LiveLawBiz Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: February 02 - February 08, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Rajia Begum vs Barnali Mukherjee, 2026 LLBiz SC 36
C Velusamy v K Indhera, 2026 LLBiz SC 39
Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors, 2026 LLBiz SC 48
A2Z Infraservices Ltd and Anr v Quippo Infrastructure Ltd and Anr, 2026 LLBiz SC 42
Avneet Soni v Kavita Agarwal, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 108
Union of India v Reliance Industries Ltd & Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 11
Puri Constructions Pvt Ltd & Ors v Larsen & Toubro Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 119
Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt Ltd v All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 121
Gorkha Security Services v Directorate of Health Services, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 105
Zreyah Semiconductors Pvt Ltd v Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 107
Turner Morrison Limited v Berger Paints India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 36
Managing Director Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd & Anr vs RS Construction & Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 43
Tata Capital Ltd vs Arvind Manjhi, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 44
Jimmy Elias v Elizabeth Jasmine and Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 21
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited Vs Thermax Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 56
Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt Ltd vs Shashi Mehra HUF, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 59
Tata Capital Housing Financing Ltd vs Inderjeet Sahni and others, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 58
Jinam Arihant Realtors And Ors v Neha Yogesh Sachde, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 65
Union of India v M s Bridge Track And Tower Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 62
The New India Assurance Co Ltd v Rajkumar Impex Private Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 40
M s Re Sustainability Healthcare Solutions Limited v Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 14
Supreme Court
Case Title : Rajia Begum vs Barnali Mukherjee
Case Number : SLP (C) NO.6013 OF 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 36
The Supreme Court observed that disputes cannot be referred to arbitration when the very existence of the arbitration agreement is in question, particularly where the document relied upon is alleged to be forged. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said courts must first satisfy themselves that an arbitration agreement actually exists before sending parties to arbitration. The court clarified that challenges going to the root of the arbitration clause itself take the dispute outside the arbitral process.
It held, “Thus, in a case where plea is taken with regard to nonexistence of an arbitration clause or agreement, the same would amount to serious allegation of fraud and would render the subject matter of an agreement non-arbitrable.”
Further, as the bench put it, “Where the arbitration agreement itself is alleged to be forged or fabricated, the disputes ceases to be merely contractual and strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction.” Holding that the High Court had exceeded its supervisory powers by overturning concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court set aside the order referring the dispute to arbitration and upheld the refusal to appoint an arbitrator, leaving the matter to be decided by the civil court.
Case Title : C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera
Case Number : SLP (C) NO(S). 6551 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 39
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 3) held that arbitral awards delivered beyond the statutory timeline prescribed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, do not automatically become ineffective. The Court clarified that such awards remain ineffective and unenforceable at that stage but may still be given effect if a party approaches the competent court seeking an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A.
“…we are of the opinion that provisions of the Act, particularly Section 29A, must not be interpreted to infer a threshold bar for an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even when an award is passed, though after the expiry of the mandate,” observed a Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.
Case Title : Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 48
The Supreme Court on February 4th, reaffirmed that parties who accept a court order appointing an arbitrator under the pre-2015 arbitration regime cannot later challenge the existence or validity of the arbitration clause while assailing the arbitral award. The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan. Under the law as it stood before the 2015 amendments, the Chief Justice or the designated judge exercising powers under Section 11 was required to undertake a judicial determination of jurisdictional issues, including whether a valid arbitration agreement existed.
That determination, the court reiterated, attained finality under Section 11(7) and bound the parties through all subsequent stages of the dispute, including challenges under Section 34. The Court relied on the precedent in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005), which settled that once a Section 11 appointment is accepted, parties cannot later reopen questions surrounding the arbitration agreement's existence or validity before either the arbitral tribunal or the courts.
As a result, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had exceeded their jurisdiction by reopening issues already settled at the Section 11 stage. The court observed that the order appointing the arbitrator had attained finality and that, having accepted that order, the respondents were precluded from questioning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement at the Section 34 stage.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Relief In Arbitration Case Involving Pure Money Claim
Case Title : A2Z Infraservices Ltd and Anr v. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd and Anr
Case Number : SLP(Civil) No.8636/ 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 42
The Supreme Court recently set aside a Calcutta High Court order directing escrow of payments arising out of a master service agreement, holding that in the facts of the case, where the dispute involved a pure money claim and there was no risk of irrecoverability, the High Court ought not to have granted interim protection after arbitration had been invoked. A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan held that in such circumstances, the High Court should have deferred to the arbitral tribunal.
The court observed, “In such circumstances, instead of proceeding to pass interim orders under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, the Division Bench ought to have regard to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 9 and left it for the arbitral tribunal to consider the prayer for interim measures in exercise of its powers under Section 17 of the 1996 Act. ”
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Avneet Soni v. Kavita Agarwal
Case Number : EX.P. 386/2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 108
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs 1 lakh in costs on a litigant for what it called a “calculated attempt” to stall enforcement of a decade-old arbitral award. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the objection application, holding that repeated attempts to delay execution, as in the present case, cannot be justified as an exercise of legal rights. The court underscored that the award, passed on December 31, 2014, had already attained finality.
“The approach adopted by the Objector reflects a calculated attempt to obstruct and delay the enforcement of a decree which has already been conclusively adjudicated and is legally binding. Such conduct, if condoned, undermines the efficacy of judicial processes and the faith of litigants in the rule of law,” the bench said.
“Repeated invocation of the same ground, more than ten years after the filing of the Execution Petition and over eleven years after the Award was rendered, cannot be regarded as a genuine or bona fide exercise of legal rights. Rather, it reflects a deliberate attempt to obstruct the enforcement of a valid and binding arbitral award, thereby clogging the machinery of justice,” the Court further held.
Delhi High Court Rejects Reliance Industries' Objections To Centre's Appeal In $3.86 Billion Dispute
Case Title : Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : EFA(OS)(COMM) 19/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 11
The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that the Centre's appeal against the refusal to enforce a foreign arbitral award in a $3.86 billion dispute with Reliance Industries can proceed. The court rejected RIL's objections to the Centre's appeal against a single judge order refusing to enforce the foreign arbitral award. The dispute relates to production sharing contracts for the Tapti and Panna Mukta oil and gas fields and a claim of USD 3,856,734,582.
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that an order declining enforcement of a foreign arbitral award falls under Section 48 of the Act and is appealable under Section 50. The Bench said, "The words of the legislature must be construed in their natural meaning, without adding or subtracting therefrom. Applying the above test, the words of Section 50(1)(b) of the A&C Act provide for an appeal against the order of a court refusing to enforce a Foreign Award under Section 48 of the A&C Act, which is the case in hand. Therefore, the present appeal is maintainable.”
Delhi High Court Reiterates Referral Court Cannot Limit Arbitrator To Specific Claims
Case Title : Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1610/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 119
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that a Referral Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot dictate which disputes an arbitrator should hear. Its role is limited to appointing an arbitrator, leaving all substantive claims and defences for the arbitrator to decide. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on Puri Constructions, the petitioner, for attempting to restrict the arbitration to selective claims while appointing Hon'ble Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retired) as the sole arbitrator in its long-standing dispute with Larsen & Toubro (L&T).
The Bench held: “The queue for justice stretches several decades, and Counsel and litigants who can afford to litigate endlessly, in the opinion of this Court, would need a timely reminder to respect the cause of justice to all litigants and cooperate with the judicial system.”
Case Title : Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 132/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 121
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award permitting the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, to encash 50% of a contractor's Performance Bank Guarantee after short payment of wages to sanitation workers was established.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that neither the arbitral award nor the district court's order dismissing objections to it suffered from perversity or patent illegality warranting interference.
The court noted that the contractor, Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd., failed to ensure full payment of wages to its workers. The sanitation workers were deployed at AIIMS under the outsourcing contract, though they were formally employed by the contractor. This exposed AIIMS to statutory liability under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The provision makes the principal employer responsible for paying the full wages, or any unpaid balance, if the contractor fails to do so.
Upholding the arbitral tribunal's reasoning, the bench observed that permitting partial encashment of the performance security reflected an effort “to balance contractual consequences with the nature and gravity of the breaches established on record”.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Over 'Cryptic Observations'
Case Title : Gorkha Security Services v. Directorate of Health Services
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 453/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 105
The Delhi High Court recently held that an arbitral tribunal cannot reject a claim through "cryptic" reasoning and that such an award is open to interference even within the limited scope of review under arbitration law. The matter was decided by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, who emphasised that giving reasons is a core requirement of arbitral decision-making. “The insistence on reasons is not a mere empty formality,” the Court said, adding that reasons must show how the decision-maker moved from facts to conclusions.
The court noted that the arbitrator did not analyze any contractual provision or explain how such a gap defeated the claim. “Such cryptic observations, unsupported by intelligible reasoning, render the findings opaque and unintelligible,” the Court held. Applying the doctrine of severability, the court set aside only the portion of the award denying interest and costs, left the Rs 3.48 crore award intact, and remanded the limited issue to the arbitral tribunal for fresh consideration.
Case Title : Zreyah Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 249/2023 & I.A. 14284/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 107
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over the supply of electronic switches. The Court upheld an arbitral award directing Zreyah Semiconductors Private Limited to deliver 11,000 switches to OYO and refund Rs 2.84 crore with interest. It said the arbitrator's conclusions were plausible and did not call for interference. The case was heard by Justice Avneesh Jhingan.
The court agreed with the arbitrator's reading of the contract. It refused to re-examine the evidence. “The finding recorded by the arbitrator suffers from no factual or legal error much less perversity,” the court said. The court also noted that no switches were supplied at all. In those circumstances, there was no contractual basis for demanding a full advance. Finding no patent illegality or perversity, the court dismissed Zreyah's petition and upheld the arbitral award.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Turner Morrison Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited
Case Number : AP-COM/990/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 36
The Calcutta High Court has appointed Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, former Chief Justice of the Court, as the sole arbitrator to decide a tax liability holdback dispute between Turner Morrison Limited and Berger Paints India Limited. A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that objections based on limitation and contractual interpretation cannot be decided at the stage of appointing an arbitrator. The Court said such issues must be left to the arbitral tribunal, which is the “master of facts”. The court reiterated that its role at the referral stage is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration clause. A deeper inquiry into disputed facts or contractual meanings would defeat the purpose of arbitration as a speedy and time-bound remedy.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against Company Officials Without Impleading Companies
Case Title : Managing Director Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd & Anr vs RS Construction & Anr
Case Number : APOT/332/2025, IA No.GA-COM/1/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 43
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that it was passed against two officials of state-owned power companies instead of the companies that were parties to the arbitration agreement.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the award, which fastened liability on the managing director of Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited and the chairman of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, could not be sustained since the arbitration agreement admittedly existed only with the two companies. “In such circumstances, as the award passed are against two individuals, who are separate and distinct from the persons with whom the claimant in the arbitration proceedings entered into the arbitration agreement, the award cannot be sustained,” the court said.
Non-Signatory Successor Company May Invoke Arbitration Clause After Merger: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Ltd vs Arvind Manjhi
Case Number : AP-COM/40/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 44
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a company that becomes the successor of an original contracting party pursuant to an NCLT-approved merger can invoke an arbitration clause even if it is not a signatory to the original agreement.
Justice Shampa Sarkar made the observation on February 3 while hearing an application filed by Tata Capital Limited seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of a loan agreement with a borrower. “In my prima facie view, even if the petitioner is a non-signatory, in view of the merger, the petitioner can invoke arbitration as the successor of the erstwhile lender,” the court said.
The court noted that the loan agreement defined the term “lender” to include its successors and assigns. It also recorded that the arbitration notice clearly disclosed the merger and explained how Tata Capital had stepped into the shoes of the original lender. The notice was received by the borrower, who raised no objection to Tata Capital's locus. Relying on the apex court's rulings on non-signatories in Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd v Severn Trent Water Purification Inc and Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd and the doctrine of competence-competence, the court observed that questions relating to arbitrability, limitation, and jurisdiction were matters to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against Company Officials Without Impleading Companies
Case Title : Managing Director Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd & Anr vs RS Construction & Anr
Case Number : APOT/332/2025, IA No.GA-COM/1/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 43
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that it was passed against two officials of state-owned power companies instead of the companies that were parties to the arbitration agreement. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the award, which fastened liability on the managing director of Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited and the chairman of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, could not be sustained since the arbitration agreement admittedly existed only with the two companies.
“In such circumstances, as the award passed are against two individuals, who are separate and distinct from the persons with whom the claimant in the arbitration proceedings entered into the arbitration agreement, the award cannot be sustained,” the court said.
Non-Signatory Successor Company May Invoke Arbitration Clause After Merger: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Ltd vs Arvind Manjhi
Case Number : AP-COM/40/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 44
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a company that becomes the successor of an original contracting party pursuant to an NCLT-approved merger can invoke an arbitration clause even if it is not a signatory to the original agreement. Justice Shampa Sarkar made the observation on February 3 while hearing an application filed by Tata Capital Limited seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of a loan agreement with a borrower.
“In my prima facie view, even if the petitioner is a non-signatory, in view of the merger, the petitioner can invoke arbitration as the successor of the erstwhile lender,” the court said.
The court also noted that the loan agreement defined the term “lender” to include its successors and assigns. It recorded that the arbitration notice clearly disclosed the merger and explained how Tata Capital had stepped into the shoes of the original lender. The notice was received by the borrower, who raised no objection to Tata Capital's locus. Relying on the apex court's rulings on non-signatories in Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd v Severn Trent Water Purification Inc and Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd and the doctrine of competence-competence, the court observed that questions relating to arbitrability, limitation, and jurisdiction were matters to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Kerala High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award For Relying On Findings Of Set-Aside Award
Case Title : Jimmy Elias v. Elizabeth Jasmine and Ors
Case Number : Arb.A No.24 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 21
The Kerala High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award after holding that the arbitrator committed a jurisdictional error by treating findings from an earlier arbitral award, which had already been set aside, as 'alive and final.'
A bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. observed the arbitrator was required to consider the dispute afresh but failed to do so. Instead, the arbitrator proceeded on the assumption that conclusions recorded in the earlier arbitration continued to hold the field. The bench also noted that the arbitrator had failed to decide the counterclaim in accordance with law, despite evidence being available on record. That failure, the court said, independently vitiated the award. It further held that the Commercial Court had not properly exercised its jurisdiction while dismissing the challenge.
“There has been no independent assessment of the pleadings or re-appreciation of the evidence which, in the context of the present proceedings, the learned Arbitrator is expected and supposed to do before arriving at a finding,” the court said.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Says Award-Holder Has No Right to Retain Deposit After Arbitral Award Is Set Aside
Case Title : Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited Vs. Thermax Limited
Case Number : Interim Application (L) No. 42351 of 2025 in Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 42190 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 56
The Bombay High Court recently held that Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited has no right to retain Rs 218.45 crore deposited by Thermax after the arbitral award in its favour was set aside, making it clear that the pendency of an appeal cannot be used to hold on to the money. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Gautam A. Ankhad said the legal position was straightforward once the award no longer existed.
The court noted, “There is no arbitral award in existence, and, therefore, there is no question of the respondent suffering rigors of the arbitral award.” The court noted that the deposit was made only because the award and the interim order were in place. Once the award was struck down, Thermax could not be made to suffer the consequences of an award that no longer existed.
Arbitral Tribunals Cannot Grant Equity-Based Relief Unless Authorised By Contract: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt Ltd vs Shashi Mehra HUF
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 304 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 59
The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral tribunals must decide disputes strictly in accordance with the contract and applicable law and cannot grant relief based on "notions of equity or fairness" unless the parties have expressly authorised such an approach. Setting aside an arbitral award directing a refund of brokerage, the court held that arbitrators are not courts of law empowered to dispense equitable relief and that once transactions are held to be authorised, their contractual consequences cannot be undone on equitable considerations alone.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd., a registered stockbroker, which had challenged an appellate arbitral award passed under the dispute resolution framework of the National Stock Exchange.
"Arbitral Tribunals are not courts of law who can invoke notions of equity or fairness unless the parties confer such jurisdiction under Section 28(2)," it held It further observed that even if regulatory or procedural lapses were established, such lapses may invite action by market regulators but cannot justify nullifying the contractual consequences of authorised transactions.
SARFAESI Involves Enforcement, Not Adjudication; Does Not Bar Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Housing Financing Ltd vs Inderjeet Sahni and others
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No .35431 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 58
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not bar arbitration between a lender and a borrower. The court clarified that SARFAESI proceedings are meant only for enforcement of security and do not involve adjudication of disputes. Arbitration, it held, is an adjudicatory process and can proceed in parallel. Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observations while hearing petitions filed by Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd seeking appointment of an arbitrator and interim relief against its borrowers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
However, the court observed that proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act stand on a different footing. “Like arbitration proceedings, even proceedings under the RDDB Act are adjudicatory in nature as the arbitrator or the DRT adjudicates the claim of the banks or financial institutions. On the other hand, the remedy under the SARFAESI Act is merely in the nature of enforcement where no adjudication takes place. This is yet another reason why mere initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be a ground for not permitting adjudicatory proceedings under the Arbitration Act and vice versa,” the court observed.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹1.17-Crore Arbitral Award Enforcing Off-Book Cash Claims
Case Title : Jinam Arihant Realtors And Ors. v. Neha Yogesh Sachde
Case Number : Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20865 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 65
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing a real estate partnership to pay over Rs 1.17 crore to a former partner, holding that the award sought to enforce rights allegedly arising from illegal and undocumented cash transactions. Allowing the challenge, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the arbitral tribunal had enforced rights flowing from a partnership arrangement that was shown to operate entirely outside lawful accounting.
The court warned that if such transactions were allowed to be enforced, it would collapse the distinction between legal contracts and illegal bargains. "If such transactions, that are blatantly contrary to the rule of law, were to be permitted to be enforced by the legal system, there would be no difference between enforcement of a valid and legal contract and enforcement of bargains that are evidently in direct conflict with law", the court observed.
Pending CBI Probe Not Adjudication: Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Central Railway
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s. Bridge Track And Tower Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 221 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 62
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that Central Railway cannot withhold undisputed payments to a contractor merely because a criminal case is pending in relation to another supply. The Court said a CBI investigation does not amount to adjudication under a contract and cannot, by itself, justify retaining money that is otherwise payable. A single bench of Justice Gauri Godse held that the Railways were required to first raise a recovery claim and subject it to adjudication before exercising any lien under the contract.
It held, “Findings recorded in criminal proceedings would not bind the civil proceedings, if any, initiated by the petitioner to recover the amount alleged to have been fraudulently recovered by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to charge a lien on the amounts due and payable for the goods admittedly supplied under the first purchase order by relying upon its right to keep a lien on the ground that a criminal proceeding is pending regarding the amounts recovered by the respondent under the second purchase order.”
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Sets Aside ₹7.77-Crore Award Against New India Assurance
Case Title : The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Impex Private Ltd.
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No. 223 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 40
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a Rs 7.77-crore arbitral award passed against New India Assurance Company Limited, holding that the arbitral tribunal failed to properly examine whether the claimant had the right to maintain the insurance claim after transferring its entire business. Allowing the insurer's challenge, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the tribunal ignored a threshold issue going to the root of the dispute and returned findings that were “bereft of any materials” and based on “mere surmises and conjectures”.
Justice Venkatesh held that the tribunal failed to appreciate the legal effect of the Business Transfer Agreement. Treating the transaction as a slump sale, the court observed, “Once it is a slump sale, every other account receivable will stand transferred to the purchaser. The insurance policy amount that is receivable from the petitioner will also obviously stand transferred to the new entity.”
Karnataka High Court
Arbitration Can Resume Without Fresh Notice After Award Is Set Aside: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Re Sustainability Healthcare Solutions Limited v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Anr
Case Number : Civil Misc. Petition No. 12 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 14
The Karnataka High Court has held that once an arbitral award is set aside, the disputes stand revived and can be referred back to arbitration without requiring the parties to issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 21 deals with the commencement of arbitral proceedings through notice to the opposing party. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that this requirement is procedural and not jurisdictional and cannot be invoked to block arbitration after an award has been annulled.
"The legal consequence of such an order is that the award is obliterated and ceases to exist in the eye of law,” the court held, clarifying that annulment of an award returns the parties to arbitration to resolve the same disputes. “The requirement of a fresh notice under Section 21 is procedural and cannot be elevated to a jurisdictional bar so as to defeat the substantive right of a party to seek arbitration,” the court added, noting that the opposing party was already aware of the disputes and had participated in earlier arbitral proceedings.