developers And Ors. Versus Sunder S/O. Premraj Jotwani And Ors.
Case Number : Civil Misc Petition No.100026 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 23
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to appoint a substitute arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after an award had already been passed and the matter was remanded only for a limited purpose, holding that such reconstitution would effectively reopen concluded arbitral proceedings.
Dismissing a plea filed by SSV Developers and its Managing Partner Vijaykumar Krishnasa Kabadi, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti held that once an award is passed and the case is remanded only for limited cross-examination and defence evidence, a fresh arbitrator cannot be appointed, particularly when the petitioners failed to comply with the District Court's direction to pay arbitral costs.
“The power to appoint another Arbitrator ordinarily arises when the mandate of the existing Arbitrator terminates during the course of arbitral proceedings. However, the present case stands on a different footing,” the court observed.
Case Title : R.K. Infra and Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 63 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 32
The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that the commencement of arbitral proceedings will be governed by agreed institutional rules and not necessarily by Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, since the provision applies only “unless otherwise agreed by the parties."
Dismissing a contractor's appeal against a Rs 7.99-crore arbitral award, the court observed that “It is apparent from the plain language of Section 21 of the A&C Act that the arbitral proceedings are deemed to commence on the date when a request that the disputes be referred to arbitration is received by the non-claimant. However, the opening words of Section 21 make it clear that this is subject to the parties agreeing otherwise.”
Case Title : Coorg Cineplex & Ors v. K.J. Nagendra Gupta & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 34 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 34
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld a Commercial Court order rejecting a plea for interim measures filed by Coorg Cineplex and its partners, holding that after the expiry of the lease, the landlord cannot be restrained from raising objections before the licensing authority regarding the renewal of a theatre licence.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed the appeal filed by the Cineplex, which had sought directions to the licensing authority to consider renewal of the theatre licence without insisting on the landlord's no-objection certificate.
The court noted that the licensing authority was not a party to the arbitration proceedings and is required to act in accordance with law.
It observed, “Clearly, the respondents are entitled to raise their objections before the licensing authority. We find no reason that would compel the respondents to refrain from raising objections. Conversely, we do not accept that the appellants have any right to insist that the respondents desist from raising their objections.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Aditya Almal & Anr. v. The First Land Acquisition Collector, Kolkata & Anr.
Case Number : WPO 1531 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 62
The Calcutta High Court has recently refused to appoint an Arbitrator to determine compensation for the period from April 1, 1992 to January 12, 2023, during which the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) continued to occupy a private property after expiry of requisition, holding that once the requisition ended, the statutory arbitration mechanism under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947, could no longer be invoked. “The rent compensation for a premises cannot be fixed by the Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act during the period the property continues to remain with the State without any authority of law,” the Court observed, concluding that “no direction can be passed upon the State Government to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act for determination of compensation for the period from April 1, 1992 till January 12, 2023.”, it said.
Case Title : Mintech Global Pvt Ltd vs Ultratech Cement Pvt Ltd
Case Number : AO-COM/6/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 73
The Calcutta High Court on 16 March dismissed cross appeals filed by Mintech Global Pvt Ltd and UltraTech Cement Ltd, upholding a Single Judge's order that partly modified an arbitral award arising from a commercial contract related to cement manufacturing. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the Single Judge's conclusions on the interest rate and the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, warranted no interference. The judges noted: “Learned Single Judge has therefore rightly held that the Arbitral Tribunal acted contrary to the contract in reducing the rate of interest. We have not found that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, stands vitiated.”
Case Title : Srikanta Patra v. IndusInd Bank Ltd.
Case Number : CO 4388 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 76
The Calcutta High Court held in a dispute between a borrower and IndusInd Bank that even if an arbitration clause permits unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party, such a condition would invalidate only the appointment procedure and not the arbitration agreement itself. In a judgment dated March 23, 2026, Justice Om Narayan Rai upheld the referral of the dispute to arbitration while affirming an order of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, which had stayed a civil suit filed by borrower Srikanta Patra and referred the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The petitioner's contention that the arbitration clause is invalid since the same provides for unilateral appointment of arbitrator by the lender does not appeal. In the considered view of this Court, such a condition would render the unilateral process of appointment of arbitrator invalid but not the arbitration agreement itself", it held.
Case Title : Ugro Capital Ltd vs Vallabh Metal Industries Ltd And Anr.
Case Number : AP-COM 735 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 67
The Calcutta High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, the court is concerned only with whether extension of time is warranted and cannot examine the merits of issues pending before the tribunal.
While deciding a petition filed by UGRO Capital Ltd seeking extension of the mandate of a sole arbitrator in a dispute with Vallabh Metal Industries, Justice Gaurang Kanth observed:
“In any event, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is concerned only with the question whether extension of the mandate is warranted and not with the merits of issues pending before the Tribunal.”
Case Title : TD-ITD CEM Joint Venture v. Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Limited
Case Number : APOT No. 298 of 2025 with GA-COM/1/2025 and GA-COM/2/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 69
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a contractor, affirming a single judge's decision that had set aside an arbitral award arising out of the 2019 Kolkata East-West Metro tunnel accident.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the arbitral tribunal committed patent illegality by discarding expert evidence on the basis of its own technical assumptions drawn from personal expertise rather than material on record.
The bench observed:
"We have noted that the arbitral tribunal, while deciding the issues, imputed its personal expertise in civil engineering and concluded that the report submitted by IIT, Madras may not be conclusive and it was dependent upon several other factors. However, such findings were not based on any concrete evidence rather, it was mere assumption based on the personal knowledge and experience of the tribunal and the same was used to discard positive evidence adduced by the respondent".
'Purported Award' Can Be Challenged Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Roadwings International Private Limited
Case Number : AP-COM 529 of 2022 (With Connected Matters)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 70
The Calcutta High Court on Friday held that the scope of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 extends beyond existing awards to include a “purported award” where the very existence of the award is in dispute.
A Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that “For the purpose of furtherance of the objective of the 1996 Act and to avoid rendering its provisions nugatory by relegating the parties to the rigmarole of a regular civil suit, the power to entertain a challenge even on the ground of non-existence of a purported award has to be read into the fabric of Section 34 itself. In order to achieve such objective, the expression “an arbitral award” in Section 34 has to be read up to include “or a purported award” as well. If so construed, a challenge to a so-called award on the ground of non-existence of such award will come under the umbrella of Section 34 itself, subject, of course, to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 being otherwise attracted.”
Kerala High Court
Foreign Arbitral Award Unenforceable In India Without Valid Arbitration Agreement: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Concilium Marine Group AB & Anr. v. Sharath Thazhathe Veedu
Case Number : E.P. (ICA) No. 1 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 61
The Kerala High Court held that a foreign arbitral award, even if confined to costs, cannot be enforced in India under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if it is rendered in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, holding that such disputes are not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law.
Justice S. Manu dismissed an execution petition filed by Concilium Marine Group AB and Concejo AB, two Swedish entities, against an Indian resident, observing, “A valid arbitration agreement is a baseline for a lawful arbitral proceeding in India. Agreement-less arbitration is inconceivable in Indian law. S.48(2)(a) stipulates that enforcement of an arbitral award can be refused if the court finds that the subject matter of difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India. As the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not envisage a lawful arbitration without an agreement as articulated under S.7, for want of a binding agreement, the differences between the petitioners and the respondent in this case were not capable of settlement by arbitration under the Indian law. Consequently, the award is hit by S.48(2)(a). For the same reason, in my view it attracts the disqualification under S.48(2)(b) too even though the expression 'public policy of India' is understood in a restricted sense.”
Case Title : Raghavan V.T. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 32088 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 37
The Kerala High Court recently held that once an arbitral award is set aside under Section 34of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the matter cannot be treated as remanded to the arbitrator unless a party had sought recourse to Section 34(4) during the pendency of the challenge proceedings.
Justice C. Jayachandran, rejected the National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) plea of “implicit remand” finding that no such request had ever been made and that the District Court had merely set aside the award, and granted it 45 days to seek review.
The Bench observed:
“In the instant case, recourse to Section 34(4) has not been made by any of the parties. This Court takes stock of the fact that the learned District Judge has merely set aside the Award, without mentioning or referring anything about the remand or remit, presumably for the reason that there exists no such power.”
Case Title : Manappuram Asset Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Saleem A.B. & Ors.
Case Number : AR Nos. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 47
The Kerala High Court has recently held that when an arbitral award is declared unenforceable during execution proceedings, the legal effect is akin to the award being set aside, and fresh arbitral proceedings can be initiated only after issuing a fresh notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Once the arbitral award is declared as unenforceable/nullity in the eye of law by a competent court, even during execution proceedings, the impact of such a finding is akin to that of setting aside an award. The outcome remains the same. The award loses its legal sanctity, becomes inoperative and loses all its force. Under such circumstances, also, declaration of law in M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited would squarely apply. Therefore, if the execution court finds that an arbitral award is unenforceable and invalid for any reason, in order to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings, it is essential to make a fresh request/issue fresh notice as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act, 1996,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Project Director v. MT Ahammed Ali and Anr
Case Number : Arb.A No. 31 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 55
The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitral award granting compensation for an entire residential building affected by land acquisition for National Highway-66 development in Kasaragod, Kerala. A division bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the appeal filed by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, reiterating the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The appellate power exercised by the Court under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 is not that of an Appellate Authority and much importance has to be attached to the Award which, in the instant case, was passed by an authority who is conversant with the nature of the dispute required to be adjudicated under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.” the Bench observed.
Case Title : God's Own Country Health Resorts v Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OP(C) NO. 2962 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 49
The Kerala High Court on 23 February, observed that interim relief granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) does not automatically get vitiated merely because arbitral proceedings were not commenced within 90 days as required under Section 9(2) of the Act.
Justice T.R. Ravi clarified that proceedings to enforce the interim relief would also constitute proceedings under Section 9, and therefore the 90-day calculation is not limited to the original interim relief order.
The Bench held:
“Going by the judgment in Amazon.com(supra), even orders for enforcement of a protection order given under Section 9(1) would continue to be an order under Section 9(1). The statutory provision does not say that arbitral proceedings should be started within 90 days of the first order issued under Section 9(1).”
Case Title : Anoop Nambiar v. Union of India and Ors
Case Number : AR 47 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 54
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that the High Court cannot invoke its powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in disputes governed by the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, where the statute vests the power to appoint an arbitrator with the Central Government and the requirements for the exercise of Section 11 jurisdiction are not satisfied.
A coram of Justice S Manu rejected an arbitration request seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes with a company operating in the Infopark Special Economic Zone. The court observed that the SEZ Act provides for designated courts to adjudicate civil disputes arising in Special Economic Zones, and in their absence, such disputes must be referred to arbitration, with the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
Case Title : ED&F Man Liquid Products Italia Srl and Ors v. Emil Traders Private Limited
Case Number : Appeal (ICA) No. 1 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 53
The Kerala High Court recently held that courts possess wide powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to grant interim measures, even after the arbitral award is passed but before its enforcement.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that “the expressions “securing the amount in dispute” and “such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient” are important features of the said section, which confer wide and sweeping powers on the Court to pass interim measures even after an award is passed but before its enforcement.” it observed
Bombay High Court
Case Title : SSD Escatics Private Limited v. Goregaon Pearl Cooperative Housing Society Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 354 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 171
The Bombay High Court has held that a contractual clause barring damages or compensation in a redevelopment agreement is enforceable but does not restrict the statutory right of a developer to seek restoration of benefits under Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Justice Sandeep V. Marne partly set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that while the arbitrator was justified in denying damages in view of Clause 22 of the Development Agreement, the rejection of the developer's claim for restoration of benefits was erroneous.
On the issue of enforceability of Clause 22, the Court held: “In my view, a clause in the redevelopment agreement for denial of damages or compensation to the developer can be enforced in law because of the peculiarity of the contract”.
Case Title : Exelixi Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nishi Retails Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 141 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 108
The Bombay High Court has recently refused to set aside an ex-parte arbitral award arising out of a commercial toy retail franchise dispute, holding that the absence of a physical signature on a contract would not invalidate the arbitrator's finding that an arbitration agreement existed, particularly where correspondence between the parties indicated reliance on the agreement.
A single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “the absence of an actual physical signature would not come in the way of the reasonableness of the arbitrator's findings. Exchange of correspondence too can constitute an arbitration agreement”.
Case Title : Satnam Singh Ahuja And Ors. Versus Karvy Financial Services Ltd.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 324 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 114
The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that arbitral awards passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party are liable to be set aside and that such illegality cannot be cured merely because the opposing party participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising an objection.
Applying the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the court further reiterated that waiver of an arbitrator's ineligibility under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is permissible only through an express written agreement executed after the dispute arises and cannot be inferred from a party's conduct or participation in proceedings.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held, “Evidently, the vice of unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not curable by uncontested participation in the arbitration proceedings. Evidently, equity would not supplant the law, and there is no scope for supplementing the law declared on the anvil of uncontested participation before the unilaterally appointed arbitrator.”
Case Title : M/s Space Master Realtors v. Mulund Sandhyaprakash CHS Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 35545 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 117
The Bombay High Court recently refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of a housing redevelopment project in Mumbai, holding that a dissenting flat owner who had deliberately refused to sign the development agreement could not be compelled to arbitrate claims brought by the developer.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that arbitration is founded on consent and that the mere fact that redevelopment arrangements involve multiple interconnected agreements cannot bind a non-signatory to an arbitration clause.
The court said, “A member who dissents from the decision taken by the society and refuses to sign the Development Agreement, but is forced to act in terms of DA by application of principle of loss of individuality vis-à-vis society, cannot be treated as a veritable party to the DA and particularly to the arbitration agreement contained therein."
Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Polimer-Ultra Media 'Jai Hanuman' License Fee Dispute
Case Title : Polimer Media Pvt Ltd vs Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 215 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 112
The Bombay High Court on 5 March upheld an arbitral award directing Polimer Media Pvt Ltd to pay Rs. 30.45 lakh to Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd in a dispute arising from a broadcasting license agreement for the television serial “Jai Hanuman.”
A Bench of Justice Gauri Godse held that the arbitral award did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Court observed:
“Hence, in my view, by applying the standards as set out in the various decisions as discussed above, the arbitral award cannot be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The petition is therefore dismissed.”
Case Title : State of Goa, Rep. By Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Versus M/s. U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : APPEAL UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 6 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 141
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Goa challenging an arbitral award passed in favor of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., holding that an arbitral award could not be set aside merely on the ground that one of the arbitrators nominated by the contractor had served as the Managing Director and consultant of the corporation. Justice Suman Shyam further observed that in the absence of material demonstrating actual bias or likelihood of bias, an arbitral award cannot be set aside. "Therefore, in the absence of any material brought on record to demonstrate bias-ness, the mere fact that a former employee of the Corporation has been nominated as an Arbitrator, by itself, would not be enough to raise a justifiable doubt as regards his neutrality so as to vitiate the Award", it held.
Case Title : NHAI PIU Aurangabad v. Kerman Sam Amroliwala & Anr.; and Kerman Sam Amroliwala v. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 14 of 2016 and Arbitration Appeal No. 4 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 143
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) appeal, finding no patent illegality in the arbitral award enhancing compensation to a petrol pump owner after partial acquisition of land for highway expansion resulted in loss of business access. Justice Arun R. Pednekar upheld an arbitral award revising land compensation from Rs 595 to Rs 1,190 per square metre and granting compensation for loss of income, easementary rights, and business impact, while remanding the matter only for recalculation of statutory benefits in accordance with law. “The competent authority as well as arbitrator has fixed the loss of income of 10% which is reasonable and based on the material produced on record and that this Court in exercise of powers under section 37 cannot interfere with the same as it cannot be said that it is against the public policy of India nor it can be said that there is patent illegality", it observed.
Case Title : National Highway Authority of India v. Suresh Pandharinath Matre & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal Nos. 10 to 32 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 151
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently held that the time limit for making an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not apply to arbitrations conducted under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as the Arbitration Act applies only to the limited extent provided under Section 3G(6) and only where it is not inconsistent with the special statutory scheme. “Both the National Highways Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are Central enactments. Nevertheless, the application of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is by way of reference and only to the extent provided under Section 3G(6).", it said. "The application of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to arbitrations conducted under the National Highways Act, 1956 would render the statutory scheme of appointment of arbitrators and conduct of proceedings of the arbitrator under the National Highways Act unworkable," it added.
Bombay High Court Directs Gagan Ace Developers To Deposit Rs. 7.81 Crore Arbitral Award For Stay
Case Title : M/s. Gagan Ace Developers and Anr. v. M/s. Choice and Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1298 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 153
The Bombay High Court on 18 March upheld a District Judge's order under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing Gagan Ace Developers to deposit the entire arbitral award amount of Rs. 7.81 crore along with interest as a condition for stay. A Single Bench comprising Justice N.J. Jamadar held that the developers failed to make out any exceptional circumstances warranting an unconditional stay of the award in their dispute with Choice, a partnership firm primarily involved in real estate development and construction. “The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the Petitioners cannot be said to have succeeded in making out an exceptional case. Nor could it be demonstrated that the Petitioners would suffer a substantial loss if the execution of the award is not stayed. The fact that the Petitioners have suffered an arbitral award, which directs payment, by itself, cannot be construed as a substantial loss", it held.
Case Title : Jupicos Entertainment Private Limited v Probability Sports (India) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 18608 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 155
The Bombay High Court on Monday referred to arbitration a dispute over participation rights in the T20 Mumbai League between Jupicos Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and league operator Probability Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd. The dispute relates to Jupicos' right to continue participating in the league through its team Shivaji Park Lions. Holding that MCA had a decisive role in conducting the league and had participated in the performance and termination of the contract, the Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that MCA is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement and cannot be excluded from the arbitral proceedings. The Court observed, “MCA is fully, completely and absolutely involved in conduct of the League. Without its approvals, it is not permissible for any team to participate in the League. The PA cannot neither be performed nor can be terminated without the approval of MCA. If conduct of MCA relating to subject matter (League) is taken into consideration, there can be little doubt that MCA has directly dealt with the applicant, thereby exhibiting clear intention of being bound by PA read with Supplementary Agreement. In my view therefore, after applying the tests laid down by Constitution Bench in Cox and Kings Ltd (supra), there can be little doubt to the position that MCA is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement contained in the PA.”
Acceptance Of Insurance Claim Under Protest Not 'Accord And Satisfaction': Bombay High Court
Case Title : Oriental Insurance Company v Add On Retail Pvt Ltd
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 30675 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 166
The Bombay High Court held that when a claimant accepts the amount offered by an insurer under protest, such acceptance does not bar the claimant from seeking a higher amount before an arbitral tribunal. Justice Gauri Godse upheld an arbitral award enhancing the compensation payable to the insured after finding an error in the surveyor's assessment. The Court rejected the insurer's contention that the insured's acceptance of the amount amounted to accord and satisfaction. It observed: “However, in the present case, there is no admitted claim, and the controversy concerns the application of the principle of accord and satisfaction in light of the claimant's letter dated 16th October 2018 and the discharge voucher signed under protest. I have already recorded reasons that the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as a full and final settlement of the claim. Hence, in view of the well established legal principles as discussed in the above paragraphs, the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as accord and satisfaction of the claim.”
Figures In Conciliator's Report Do Not Bind Arbitrator: Bombay High Court
Case Title : ICICI Securities Ltd vs Riddhi Siddhi Investment and Anr
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 390 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 158
The Bombay High Court on 17 March dismissed a petition filed by ICICI Securities Ltd, holding that the amount indicated in a conciliator's report does not constitute an award and does not bind the Arbitral Tribunal in determining the final claim. Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 23.30 lakh passed in favour of Ridhi Siddhi Investment in a stock trading dispute arising out of margin trading transactions. The Court observed: “Thus, the amount indicated in the report of the Conciliator does not become the amount awarded to any party or against any party. The said amount has relevance only for the purpose of determination of payment of fees by the claimant for online arbitration. The amount reflected in the report of the Conciliator does not bind the arbitrator, who is not precluded from awarding the claim in the sum higher than the one reflected in the report of the Conciliator.”
Case Title : Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd vs Hiroo Hotchand Advani & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 168
The Bombay High Court held that Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, having encashed Rs 18.64 lakh offered by borrowers towards full and final settlement without first communicating any objection, must be deemed to have accepted the settlement. It ruled that the company's subsequent claim that the amount was accepted “under protest” was not a valid revocation and that the arbitral awards stood satisfied. Justice Abhay Ahuja held that once the amount was encashed without prior protest, the creditor could not later dispute the settlement or seek recovery of any further dues. “Admittedly, the Applicant had deposited the demand draft of Rs.18,64,351/- which was offered in full and final settlement by the Respondents and then the communication seeking to raise an issue of incorrect calculations, and that execution proceedings had been initiated for recovery stating that therefore, under protest, the demand draft has been deposited and the same would be adjusted against the total outstanding decretal dues, cannot be said to be a valid revocation as what is offered on condition must be taken as it is offered and the Applicant having encashed the demand draft without first communicating to the Respondents that they do not agree the proposal made by the Respondents, the Applicant must be assumed in terms of Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to have accepted the proposal of the Respondents ", it held.
Case Title : Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Microtex Energy Pvt Ltd
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L.) NO. 33928 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 130
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that an arbitral award passed through ad hoc arbitration cannot be invalidated merely because one of the parties is an MSME supplier who could have approached the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a petition filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of Microtex Energy Pvt. Ltd,an MSME.
“Therefore, if parties opt for ad hoc arbitration, the award is not rendered invalid merely because one of the parties to the dispute is a supplier capable of seeking reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act," the court held.
Fundamental Evidence Principles Cannot Be Ignored In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Arenel (Private) Limited Vs. M/s. Aakash Packaging
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION APPEAL (L) NO.30982 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 126
The Bombay High Court on 9 March held that while arbitral proceedings are not strictly bound by the technical provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the fundamental principles governing the burden of proof and the admissibility of evidence cannot be ignored to uphold an arbitral award that is patently illegal.
The Bench observed:
“Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person, who would fail if no evidence at all, was given on either side. The strict rules of the Evidence Act may not be enforced in an arbitral proceeding but the fundamental rules of law and evidence cannot be ignored to affirm an Award which on the face of it is patently illegal.”
Case Title : Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd vs Percept Finserve Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.5187 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 139
The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that when an arbitral award is set aside, the period between the commencement of the earlier arbitration and the date of the court's order is required to be excluded while computing limitation for initiating fresh arbitral proceedings.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that “Thus, when Arbitral Award is set aside by the Court either under Section 34 or under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the period between commencement of arbitration and date of order of the Court is required to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation for commencement of fresh arbitral proceedings with respect to the dispute so submitted".
Case Title : Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd. Versus Victore Ships Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 398 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 129
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that courts can grant interim protective measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to secure the amount awarded under a foreign arbitral award even after a petition seeking its recognition and enforcement has been filed.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd against Victore Ships Pvt Ltd seeking interlocutory protection to secure the awarded amount pending enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated March 23, 2020.
Rejecting the respondent's objection to the maintainability of the petition, the court said the jurisdiction of a Section 9 court continues until the foreign award becomes a decree of an Indian court.
“It is after the stage at which the foreign award becomes a decree of an Indian Court that the words 'but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36' used in Section 9(1) of the Act would present any basis for the Section 9 Court to refrain from entertaining prayers for any protective measures, since at that stage execution proceedings would have commenced, without the need to file a new set of proceedings,” the court observed.
Telangana High Court
Case Title : OWH SE i.L. v United Company RUSAL International PJSC & Ors.
Case Number : Execution Petition (Arbitration) No. 2 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 7
The Telangana High Court has recently restrained AL Plus Holding LLC, a subsidiary of award-debtor United Company RUSAL International PJSC, from transferring its 26% shareholding in Pioneer Aluminium Industries Limited while hearing enforcement proceedings of foreign arbitral awards worth about Rs 2,840 crore obtained by OWH SE i.L.
A single bench of Justice T. Madhavi Devi directed that “this Court is inclined to direct the respondent No.2 not to transfer its shares in Pioneer Aluminum Industries Limited to the extent of 26% of total shares of the said company as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit till the next date of hearing.”
It observed that the direction was required “in order to see that the award is not defeated by any attempts to divert the funds by the arbitral award debtor.”
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
J&K & Ladakh High Court Refers Contract Dispute To Arbitration, Leaves Limitation Issue To Tribunal
Case Title : Ace Consultants v. J&K Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Arb P No.14/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 9
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently reiterated that while deciding petitions for appointment of an arbitrator, the court cannot undertake a detailed inquiry into limitation, and such issues must be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
The court was hearing four petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising between Ace Consultants, a proprietorship firm, and J&K Projects Construction Corporation Limited, regarding unpaid contractual amounts under certain works.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “This Court, while exercising its power under Section 11 (6) of the Act, cannot go into this issue and it is only the arbitral tribunal, who can go into all these issues during arbitral proceedings.”
Madras High Court
Works Contract Payment Dispute Can Proceed In MSME Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title : Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises
Case Number : CRP No. 3446 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 60
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council rejecting a Section 16 jurisdictional objection, holding that a payment claim arising from services under a civil works contract falls within the scope of the MSMED Act and can be adjudicated in arbitration before the Council.
Justice S. Sounthar observed that while courts ordinarily do not intervene when an Arbitral Tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, this case required scrutiny as Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited had questioned the very applicability of the MSME law itself. The Court noted:
“In normal course, this Court would not have entertained the Civil Revision Petition and relegated the parties to workout the remedy under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, in view of Section 16(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The very applicability of MSMED Act for the claim made by the second respondent is questioned… and the same is going to the root of the matter.”
Case Title : X-Press Container Lines (UK) Ltd vs Board of Trustees of Port of Chennai
Case Number : OSA (CAD) 39 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 77
The Madras High Court recently restored an arbitral award directing the Board of Trustees of the Port of Chennai to refund Rs.1,21,91,869 to X-Press Container Lines (UK) Ltd. in a dispute arising out of a berth reservation agreement and recovery of berth hire charges and penal levy, holding that the claim was within limitation in view of repeated acknowledgments of liability by the Port authorities. A Division Bench comprising Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu allowed an appeal filed by X-Press Container Lines challenging an order dated September 17, 2020 that had set aside the arbitral award dated January 17, 2009. “In view of all these reasons, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restore the award of the Arbitral Tribunal on the same terms granted by the Tribunal. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.511 of 2009 dated 17.09.2020 is set aside.”, the bench observed.
Case Title : O. Muthu v. P. Ashok & Ors.
Case Number : OSA Nos. 311 & 312 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 80
Calling a Rs 24-crore arbitral award a “fraud” and “not worth the paper it had been written in”, the Madras High Court has upheld a 2019 order setting aside the award in a land dispute, holding that the Memorandum of Understanding on which the claim was based was an unlawful agreement opposed to public policy. Holding that the Memorandum of Understanding was unlawful as it contemplated securing favourable government and court orders through a third party without the property owners being parties to the agreement, the bench observed, “The Memorandum of Understanding which provided for obtaining favourable orders from the Government and engaging counsels to get favourable orders from the Court without the owners of the property being party to the said agreement is wholly an unlawful agreement. It was an exercise opposed to public policy, covenant in the said agreement is void ab initio".
Case Title : M/s Sree Agencies v. The Chief Law Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : O.P. No. 482 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 81
The Madras High Court has reiterated that courts can examine the validity of an arbitrator's appointment even if the issue was not specifically pleaded in a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where the defect goes to the root of the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. Setting aside a 2016 arbitral award, the Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that “The Apex Court has held in more than one judgment that where the question raised goes to the root of the matter touching upon the very jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal and the same can be ascertained on the face of the award passed by the Tribunal, the Court can always go into the issue of jurisdiction even if no specific ground has been raised in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act.”
Case Title : ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd v Dr Vivekandan K S
Case Number : Arb Appeal No 29 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 88
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitrator's refusal to send an iPad marked as evidence for expert analysis, holding that the appeal filed by ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where the request was made after completion of the claimant's evidence. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd had failed to justify the need for expert examination and had moved the application only after the chief-examination of its witness before the arbitral tribunal. “During the adjudication proceedings, after completion of chief examination of the appellant's witness/CW1, the appellant thought it fit to file the instant application as an after-thought, when the appellant did not choose to log in the iPad or call upon the respondent to furnish the login details earlier. In spite of sufficient opportunities granted to the appellant to exhibit the contents of the iPad, for the reasons best known to the appellant, the appellant has not utilised the same, and therefore, the sole Arbitrator has rightly dismissed the application,” the Court observed.
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Direct Renewal Of Determinable Contract: Madras High Court
Case Title : Southern Railway vs. Mrs.G. Bharathi
Case Number : O.SA.No.49 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 83
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award and a subsequent order of a single judge, ruling that an arbitral tribunal cannot direct continuation or renewal of a determinable contract, as such relief is barred under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that once a contract is determinable in nature, an arbitral tribunal cannot compel its continuation or renewal. “Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (formerly Section 14(1)(c) prior to the 2018 amendment) clearly provides that contracts which are in their nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. Once it is held that the contract between the parties is determinable in nature, the arbitral tribunal could not have granted a direction compelling renewal of the licence,” the Court observed.
Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act Cannot Supplant Execution Proceedings: Madras High Court
Case Title : C.J.Charles Rajkumar Versus Mrs.Rahamathunnisa (died) W/O A.Isfahai
Case Number : O.A.No.1188 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 63
The Madras High Court recently observed that a petition seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be used as a substitute for execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code.
“An application under Section 9 can supplement but cannot supplant the process of execution contemplated through Order XXI of the Code,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said.
The court explained that although a Section 9 petition may remain maintainable until an arbitral award is fully satisfied, that does not mean the court must entertain such a petition in every case. The power to grant interim measures under the provision is discretionary, particularly where execution proceedings concerning the same award are already pending before the executing court.
Case Title : Lss Ocean Transport Dmcc Versus K.I. (International) Limited
Case Number : O.S.A (CAD) No. 15 of 2024 and CMP No.3586 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 67
The Madras High Court has allowed enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against a group company after noting that it had voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed demurrage claim arising from a shipping contract.
A division bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that by issuing the cheque as security for the award amount, the company had effectively undertaken to satisfy the award if the charterer failed to do so. It therefore could not avoid liability by claiming that it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
“They had knowledge that they would be made a party in an application seeking enforcement of the award. Having issued the cheque with such knowledge, they cannot now put forth a plea that, since they were not parties to the agreement or party to the arbitral proceedings, they cannot be made liable jointly and severally with the 1st respondent for the award passed by the arbitral tribunal. If permitted this would indirectly indicate encouragement of an act of deception and underlying fraud", it observed.
Case Title : The Project Director / Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society v. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu & Dr. Lucas Babu
Case Number : W.P. No. 21462 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 74
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a recommendation of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission directing payment of ₹1 lakh compensation in a dispute arising out of a funding agreement between the Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society (TANSACS) and an NGO, holding that the matter was governed by a contractual dispute-resolution clause providing for grievance redressal and arbitration.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed in a writ petition filed by TANSACS challenging the Commission's order dated 4 May 2021.
“We find that the State Human Rights Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint in view of the terms of the agreement as the facts purely centers around the enforcement of the contractual obligations between the parties. Despite the clear terms of the agreement, the State Human Rights Commission exceeded its powers by conducting enquiry and had issued recommendations extracted above, which is totally beyond the jurisdiction of State Human Rights Commission. Hence, the said recommendations are liable to be quashed.”
Case Title : J. Nithyanandham v. M.V.S. Gramany and Sons & Ors.
Case Number : A No. 4679 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 154 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 75
The Madras High Court has refused to refer a trademark infringement and passing-off dispute over the snuff brand “J.S. Madras Snuff” to arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause in a partnership deed covering disputes between partners cannot bind a non-signatory merely because the alleged infringer is the partner's son.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy examined Clause 13 of the partnership deed and observed,
“The language of such clause makes it clear that it pertains to disputes or differences arising between the parties to the partnership deed. It is implicit that it should be a dispute pertaining to a matter dealt with at least broadly in the partnership deed. The partnership deed does not discuss the intellectual property of the partnership firm in general and clearly does not refer specifically to the marks forming the subject of this suit.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Delhivery Limited v. Smartpaddle Technology Private Limited
Case Number : ARB-364-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 15
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 9 March, held that digitally executed agreements are valid even in the absence of physical signatures where the parties have acted upon them and do not dispute their existence. A Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri appointed Justice B.S. Walia, former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Delhivery Limited and Smartpaddle Technology Private Limited. The Bench observed: “It is not necessary that the agreement has to be physically signed and the same can always be signed digitally by both the parties and in the present case, the agreement was rather given effect to and the conduct of the parties would show that the agreement was acted upon.”
Case Title : Sunil Garg v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
Case Number : ARB-35-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 13
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed an arbitration petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator while also seeking termination of the mandate of a sole arbitrator already conducting the proceedings.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner and observed,
“It is very surprising as to how an application under Section 11 of the Act would be maintainable before this Court and a specific query in this regard was put to the learned counsel for the applicant, to which he could not answer. Similarly, it is also very surprising as to how an application under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act seeking termination of the mandate of an Arbitrator would be maintainable before this Court and that too read with Section 11 of the Act because such an application, if any, has to be filed before the learned Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and therefore, the applicant cannot seek substitution of the Arbitrator from this Court which is not the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : JPR Projects Versus Axis Bank
Case Number : COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No. 21of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 22
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently declined to interfere with an order granting limited interim relief against the freezing of a partnership firm's bank account, observing that the protection had already lapsed after the firm failed to initiate arbitral proceedings within 90 days. A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheamobserved that the interim relief granted by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam was expressly limited to a period of 90 days, and the appellants had invoked arbitration only after that period had expired. “From the admitted facts on record it is evident that within a period of 90 days the arbitral proceedings were not commenced in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act 1996. Notice under Section 21, sent to the respondents, is dated 07.11.2025 which is after the expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of the impugned Order.”
Case Title : Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s SCLCR 18G Joint Venture & Ors.
Case Number : CMA No.1141 of 2018; CRP No.6787 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 24
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging a Rs 199.96-crore arbitral award arising out of the Pulichintala Dam project dispute after the state failed to correct the description of the party from “Government of Andhra Pradesh” to “State of Andhra Pradesh” despite being given an opportunity to do so.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, in a judgment dated March 6, 2026, held that under Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, a State government must sue or be sued in the name of the “State of Andhra Pradesh”.
“This Article, in the light of the above judgments, would have to be understood to mean that "the Government of Andhra Pradesh" while being sued or suing, should be described as the "State of Andhra Pradesh". Put another way, the party to the litigation is actually the Government of Andhra Pradesh but the said Government of State is to be described as the State of Andhra Pradesh. Any technical defect, of not naming the appropriate party, in a case where an employee of the State is arrayed as a party instead of the State, can be corrected at the primary level and for such matters can be remanded to the primary level", it said.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Dhanjit Sarma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) 661/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 7
The Gauhati High Court has recently allowed a writ petition against ESIC authorities over non-payment of dues under a government procurement contract, despite the existence of an arbitration clause, after finding the state authority's conduct arbitrary.
The court observed, "In such facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the refusal of the respondent No.3 to make payments is an arbitrary and unreasonable attempt, violating the protection guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.There is no impediment to adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition only because of a clause in the General Terms and Condition of the GeM which requires referral of disputes arising out of the contract to arbitration. This Court has noticed that there is no clause in the contract or the GTC which allows withholding of payments beyond 10(ten) days after issuing the CRAC. Therefore, the respondent No.3 remains liable to release the contracted amount to the petitioner forthwith”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates
Case Number : ARBA Nos. 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 & 42 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 7
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 25 March dismissed the State of Chhattisgarh's appeals and upheld the Commercial Court's order partly setting aside the arbitral award while granting limited relief to Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates. A Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot reassess evidence or substitute the arbitrator's findings unless the award suffers from patent illegality or violates public policy. The Court observed: “The learned Commercial Court minutely appreciated all grounds of application filed by the State and Gilcon Project and rightly passed the order and rightly rejected the applications of the State sans merit and rightly allowed the claim No.1 of the Gilcon Project, which is in respect of admitted amount withheld by the State. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Commercial Court”.
Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Condone 110-Day Delay In Arbitration Appeal Against PwC
Case Title : Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board versus Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : ARBA No. 8 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 6
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an arbitration appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board against Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Board failed to justify a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act. A division bench of Justices Rajani Dubey and Radhakishan Agrawal held that no sufficient cause was shown to justify the delay beyond the prescribed limitation period under the Commercial Courts Act. “No satisfactory or reasonable explanation has been furnished for such delay, and the grounds stated do not constitute “sufficient cause.” The cumulative delay of 110 days, without sufficient cause, falls far outside the permissible bounds of delay under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is without any merit.”, the court observed.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deposit Of Arbitral Award Amount In Court Stops Post-Award Interest: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Bansal
Case Number : CMPMO No. 262 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 8
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 5 March held that deposit of the entire arbitral award amount in the court registry amounts to payment to the decree-holder, and liability to pay post-award interest ceases from the date of deposit. A Bench of Justice Romesh Verma set aside an execution order against the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (HPPCL) in its dispute with Arvind Kumar Bansal. He held: “the deposit of award amount in the Court amounts to payment to the credit of the decree holder. Therefore, once the entire awarded amount along with interest was deposited before this Court on 10.01.2019, therefore, liability of past award interest from 10.01.2019 ceased. The executing Court has erred by holding that no notice was given to the Decree Holder as per mandate of Order 21 Sub Rule (2) of the CPC.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Further Arbitration Over Construction Project At IIT Mandi
Case Title : Indian Institute of Technology Mandi (Kamand) v. Central Public Works Department (CPWD) & Anr.
Case Number : LPA No. 121 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 9
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that further proceedings in an ongoing arbitration concerning a construction project involving the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mandi and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) shall remain stayed while it examines IIT Mandi's plea to be impleaded in the dispute arising from an arbitral award of Rs 3,79,52,929. The matter was heard on March 16, 2026, by a Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi. Taking note of the submissions, the High Court issued notice to the Central Public Works Department, whose counsel accepted notice, and directed issuance of notice to the other respondent. In the meantime, the Court directed that further proceedings before the learned Arbitrator shall remain stayed. The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 4, 2026.
Meghalaya High Court
Case Title : State of Meghalaya v. Mayven T. Marbaniang & Anr
Case Number : Cont.Cas (C) No. 4 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 2
The Meghalaya High Court has held a contempt petition arising from alleged disobedience of arbitral tribunal directions to be maintainable, rejecting an objection that no proper reference had been made by the tribunal and holding that the process of reference stood completed in the facts of the case. The Division Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee held that the tribunal's order directing that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice, followed by orders placing the case before the present bench, was sufficient to treat the reference as completed and that the petition could also be maintained at the instance of the aggrieved party under Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Meghalaya) Rules, 2013.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Darshana Bhupendra Parekh vs TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd
Case Number : R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 479 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 26
The Gujarat High Court recently observed that a party challenging an arbitral award cannot seek to overcome limitation by claiming that it came to know of the award during execution proceedings, if its Section 34 application does not contain a clear and categorical plea that the signed copy of the award had never been delivered to it as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act against an order rejecting a challenge to an arbitral award as time-barred. “In absence of any categorical statement made by the applicant about the non-delivery or non-receipt of the arbitral award, the contention based on the affixation of process in execution case is neither here nor there,” the court observed.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Shri Pramhans Enterprises v. M/s Varanasi Aurangabad NH-2 Tollway Private Limited
Case Number : Arbitration and Conciliation Application U/S 11(4) No. 129 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 24
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that while disputes relating to sovereign functions such as imposition or levy of tax are non-arbitrable, but disputes arising out of contractual obligations between parties, even if they involve issues of tax reimbursement or GST compliance, remain arbitrable. A bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar relying on rulings in Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corporation and other precedents, observed, "From the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions,It is evident that disputes relating to sovereign functions such as imposition or levy of tax are non-arbitrable. However, disputes arising out of contractual obligations between parties, even if they involve issues of tax reimbursement or compliance, do not fall within the category of non-arbitrable disputes".
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Late Shri Smt. Navlibai W/o Shri Bhagwanlajji Mehta (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Motilal Khatri
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 22 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 15
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award begins only from the date on which a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party, setting aside a Commercial Court order that had dismissed a challenge as time-barred. A division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi ruled that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be read together with Section 31(5), which mandates delivery of a signed copy of the award to each party.
“As per the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Act, it is the duty of the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy to each party. From the aforesaid order-sheet, it is axomatic that the presence of the present appellant/respondent was not recorded and the copy of the award was not delivered to them. The provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act has to be read along with Section 31(5) of the Act and, therefore, the limitation would count from the date when signed copy of the award is delivered to the appellant(s). The aforesaid aspect have not been considered while rejecting the application for condonation of delay,” the court observed.