LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: August 2026

Supreme Court Asks CJI To Consider Larger Bench To Examine Validity Of Pre-Deposit Clauses In Arbitration Agreements

Case Title : SANTOSH ASSOCIATE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

Case Number : SLP (C) No. 31245 of 2025

Citation:  2026 LLBiz SC 277

The Supreme Court on Monday requested the Chief Justice of India to consider whether a larger Bench should examine the validity of contractual clauses requiring a party to deposit a percentage of its claim before invoking arbitration.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan expressed doubts over the correctness of the three-Judge ruling in S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana, which had upheld a similar pre-deposit condition.

The bench was hearing an appeal concerning a contractual clause requiring a contractor to deposit 10% of its claim before the dispute could be referred to arbitration. It requested the CJI to consider whether the questions framed in the judgment warrant reference to a larger Bench.

The court noted that S.K. Jain, decided by a three-Judge Bench, had described the pre-deposit requirement as a “balancing factor to prevent frivolous and inflated claims." It held the condition to be non-arbitrary, reasonable, and having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

The present Bench observed that it was “prima facie in agreement” with the reasoning in ICOMM Tele Ltd. v. Punjab State Water Supply & Sewerage Board. That two-Judge Bench had held that a pre-deposit requirement could discourage alternative dispute resolution and undermine its objective of declogging the court system.

The court further observed, “This Court is of the considered view that an arbitration clause cannot impose pre-deposit conditions so onerous as to render the right to sue, at the very threshold, illusory or nugatory. A stipulation mandating the deposit of a substantial percentage of the claim amount, as a precondition to invoking arbitration would inevitably suppress claims, deter recourse to alternative dispute resolution, and thereby defeat its very object.”

Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order Directing CDSL To Pay ₹86.02 Lakh To Investor

Case Title : Central Depository Services (India) Limited v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar & Anr.

Case Number : SLP (C) No. 26300/2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz SC 268

On 7 August, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of a Bombay High Court order that had upheld an arbitral award directing Central Depository Services (India) Limited (CDSL) to pay Rs. 86.02 lakh with interest to investor Daksha Narendra Bhavsar for losses arising from the transfer and pledge of her demat shares by BRH Wealth Kreators Limited.

A Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran issued notice on CDSL's Special Leave Petition, returnable on 10 September 2026. The Court observed that it needed “to closely look into the matter,” adding that “the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court shall remain stayed from its operation.”

Supreme Court Upholds Interim Relief To Unsuccessful Arbitration Party In 'Rare, Compelling' Case

Case Title :  Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe

Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 5819 of 2025

Citation :  2026 LLBiz SC 266

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld interim relief granted to an unsuccessful party in arbitration, finding that it had met the higher threshold required for post-award relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe upheld a Delhi High Court order directing National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (NPCC) to deposit ₹3.5 crore, which it had realised by invoking bank guarantees furnished by Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The bench noted that the maintainability of a Section 9 application by an unsuccessful party after an arbitral award was already settled. It relied on its recent judgment in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi, where the court held that the distinction between a winning and losing party does not by itself determine access to Section 9 relief.

Supreme Court Replaces Justice Arun Mishra With Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul As Arbitrator In Adani-RVUNL Dispute

Case Title : RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. VERSUS PARSA KENTE COLLIERIES LIMITED

Case Number:   Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25773/2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 262

The Supreme Court has recently replaced Justice Arun Mishra with former judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as sole arbitrator in a dispute between Adani-linked Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.

To that extent, the court has modified the Rajasthan High Court's July 3, 2026 order appointing Justice Mishra as the sole arbitrator.

The dispute arises from their agreement for mining and supply of coal from the Parsa East and Kanta Basan blocks.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana replaced the arbitrator after recording that the parties had mutually agreed to appoint Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Supreme Court Judge as the sole arbitrator.

Modifying the High Court's order, the Court said, "Though we do not find the ground urged for change of arbitrator legally sustainable, however, during the course of hearing, the parties have mutually agreed for appointment of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Judge of this Court, to be the sole arbitrator. The impugned judgment of the High Court stands modified in terms of the aforesaid."

Supreme Court Refers Non-Signatory Consultant Shareholder To Arbitration In Share Acquisition Dispute

Case Title :  KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Ashiesh Shukla and Others

Case Number  : Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4222 of 2025

Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 261

The Supreme Court has held that a non-signatory consultant-shareholder whose performance under a separate Share Purchase Agreement is fundamental to completing a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) can be treated as a "veritable party" to the settlement's arbitration agreement.

Allowing an appeal filed by KKH Finvest Private Limited and Sensorise Digital Services Private Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed, "it is clear that the performance of his obligations by Ashiesh Shukla under his Share Purchase Agreement was fundamental to the completion of the obligations spelt out in the MoS. Being a shareholder in his own right, unless Ashiesh Shukla also transferred his shares, the MoS would inevitably remain incomplete."

The bench set aside the Delhi High Court's decision refusing to refer consultant-shareholder Ashiesh Shukla to arbitration. It held that he was also a veritable party to the MoS.

High Courts

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court Allows Villa Buyer To Place RTI Records In Award Challenge Over Occupancy Certificate

Case Title : Mr. A.R. Krishnamani v. Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case Number : Writ Petition No. 33403 of 2025 (GM-RES)

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 151

The Karnataka High Court on 25 August partly allowed villa buyer A.R. Krishnamani's petition and set aside an order of the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge refusing to take on record Right to Information (RTI) replies and other official documents concerning a disputed occupancy certificate.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a party challenging an arbitral award on the ground of fraud can produce additional evidence before a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in rare and exceptional circumstances where such material is necessary to decide the fraud allegation. The Bench observed:

“A party challenging an award on the ground of fraud has no right, as a matter of course, to produce additional evidence before the Section 34 Court. Such permission may be granted only in a rare and exceptional case, where the conditions set out above are satisfied and where the reception of the material is absolutely necessary to decide the clause (b) ground, with a corresponding opportunity to the other side to meet it.”

Karnataka High Court Restrains Sale Of 386.541 MT Cashews, Says Arbitration Orders Bind Strangers

Case Title : COAF FZE v. Avanikailani Commodities LLC & Ors.

Case Number : AP.IM. 8 of 2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 150

On 27 August, the Karnataka High Court granted interim protection to UAE-based cashew trading company COAF FZE over 386.541 metric tonnes of raw cashew nuts lying in 15 containers at New Mangalore Port, restraining UAE-based supplier Avanikailani Commodities LLC, Indian cashew trader Sindhu Cashew India Pvt. Ltd. and two individuals claiming rights over the cargo from selling, transferring, diverting or otherwise dealing with it.

Justice M.G.S. Kamal held that an interim order preserving the subject matter of arbitration can bind even a stranger to the arbitration agreement who claims an independent right over the disputed property. The Bench observed:

“A stranger who voluntarily gets himself impleaded, staking independent right, title, and interest over the subject matter of the arbitration, and fails to prima facie establish and justify his claims over the subject matter of the arbitration cannot seek to wriggle out of the binding nature of preventive orders that may be granted to preserve the subject matter of the arbitration either.”

Foreign Seat Of Arbitration Alone Doesn't Oust Indian Courts' Jurisdiction To Grant Interim Relief: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : Aroha Labs Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Prem Dharmani & Ors.

Case Number:  AP.IM. No. 4 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 133

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely choosing a foreign seat of arbitration does not, by itself, prevent Indian courts from granting interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

It observed that excluding the jurisdiction of Indian courts requires an express agreement between the parties.

Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed, "Therefore, mere existence of an arbitration clause providing place of arbitration outside India itself cannot be construed as ''an agreement to the contrary''. In other words, parties are required to expressly agree and provide that provisions of Sections 9, 27 and Clause (b) of sub-Section(1) and sub-Section(3) of Section 37 of Part I of Act, 1996 are not applicable to the terms of the agreement"

Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court Restrains Ex-Kidzee Franchisee From Using 'KIDGEE' Or Similar Mark Pending Arbitration

Case Title :   ZEE Learn Limited v. Beauty Singh

Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20863 of 2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 476

The Bombay High Court on 25 August restrained Beauty Singh, a former franchisee of ZEE Learn Limited, from using “KIDZEE”, “KIDGEE” or any deceptively or phonetically similar name for her school pending arbitration.

Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed ZEE Learn's petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which permits courts to grant interim measures in arbitration related disputes), holding that the trademark dispute arising from the parties' franchise agreement was capable of arbitration. He held:

“Therefore, only because the dispute concerns a trademark, it does not go outside the arbitration agreement. The Court has to see what is the actual right which is being enforced and from where that right arises.”

MSME Registration Does Not Automatically Override Existing Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited v. CRPL Infra Private Limited

Case Number :  Commercial Arbitration Application No. 377 of 2025

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 475

The Bombay High Court on 25 August held that registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) does not by itself override an agreed contractual arbitration mechanism, where the statutory process before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has not actually been invoked.

Justice Amit Borkar allowed Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Advocate Vikramjit Grewal as sole arbitrator in its Rs. 76.67 lakh dispute with CRPL Infra Private Limited. The Bench observed:

“Position cannot be understood to mean that registration as MSME removes every arbitration agreement contained in contract. Statutory conditions and factual position have to be considered. A statement that party intends to approach Facilitation Council is different from actual reference under Section 18(1). Statutory process cannot be treated as having commenced merely because one party expressed intention to invoke such remedy.”

Arbitrability Of Dispute To Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal, Not At Arbitrator Appointment Stage: Bombay High Court

Case Title :  Samraj Gold Exports Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case Number:   Arbitration Application (L) No. 12810 of 2026

Citation  : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 462

The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that whether an insurance dispute is ultimately arbitrable need not be decided while appointing an arbitrator, leaving that question for the arbitral tribunal to consider.

“A distinction has to be maintained between the final issue whether the dispute is arbitrable and the limited enquiry which this Court is required to undertake at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator,” Justice Amit Borkar observed.

The court accordingly appointed former Kerala High Court Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar as the sole arbitrator in the dispute between Samraj Gold Exports Private Limited and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Bombay High Court Refuses To Restore Terminated LPG Transport Contract Pending Arbitration

Case Title : P. Perumal Transports v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Connected Matters

Case Number : Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 22666, 22924, 23272, 23312, 23394, 23702 and 23005 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 460

The Bombay High Court has refused to order Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to resume LPG load allotments to tank-truck operators whose transport arrangements were terminated.

The court held that such a direction would effectively revive the terminated contractual relationship while the dispute is pending arbitration.

Justice Amit Borkar observed, “if prayer clause (b) is granted, result would be that contractual relationship which has been terminated would again get restored and Respondent would be required to continue performing contract during pendency of arbitration.”

Arbitrator Cannot Disregard Agreement To Treat WhatsApp Exchanges As Concluded Contract: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Sandeep Dixit v. Rekha Dixit & Ors.

Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33371 of 2024

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 450

The Bombay High Court has held that an arbitrator cannot disregard the terms of the contract under which a dispute was referred to arbitration and treat WhatsApp exchanges as a separate concluded agreement when that was never the pleaded case.

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh partly set aside an arbitral award in a family partnership dispute involving a husband, his wife, and other family members.

The court quashed the direction to pay 9% annual interest on a ₹5 crore loan, which the arbitrator had based on WhatsApp exchanges, while leaving the principal amount and the wife's retirement from the firm undisturbed.

“By considering the whatsapp message as concluded contract the Learned Arbitrator has foisted a new contract upon the parties, which was not even the pleaded case of the Respondent No 1. The arbitrator is the creature of the contract and was bound to consider the terms of the contract under which the dispute was referred to arbitration. The dispute was referred in context of the partnership agreement and the Learned Arbitrator has categorically held that it has not delved into the question of interpretation of the partnership agreement and amended Clause 23, which it was bound to do. It was not permissible for the Learned Arbitrator to ignore the terms of partnership deed when the reference arose from the partnership deed and create a new contract between the parties,” the court observed.

Company Cannot Deny Employee Equity By Relying On Its Own Failure To Frame ESOP Scheme: Bombay High Court

Case Title Waterfield Advisors Private Limited vs Sridhar Kurpad

Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2025

Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 449

The Bombay High Court has recently held that a company cannot rely on its own failure to frame an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) to deny an employee equity that was offered as part of his remuneration package.

Justice N.J. Jamadar made the observation while dismissing Waterfield Advisors Private Limited's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The company had challenged an arbitral award directing it to allot 31,878 equity shares to its former Director (Operations), Sridhar Kurpad. “On first principles, the Petitioner company cannot be permitted to take advantage of its failure to frame employee stock option scheme,” the court ruled.

“To allow the Petitioner to now take advantage of its omission to frame a scheme, when it had made an offer of equity as a part of its remuneration package to the employees would amount to putting a premium on its own wrong.”

Mere Filing Of Company Petition In NCLT Does Not Bar Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Shiv Keshrimal Agrawa vs Farma Hub Overseas Private Limited & Ors

Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.14011 OF 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 448

The Bombay High Court has recently held that the mere filing of a company petition before the National Company Law Tribunal does not bar a shareholder from seeking interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

This applies where the relief sought concerns rights arising from a Shareholders' Agreement containing an arbitration clause.

Justice Amit Borkar, while partly allowing a petition filed by a 33% shareholder and Director of Farma Hub Overseas Pvt Ltd, rejected the objection based on the pending NCLT proceedings.

The court observed, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents that mere filing of Company Petition before the National Company Law Tribunal creates a bar against the present proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The objection, therefore, deserves to be rejected.”

Bombay High Court Refuses EV Licensees Interim Relief In Arbitration Over Mumbai Airport Charging Stations

Case Title : Satyavan Vishnu Agate, Sole Proprietor of M/s Vision Enterprises v. Airports Authority of India & Connected Matters

Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 219 of 2025 with connected Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 10397, 5861, 5932 and 6073 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 453

The Bombay High Court has refused to allow three EV charging station licence holders to restart their projects on Airports Authority of India (AAI) land in Mumbai, holding that such relief could effectively restore performance under license agreements that AAI had sought to terminate.

Justice Amit Borkar observed that the interim reliefs sought under the Arbitration Act were mandatory in nature to a considerable extent and went beyond merely preserving the existing position.

“Petitioners do not merely seek preservation of existing position. They seek permission to restart work. They seek continuation of construction activities. They seek restoration of performance. Grant of such relief would change existing position instead of merely preserving it,” the court observed.

Bombay High Court Allows $200,733 Claim Against Victore Ships, Says Voluntary Absence Won't Bar Enforcement

Case Title : Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei v. Victore Ships Private Limited

Case Number:   Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 403 of 2025

Citation 2026 : LLBiz HC (BOM) 445

The Bombay High Court on 5 August held that a party cannot claim it was unable to present its case when it voluntarily chose not to participate in arbitration, and allowed enforcement of a USD 200,733.01 foreign arbitral award, along with interest and costs, in favour of Osterreichischer Llyod Seereederei against Victore Ships Private Limited.

A Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor held:

“Section 48(1)(b) is intended to protect a party who, for reasons beyond its control, was genuinely unable to present its case before the arbitral Tribunal. It is not meant to be used as a shield to resist enforcement by a party who has chosen not to appear before a Tribunal despite ample opportunity. In the present case, it is undisputed that the Respondent was duly served with notices of the arbitral proceedings and was repeatedly afforded opportunities to enter an appearance and file its Statement of Defence. The Respondent nevertheless chose not to do so. Such voluntary abstention can by no stretch of imagination be characterised as an inability to present one's case within the meaning of Section 48(1)(b). To accept such a contention would really be doing violence to the plain language of the provision.”

General Body Approval Not A Formality In Housing Society Redevelopment: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Rishabraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Heeramani Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Limited

Case Number  : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 19177 of 2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 441

The Bombay High Court has held that approval of a housing society's General Body cannot be treated as a mere formality in redevelopment, observing that members surrender possession of their existing homes and thereafter receive reconstructed flats.

“Redevelopment permanently affects rights of all members because they surrender possession of their existing premises and thereafter receive reconstructed flats. Therefore, approval of the General Body cannot be treated as formality,” Justice Amit Borkar observed.

The court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Rishabraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., which sought interim protection over its proposed redevelopment of Heeramani Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Limited's property in Goregaon (West), Mumbai.

Pre-2015 Arbitrator Appointment Void Only Without Contractual Authority Or Consent: Bombay High Court

Case Title : M/s. S. E. Investments Ltd. (now known as Paisalo Digital Limited) v. Star Bazaar Private Limited & Ors. (with connected matters)

Case Number :  Interim Application No. 2007 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 59 of 2016

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 436

The Bombay High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse enforcement of an arbitral award arising from proceedings initiated before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, unless the appointment lacked contractual authority and was made without the other party's consent.

Justice Jitendra Jain held that pre-23 October 2015 arbitral awards remain enforceable where the arbitration agreement named the arbitrator, identified the office-holder who would act as arbitrator, or authorised one party to appoint the arbitrator, unless the appointment was successfully challenged. He observed:

“Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 wherein the arbitration clause provides for a named arbitrator or by designation or authorising appointment of an arbitrator by one of the party will not be without jurisdiction and consequently, the proceedings arising therefrom would not be void ab initio except in cases, where there is no contractual clause in the agreement naming a particular arbitrator or conferring on one of the party the right to unilateral appointment of an arbitrator but the appointment is made by one of the party in the absence of consent of other party. In the latter case, it will be void.”

Public Infrastructure Nature Of Project No Bar To Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Arkawelle Infra Private Limited v. Carbon Minus Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 294 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 431

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the public infrastructure nature of a project does not, by itself, prevent courts from granting interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

It observed that courts must balance the parties' commercial rights while ensuring that public projects are not delayed.

"Merely because the project relates to public infrastructure, it does not take away the jurisdiction of this court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court is required to balance the competing interests of both sides. While ensuring that the public project is not delayed, the court must also see that rights of the parties are not defeated before the disputes are adjudicated by the learned Arbitral Tribunal," Justice Amit Borkar observed.

Appeals Against Award Satisfaction Orders Limited To Grounds U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Hiroo Hotchand Advani

Case Number : Commercial Appeal (L) No. 14725 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 43 of 2025, along with Commercial Appeal (L) No. 15441 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 44 of 2025

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 424

The Bombay High Court on 20 July held that orders recording satisfaction of arbitral awards can be challenged only if they fall within the categories specifically provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the commercial appeals filed by Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. against Hiroo Hotchand Advani, holding that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a complete appellate framework and parties cannot invoke the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to create a wider right of appeal. It observed:

“Thus, in our view, any attempt to draw an artificial semantic distinction between a 'Judgment' and an 'Order' under Section 13(1-A) of the Act of 2015, to bypass Section 37, would be a fundamentally erroneous approach in the wake of the limited scope of judicial intervention in the arbitration proceedings.”

Arbitral Tribunal Can Pass Interim Award Without Framing Issues Or Separate Plea: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Kekobad Dossabhoy Doongriwalla & Anr

Case Number :  Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 543 of 2025 with Interim Application (L) No. 23543 of 2023

Citation:  2026 LLBiz HC BOM 426

The Bombay High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal can pass an interim award at any stage of the proceedings on any matter it is empowered to finally decide, even if no formal issue has been framed or a separate application seeking such an award has been filed.

Justice N.J. Jamadar observed that the decisive question is whether the parties are in dispute over a matter that the arbitral tribunal is required to finally determine, and not whether a formal issue has been settled for adjudication.

“On a bare textual reading of Section 31(6), and the use of expressions 'at any time' and 'on any matter' which do not seem to limit the arbitral Tribunal's power to pass an interim award, save and except that such an award must relate to any matter with respect to which the Arbitral Tribunal may make a final arbitral award, the aforesaid submission premised on the determination of an issue that has been framed or arises for consideration, cannot be acceded to. The true test would be, whether the parties are at issue over a particular matter in respect of which the Arbitral Tribunal is called upon to make a final arbitral award? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the aspect as to whether an issue is settled for determination or not, pales in significance.”, the court ruled.

Punjab And Haryana High Court

Arbitral Award Can Be Executed Anywhere In India Where Decree Can Be Enforced: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title :  Union of India and others v. M/s Triveni Constructions

Case Number  : CWP-38566-2025 (O&M)

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 40

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ruled that an arbitral award can be executed before any court where the judgment debtor's assets are located and is not restricted to the place where the award was passed.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by the Union of India and others against Triveni Constructions, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri observed that once an arbitral award is made, the arbitrator's mandate comes to an end and the award is not the decree of any particular court.

Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad and Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd., the court observed:

"It is not the case where there are no assets of the petitioners located in Chandigarh and just because an award is passed in Patna (Bihar) would not mean that execution would also lie only at Patna because once the award is passed, the mandate of the arbitrator terminates and the award is not a decree of a particular Court and is only by way of a legal fiction. Hence, the award can be filed for execution before any Court anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed."

Calcutta High Court

Section 69 Partnership Act Does Not Bar Arbitration Without Dissolution Plea: Calcutta High Court

Case Title : Sandip Singla v. Jagdeb Chand Gupta

Case Number : AO-COM/38/2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 201

The Calcutta High Court on 20 August observed that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which restricts suits by unregistered partnership firms to enforce contractual rights, does not bar arbitration between partners merely because dissolution of the partnership has not been sought.

A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt set aside the arbitral award in the dispute between Sandip Singla and Jagdeb Chand Gupta, holding that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the scope of reference by creating a rotational management arrangement that gave each partner exclusive control of the partnership business for alternating periods, rendering the award contrary to public policy. It held:

“In our view, Section 69 of the Act of 1932, regulates the filing of suits by an unregistered partnership firm. It does not speak on the issue as sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent before us. One of the contentions of the respondent is that, since, the respondent did not pray for dissolution of the partnership firm, the arbitration proceeding itself is not maintainable and, therefore, the award passed in such arbitration proceedings needs to be set aside.”

Calcutta High Court Directs An Arbitral Tribunal To Record Chief Examination Of All Witnesses Before Cross-Examination

Case Title :  The Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd.

Case Number :  CO 1409 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 196

The Calcutta High Court has directed an arbitral tribunal to record the chief examination of all witnesses proposed by a claimant before beginning the cross-examination of any of them.

The court held that this was necessary to prevent a later witness from filling gaps in the evidence of an earlier witness and prejudicing the other side.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), setting aside a procedural order passed by the sole arbitrator in a dispute between the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd., observed:

“Witness action should therefore take place by taking on record the chief of all witnesses before their respective cross examination takes place to prevent miscarriage of justice.”

Certified Copy Without Arbitrators' Signatures Is Not a 'Signed Copy' Under Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

Case Title : CE Testing Company Private Limited v. Madhucon Projects Limited and Another

Case Number :  EC-COM 72 of 2025 with IA No. GA-COM 1 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 186

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a certified copy of an arbitral award carrying only a third-party certification that the original was signed, without reproducing the arbitrators' signatures, does not amount to delivery of a "signed copy" under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Without such delivery, the limitation period for challenging the award under Section 34 does not begin, making an execution petition for its enforcement premature.

A single bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that Section 31(5) requires parties to receive a copy that itself bears the arbitrators' signatures so they can verify that the award validly emanates from the arbitral tribunal.

"A certificate by a third party, however authorised, that an unseen original was signed cannot be equated with a copy that itself bears the signatures, since the very object of Section31(5), as explained in Tecco Trichy Engineers (supra), is to permit eachparty to satisfy itself, from the document delivered to it, that the award emanates validly from the Tribunal”, the court ruled.

Delhi High Court

Reasonable Time To Appoint Arbitrator Cannot Be Decided By Counting Days After Notice: Delhi High Court

Case Title : Sugat Jain v. Amit Jain & Anr. (with connected matter)

Case Number :  ARB.P. 1461/2026 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 298/2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 889

The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a party's reasonable time to appoint an arbitrator cannot be assessed merely by counting the days after a formal arbitration notice, and that courts must also consider earlier litigation, failed mediation and attempts to agree on an arbitrator.

Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected a prematurity objection in a family partnership dispute and appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice (Retd.) Ravindra Bhat as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Sugat Jain, Amit Jain and another family member concerning Aero Enterprises. The Bench observed:

“In view of this court, what constitutes a reasonable time must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be determined by mechanically counting the number of days elapsed after the formal notice under Section 21 is sent. Where the parties had already been engaged in disputes, court proceedings, mediation and discussion concerning appointment of an Arbitrator, those circumstances must legitimately be taken into account while considering whether the agreed appointment procedure has failed.”

Delhi HC Sets Aside Single Judge's Arbitrator Appointment In International Arbitration, Says SC Has Power

Case Title  : August Purple Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Axis Trustee Services Limited & Ors.

Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 224/2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 891

On 20 August, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a Single Judge's order appointing a retired Supreme Court judge as sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between August Purple Services Private Limited, Axis Trustee Services Limited and other parties, after both sides agreed that the arbitration was an international commercial arbitration.

Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar observed that an arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration where one of the parties is based outside India. Therefore, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator, as such power rests with the Supreme Court. They stated:

“The contention that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration is predicated on the fact that one of the parties to the arbitral proceedings, viz. Ace Turtle Global Pte Ltd, is based in Singapore. We find this to be correct. In any case, on the fact that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration, learned Counsel are, as we have already noted, ad idem.”

“That being so, this Court could not have appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute.”

Delhi High Court Says Writ Courts Should Not Pre-empt MSMED Arbitration, Dismisses BSNL Plea

Case Title General Manager Telecom District Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Others

Case Number W.P.(C) 12298/2026

Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 888

On 26 August, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by the General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), challenging the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council's (MSEFC) reference of a dispute to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the consequential arbitration proceedings.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that writ courts should not pre-emptively interfere with arbitration proceedings under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) merely because a party challenges the maintainability of a claim or the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, when such objections can be raised before the tribunal itself. She observed:

“The aforesaid objections essentially relate to the maintainability of the claim and the jurisdiction of the forum constituted under the MSMED Act. However, merely because an objection relates to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, the same would not, by itself, justify exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, particularly when such objection can be raised before and considered by the learned Arbitral Tribunal under the statutory scheme governing arbitration.”

Closure of Interim Pleas for Non-Payment of Arbitral Fees Not Appealable: Delhi High Court

Case Title : Orbit In-Te-Rio v. American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number :  ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 868

The Delhi High Court on 18 August held that an arbitral tribunal's order closing a party's interim relief applications and counterclaim for non-payment of arbitral fees is procedural and does not amount to an order granting or refusing interim relief appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed as non-maintainable the appeal filed by Orbit In-Te-Rio against American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd., while granting the former liberty to seek recall of the closure order before the arbitral tribunal. The Bench observed:

“It is clear from the above that the impugned order is procedural in nature and consequently, appropriate remedy was to seek re-call of the impugned order since, the impugned direction does not fall within the express language of Section 37(2)(b), which permits an appeal from an order 'granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under Section 17'.”

No Basis To Retain Bank Guarantees After Arbitral Award Is Settled: Delhi High Court

Case Title Union of India v. M/s ANS Construction Ltd.

Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 373/2019 & I.A. 12632/2019; O.M.P. (COMM) 377/2019 & I.A. 12702/2019

Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 851

The Delhi High Court has held that once an arbitral award resolving the main contractual dispute is settled between the parties and the settlement amount is paid, there is no basis for retaining or seeking to invoke performance bank guarantees, security deposits, or fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) furnished under the contract.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “If that be so, then once the main claims in respect of the dispute arising out of the contract between the parties is adjudicated and subsequently the arbitral award is settled between parties, there is no reason as to why and on what basis the performance bank guarantees, security deposits, FDRs in respect thereto, can be retained or sought to be invoked by the petitioner.”

The court made the observation while dismissing two petitions filed by the Union of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an April 5, 2019, arbitral award in favour of ANS Construction Ltd.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award After Tribunal Relied On Pre-Contract Notes To Alter Contract Terms

Case Title : Transtonnelstroy Afcons JV Chennai Metro Limited v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Case Number :  O.M.P. (COMM) 193/2022

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 848

The Delhi High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award after finding that the majority tribunal had relied on pre-contract cover notes and discussions to alter the terms of an executed insurance policy.

Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the tribunal could not travel beyond the policy and insert terms that were not part of the executed contract.

The court observed, “The majority members of the Tribunal acceded their jurisdiction by travelling beyond the executed policy to insert words based on a precontract cover notes. An Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of the contract and cannot rewrite explicit contractual provisions."

Delhi HC Upholds Ratnagiri Gas Award, Says Patent Illegality Unavailable In International Arbitration

Case Title : Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Dinowic Pte Ltd.

Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 534/2019 & I.A. 18412/2019, I.A. 18414/2019

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 842

The Delhi High Court on 17 August dismissed Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited's challenge to an arbitral award directing it to refund USD 714,760.74 with 6% simple interest to Singapore-based Dinowic Pte Ltd. in a dispute concerning the sale and lifting of Naphtha from Dabhol, Maharashtra.

A Bench comprising Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is narrower in an international commercial arbitration, and that a challenge to an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of contractual terms cannot be raised on the ground of “patent illegality”. She observed:

“The ground of 'patent illegality' in Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, cannot be sustained in case of International Commercial Arbitration. Further, any challenge to an award in respect of construction of terms of a contract by an Arbitral Tribunal falls under 'patent illegality', and is no longer available as a ground of challenge of an award arising out of an International Commercial Arbitration.”

Employee Of Disputing Party Cannot Appoint Arbitrator After 2015 Amendment To Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title:  Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Fitwell Constructions

Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 292/2023

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 840

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that an employee of a party to a dispute cannot appoint an arbitrator on its behalf under amended Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 12(5) makes persons having certain relationships with a party or the dispute ineligible to act as arbitrators. The restriction can be waived only through an express written agreement between the parties after the dispute has arisen.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India and Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) on the ineligibility of arbitrators and equal participation in the appointment process.

Relying on these principles, Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed, "After amendment of Section 12(5) of the Act an employee of a party in dispute can neither be appointed arbitrator nor can nominate or appoint any other person as an arbitrator. The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing between the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio. The filing of the statement of claim or participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be construed as waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act."

Delhi High Court Upholds ₹46.92 Lakh Bajaj Electricals Arbitral Award Against ITDC

Case Title : India Tourism Development Corporation v. M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd.

Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 404/2019 & I.A. No. 13516/2019

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 841

The Delhi High Court on 17 August upheld the arbitral award directing India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) to pay Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Rs. 46.92 lakh along with pre-award, pendente lite and future interest, finding that the arbitrator had based the findings on the evidence and contractual terms on record.

Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that courts cannot interfere with an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of a contract under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely because another interpretation is possible. She observed:

“If the Contract and the liabilities therein have been interpreted by the learned Arbitrator in a certain way, then the same would not be re-examined by this Court, in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Considering the narrow scope of judicial interference in a petition under Section 34, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Arbitrator."

Delhi High Court Says Consent Awards Open To Challenge, Upholds Award In BDR Builders Dispute

Case Title  : Lalit Modi v. BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited

Case Number : O.M.P. 7/2017 & EX.P. 69/2017

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 855

The Delhi High Court on 18 August dismissed a property owner's challenge to a consent arbitral award directing specific performance of an agreement to sell his Vasant Vihar property in favour of BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, however, held that a consent arbitral award, though subject to a narrower scope of interference, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to examine whether the settlement was lawful, whether consent was vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue influence, or whether any other statutory ground for setting aside the award was made out. The Bench observed:

“While the scope of interference with an award on agreed terms is undoubtedly narrower than that applicable to an adjudicatory award, there is no statutory embargo under the A&C Act against maintaining a petition under Section 34 merely because the award is a consent award. The distinction lies not in the maintainability of the challenge but in the limited nature of the scrutiny to be undertaken.”

Common Arbitrators Must Explain Contradictory Views In Related Disputes: Delhi High Court

Case Title : Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India

Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 132/2024 & FAO(OS) (COMM) 136/2024

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 835

The Delhi High Court has held that, in peculiar circumstances involving common arbitrators and identical contractual provisions, an unexplained departure from an earlier view in a related dispute can justify interference with an arbitral award.

“The common members of the Arbitral Tribunal are obliged to justify the different view being taken by them in the subsequently passed impugned Award.”, the bench ruled.

A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the observation while upholding the setting aside of an award in a dispute between Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

“Consistency, certainty and predictability are recognized as the hallmarks of a sound justice delivery system. The intent which ordinarily parties have while selecting common members of Tribunals for adjudicating disputes arising between the same parties, in related disputes, is to ensure that parties receive consistent decisions from the arbitral tribunal.”, the court observed.

'Classic Case Of Misuse': Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On DMRC For Misusing Award-Correction Process

Case Title : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. HCC Samsung JV

Case Number:  FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2025, CM APPL. 25351/2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 836

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that it was difficult to believe that an organisation such as the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) did not know the fundamentals of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court called DMRC's application seeking correction of the arbitral award a “classic case of misuse of Section 33”. It observed that the application may have been intended to obtain “breathing space” to challenge the substantive award.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla also imposed ₹5 lakh in costs on DMRC for misusing Section 33.

The amount has to be paid to HCC Samsung JV within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment.

“It is not possible for us to believe that an organization such as the appellant did not know the fundamentals of Section 33 and what is permitted thereunder. This, therefore, is a classic case of misuse of Section 33, perhaps with a view to obtain breathing space to launch the challenge to the substantive award,” the bench observed.

Delhi High Court Orders Omaxe To Refund ₹3.35 Crore After Developer Stopped Assured Returns

Case Title :  Omaxe Ltd. v. Mr. Joginder Singh Nijjar & Anr.

Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 236/2023 & CM APPL. 55402/2023

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 834

The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Omaxe Ltd. to refund ₹3.35 crore to two co-allottees of a commercial unit in Omaxe Novelty Mall at Lawrence Road, Amritsar.

A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also upheld the interest awarded by the tribunal and ₹25 lakh in costs. It further imposed ₹2 lakh in costs on Omaxe, payable equally to the two co-allottees within two weeks.

The court ruled that Omaxe could not compel the co-allottees to continue with the allotment after it had stopped paying the assured monthly returns. “Having itself discontinued payment of the assured returns, the Appellant forfeited any right to compel the Respondents to continue with the allotment and accept possession,” the court observed.

Delhi High Court Upholds Award Setting Aside ₹8.55 Crore DoT Demand Against Sterlite Technologies

Case Title :  Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Govt. of India v. Sterlite Technologies Limited

Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 395/2023

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 817

The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award in favour of Sterlite Technologies Limited, rejecting the Union government's challenge to an award that had set aside a ₹8.55 crore demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).

Justice Avneesh Jhingan ruled that the arbitrator's finding that Sterlite provided only passive telecom infrastructure, rather than unlicensed end-to-end bandwidth services.

This, according to the court, was a plausible view that did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

“The view taken by the arbitrator is plausible and suffers from no legal or factual error, much less perversity, and no interference is called for,” the court observed.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹6.35 Crore Award Over Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment By Defence Ministry

Case Title : Union of India v. Goodrich Foodtech Ltd.

Case Number:   O.M.P. (COMM) 375/2022 & connected applications

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 799

The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹6.35 crore arbitral award in favour of Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. in a dispute with the Ministry of Defence over contracts for supplying malted milk food with cocoa.

Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the Union through its Competent Financial Authority was invalid under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court found that the authority was part of the Ministry of Defence and an official of the Union of India, which was itself a party to the dispute.

The court observed, “the arbitrator shall be appointed by the Competent Financial Authority, who is a part of the Ministry of Defence, and thus, an official of the Petitioner/Union of India, who is a party to the dispute herein and as such, not qualified to appoint an arbitrator.”

Delhi High Court Upholds ₹9.92 Lakh Award Against Vantage, Rejects Recovery Of RBI Penalties From Supplier

Case Title : Vantage Integrated Securities Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Spark Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : FAO (COMM) 203/2026 and CM APPL. 47883/2026

Citation:  2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 792

The Delhi High Court on 5 August upheld an award directing Vantage Integrated Securities Solution Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 9.92 lakh to Spark Technologies Pvt. Ltd., holding that the former's unilateral notice stating that it would recover any liquidated damages imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) from the latter did not create a binding contractual obligation.

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain noted that liquidated damages imposed by a party's client under a separate contract cannot be recovered from a supplier unless the supplier had expressly accepted such liability under their own agreement. It observed:

“The said communication merely conveyed the Appellant's apprehension that liquidated damages might be imposed by the RBI and its intention to recover the same from the Respondent. Such communication neither formed part of the Purchase Order nor constituted a contractual stipulation governing the rights and liabilities of the parties. More importantly, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondent accepted the said stipulation or that the parties mutually agreed to modify the contractual terms.”

Delhi High Court Says Final Relief Can Be Granted At Interim Stage If Strong Prima Facie Case Exists

Case Title : Asian Hotels North Limited v. Exclusive Capital Limited & Ors.

Case Number : CS(COMM) 376/2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 796

The Delhi High Court has granted Asian Hotels North Limited what was effectively the final relief sought in a dispute over loan security documents by directing DBS Bank India Limited to release the original title deeds and other security documents of the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

The relief was made conditional on Asian Hotels depositing Exclusive Capital Limited's entire disputed claim of ₹159.66 crore with the court, thereby securing its monetary claim pending adjudication.

Exempting Asian Hotels from mandatory pre-institution mediation in view of the urgency arising from its ₹300 crore financing, the Court held that interim relief may, in exceptional cases, amount to granting the final relief itself.

Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, "Under certain circumstances the court may grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. The law in this regard is well settled that where very strong prima facie case is shown to exist, besides the balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of the case totally in favour of the applicant, such a relief can be granted. The court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice."

Delhi High Court Holds NITI Aayog Payments Cannot Alter Award Rules, Directs NHPC To Pay HCC ₹16.39 Cr.

Case Title:  Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd.

Case Number : EX.APPL.(OS) 1025/2024 in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 87/2018

Citation:   2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 780

The Delhi High Court on 28 July held that interim payments released under NITI Aayog's relief scheme for construction contractors during the pendency of challenges to arbitral awards cannot alter the legal method of adjusting payments once the award attains finality.

Justice Subramonium Prasad directed National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) to pay Rs. 16.39 crore to Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (HCC) after adjusting the amounts already paid under the scheme, holding that such payments could not be treated as an agreement between the parties to depart from the law governing adjustment of award amounts. He observed:

“Once the Award has attained finality then the amount under the Award has to be paid in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Leela Hotels Ltd. (supra) in execution proceedings after adjusting the amounts already received under the OMs. It cannot be said that any correspondence made regarding OMs issued by NITI Aayog would result in any agreement to the contrary as alleged by the Judgment Debtor.”

Delhi High Court Holds Future O&M Claims Beyond Scope, Partly Quashes Louis Berger-COWI JV Award

Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. The Louis Berger Group Inc. JV with M/s COWI A/S

Case Number:  O.M.P. (COMM) 351/2023 and I.A. 17160/2023

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 779

The Delhi High Court on Monday, 3 August, held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award operation and maintenance charges for services that had not fallen due on the date of the award.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan partly allowed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)'s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and partly set aside an award granting Rs. 5.16 crore and USD 60,769 with interest to The Louis Berger Group Inc.-COWI A/S joint venture. He held:

“Relief cannot be granted on an apprehension and for services yet to be rendered for which no amount was due on the date of passing of the award. The award to that extent travels beyond the scope of submission to arbitration and falls within the ambit of Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.”

Deposit Made To Stay Arbitral Award Is Security, Not Payment To Award-Holder: Delhi High Court

Case Title : McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. Metso India Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number:  O.M.P. (COMM) 362/2018

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 777

The Delhi High Court has held that depositing money in court as a condition for staying an arbitral award does not alter ownership of the amount.

It ruled that such a deposit remains only a form of security and creates no unconditional right in favour of the decree holder.

A single bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the decree holder acquires no vested right over the money merely because it has been deposited in court.

"There is no vested right created in favour of the decree holder for unconditional receipt of the amount deposited in the court. The deposit continues to remain in the form of security," the court ruled. 

Allahabad High Court

Arbitration Act Sec. 11(6) Is Default Provision, Can't Override Agreed 3-Member Tribunal: Allahabad HC

Case Title :  M/S S. H. Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. M.D. Mrs. Rabia Khatoon v. Govt. Of U.P. Thru. Chief Engineer, National Highways And Ors.

Case Number :  CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 56 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 68

The Allahabad High Court on 20 August held that Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a default provision that can be invoked only when parties are unable to secure the appointment of an arbitrator through the procedure agreed upon in their contract, and cannot be used to replace an agreed three-member tribunal with a sole arbitrator.

Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed S. H. Infratech Pvt. Ltd's petition seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, holding that where a party fails to nominate an arbitrator to fill a vacancy, the remedy lies under Section 11(4), while any failure by the tribunal to conclude proceedings within the prescribed time must be addressed through an application for extension under Section 29-A. The Bench held:

“Section 11(6) is a default clause and only when the parties are unable to get an Arbitrator appointed in terms of the settled and agreed rules, can the default clause come into picture. It does not give any independent right to the court in terms of Section 11 to override the terms of the contract to appoint an Arbitrator.”

Arbitrators Can Decide Contractual Tax Disputes, Not Statutory Tax Issues: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : U.P. Public Works Department, through Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Lucknow v. M/s Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 35 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 61

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that tax disputes between contracting parties, where a party must bear or reimburse a tax, may be resolved through arbitration. However, questions involving statutory tax rates, classification, assessment or quantification remain within the exclusive domain of tax authorities.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh partly set aside the GST-related portions of an arbitral award granting over ₹11.35 crore to a road contractor while preserving the finding that the contract was an item-rate contract and the award of ₹66,500 towards the Department's share of the dispute review expert's fee.

The court held that the arbitrator wrongly applied a Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Standard Operating Procedure concerning GST impact on EPC contracts to an item-rate contract, without any contractual provision or evidence making it applicable.

Explaining the limits of an arbitrator's jurisdiction over tax-related disputes, the bench observed:

“The Arbitrator is a creature of contract and its jurisdiction to decide the dispute may be co-extensive with the contract but if it requires any determination relating to tax rates or classification of goods under any particular entry of the taxing statute or the quantum of any tax liability or the adjudication requires referencing to any Executive Tax Notification and Statutory Tax Rates Schedules, then such disputes even though arising out of a contract ceases to be contractual in nature and it metamorphosis into a fiscal regulatory issue. Such issues are governed by the taxing statute which are a complete code in themselves and cannot be subjected to determination by a private forum such as an Arbitral Tribunal.”

State Gets No Special Leeway In Delay Condonation Under Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Thru. Divisional Railway Manager/Engineer, and 5 Others v. Gallant Ispat Ltd. Thru. General Manager Navneet Jindal

Case Number : APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 25 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 60

The Allahabad High Court on 30 July held that government bodies are not entitled to any special concession under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the State and private parties are subject to the same standard for proving “sufficient cause.”

A Division Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary dismissed an appeal filed by the railway authorities against the Commercial Court's refusal to condone a 28 day delay in filing objections to an arbitral award. The judges held:

“Different yard-sticks cannot be employed for a government entity and a private body for deciding an application for condonation of delay. The law of limitation applies in equal force to both the litigating parties. Whether it is a government body or a private, the parties have to show existence of 'sufficient cause' in their favour, before the discretionary power of the court could be triggered for condoning the delay. The said understanding of this court gathers specific significance in the wake of section 18 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, which mandates for equal treatment of the parties.”

Kerala High Court

Executing Court Cannot Reject Award Where Parties Mutually Nominated Arbitrator: Kerala High Court

Case Title : M/s Hedge Finance Limited v. Sangeetha A.V

Case Number :  OP(C) No. 2206 of 2026

Citation:  2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 174

The Kerala High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the ground of unilateral appointment of the arbitrator when the parties themselves had mutually nominated the arbitrator in their agreement.

Justice Easwaran set aside an order of the Additional District Court, Kozhikode, which had dismissed an execution petition filed by Hedge Finance Limited to enforce an arbitral award for Rs. 3.47 lakh with 18% interest against Sangeetha A.V. The Bench held:

“In the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the opposite party, if aggrieved by the award, has to apply for setting aside the same by filing an application under Section 34 of the Act. If the party has not moved any application for setting aside the award, the enquiry under Section 47 of the CPC cannot be enlarged to such an extent, so as to obliterate the award itself unless the award is found to be a nullity.”

Kerala High Court Limits Section 11 Arbitration Act Inquiry To Agreement, Refers NCLT Issues To Tribunal

Case Title : Avira Tharakan v. Cyriac Njavally

Case Number:  AR No. 60 of 2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 166

The Kerala High Court on 14 August held that questions concerning pending proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and limitation must be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal at the stage of arbitration, observing that a Court's enquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is primarily confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement.

Justice S. Manu allowed an arbitration request arising from a dispute over 117 equity shares in Tharakan Web Innovations Private Limited and directed the Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre to nominate a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. He held:

“Section 11(6A) mandates that the referral court shall confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.”

Can An Arbitrator Appoint An Advocate Commissioner To Collect Evidence? Kerala High Court Says No

Case Title : DLF Southern Towns Pvt Ltd v. Aditya Deo and Anr

Case Number : OP(C) No. 815 of 2026

Citation:   2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 155

The Kerala High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal cannot appoint an Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence by invoking its power to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice Easwaran S observed that Section 17 cannot be used to circumvent the limits imposed by Sections 26 and 27 of the Act. "Merely because Section 17 provides power to the arbitrator to grant interim relief, he cannot bypass the prohibition under Section 26 and grant such relief in exercise of the power under Section 17. Thus, the power under Section 17 of the Act to grant interim relief is subject to the exceptions specified under Section 26. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the arbitrator does not have any power to appoint an advocate commissioner except to appoint person(s) to solicit expert opinion," the court observed.

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court 

Arbitrator Can Award Escalation For Employer-Caused Delay Without Contractual Clause: J&K High Court

Case Title : J&K Lakes & Waterways Development Authority & Ors. v. Mohammad Amin Shah

Case Number : A. A. No. 9900001/2014

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 28

On 29 August, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an Arbitrator can award escalation for delay attributable to the employer even when the contract does not contain a 'Price Escalation Clause'.

Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 21.19 lakh in favour of a contractor, finding that the Arbitrator had based the escalation award on the Department's default in supplying construction material and supported the finding with evidence. The Bench held:

“The absence of a Price Escalation Clause does not, on the Arbitrator's reasoning, bar revision where delay is attributable to the employer.”

J&K And Ladakh High Court Holds SIDCO MD Ineligible To Act As Arbitrator In Contract Dispute With UT

Case Title : M/s Abraq Infrastructures LLP v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Case Number : Arb P 11/2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 26

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on 21 August held that the Managing Director of J&K State Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO) was ineligible to act as an arbitrator in a dispute between Abraq Infrastructures LLP and the Union Territory, as he was an employee of one of the respondents.

Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar allowed Abraq Infrastructures LLP's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed a Retired District and Sessions Judge as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties. He observed:

“The Managing Director, SIDCO being an employee of respondent No. 1, and thus a person having an interest in the outcome of the dispute, is rendered ineligible, by operation of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act.”

J&K And Ladakh HC Holds Past Arbitration No Bar In Refund Claim, Directs SKUAST-J To Release Deposit

Case Title : M/S Construction Engineer v. Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Jammu & Ors.

Case Number : WP (C) No. 168/2023

Citation:  2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 24

On 3 August, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a contractor's claim for refund of earnest money and performance security cannot be rejected merely because it was not raised in earlier arbitration proceedings over delayed payments.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar directed Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Jammu to refund Rs. 29 lakh deposited by Construction Engineer for a boys' hostel project and held that the refund claim was not barred merely because it was not raised in earlier arbitration proceedings. He observed:

“Once the contract had been fully performed and the respondents had accepted the completion of the work without alleging any breach or deficiency, the petitioner's reference to arbitration was confined solely to his claim for interest on delayed payment of the admitted contractual dues. The petitioner had no occasion to seek refund of the earnest money and performance security before the Arbitrator, particularly when the respondents themselves had consistently maintained that no dispute existed which was capable of being referred to arbitration. Having adopted such a stand, the respondents cannot now be permitted to contend that the petitioner ought to have included the relief of refund of the security deposits in the arbitral proceedings.”

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh HC Reiterates Three-Year Limitation Law Cannot Bar Landowner's Claim Under NH Act

Case Title : Shri Jankiraman Maharaj v. National Highway Authority of India and Others

Case Number :  Arbitration Appeal No. 40 of 2022

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 60

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 10 August set aside an order upholding an arbitral award that had rejected a landowner's claim for enhancement of compensation for land acquired for widening National Highway No. 12.

Justice Deepak Khot reiterated that the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to statutory arbitration proceedings under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and that the Arbitrator must adopt a justice-oriented approach while considering claims for enhancement of compensation. The Bench observed:

“In view of the aforesaid legal position, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Arbitrator was not justified in applying Article 137 of the Act of 1963 and dismissing the appellant's application solely on the ground of delay and laches without examining the claim for enhancement of compensation on its merits. The learned Civil/Commercial Court has also failed to consider the aforesaid legal position while affirming the order of the Arbitrator.”

Foreign Award Can Be Enforced And Executed By High Court In A Single Proceeding: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title: Moshers v. Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 56 of 2024

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 61

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21 August held that a foreign arbitral award can be enforced and executed by the High Court in the same proceeding without requiring a separate execution case before a subordinate court.

Justice Vinay Saraf rejected the oral objections raised by Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd. to execution of the foreign award obtained by Moshers, holding that once a foreign award is declared enforceable under Sections 47 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it becomes a deemed decree of the High Court under Section 49 and can be executed by the High Court itself. The Bench observed:

“As the definition of 'Court' in explanation to Section 47 provides that the High Court will be the competent Court for deciding the enforceability, the award is required to be executed by the High Court as the decree passed by the High Court. Therefore, the oral objections raised by the respondent are not tenable and are hereby rejected.”

Two Arbitration Places Can Both Be Seats If Parties Do Not Choose One: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title:  Idieal Multi Media Network Private Limited vs. CMYK Printech Limited

Case Number :Arbitration Case No. 32 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 59

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 July held that where an arbitration agreement specifies two alternative places as the “place of arbitration” and the parties do not subsequently choose one, both places can operate as juridical seats of arbitration.

Justice Vivek Jain accordingly referred the dispute between Idieal Multi Media Network Private Limited and newspaper publisher CMYK Printech Limited to arbitration and appointed former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Sujoy Paul as the sole arbitrator. He observed:

“In the present case, so far as the dual places of arbitration are concerned, the MOU does indicate that courts at Bhopal or New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction and the place shall be Delhi or Bhopal, or as decided by the parties. No different decision has been taken by the parties and therefore, the position remains that now the seat of arbitration is Delhi or Bhopal and the High Courts exercising jurisdiction over Delhi as well as over Madhya Pradesh would therefore have jurisdiction to entertain this application under Section 11(6).”

Madras High Court 

Emden Formula For Calculating Construction Contract Damages Can't Apply To Dealership Agreements: Madras High Court

Case Title : M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. M/s St. Antonys Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : O.S.A. No. 38 of 2021

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 212

The Madras High Court has recently held that the Emden formula, developed to quantify damages in construction contracts, cannot ordinarily be used to assess compensation in disputes arising from automobile dealership agreements.

A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed that the formula is rooted in the unique features of construction contracts and cannot be mechanically extended to commercial distribution arrangements.

"A dealership agreement is a commercial distribution contract and not a construction contract. Damages under a dealership agreement must be proved under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, on the basis of actual evidence, such as loss of profits, commission, business opportunities or investments, and cannot ordinarily be assessed through the Emden formula," the court ruled.

Court Holds Court Fee Cannot Be Retained For Non-Maintainable Appeal: Madras High Court

Case Title  : J. Murugavel v. Pichai

Case Number : Arb Appeal (MD) No. 63 of 2026

Citation:  2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 243

The Madras High Court on 6 August held that court fee paid for an appeal that is not maintainable cannot be retained by the State, as such collection would be without the authority of law and result in unjust enrichment.

A Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K.K. Ramakrishnan refused to entertain J. Murugavel's appeal against Pichai, Proprietor of Vel Murugan Traders, filed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a final arbitral award. It held:

“When an arbitration appeal against a final award will not lie before the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act, the acceptance of court-fee paid therefor is without the authority of law. This is one more reason for ordering refund. If refund is not ordered, there would be unjust enrichment for the State.”

MSME Council Must Follow Mandatory Arbitration Process Before Passing Award: Madras High Court

Case Title : M/s. 3F Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Mahalakshmi Trading Corporation

Case Number : CRP No. 6542 of 2025 and CMP No. 32321 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 241

On 19 August, the Madras High Court held that an award passed by the Chennai Region Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council without initiating arbitration as required under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) cannot be sustained.

Justice P.B. Balaji set aside the Rs. 33.40 lakh award passed in favour of Mahalakshmi Trading Corporation against 3F Industries Ltd., holding that the Council had proceeded straight to an “Award” without following the mandatory arbitration procedure under Section 18(3). The Bench observed:

“it is clear that there has been no initiation of arbitration proceedings as required under Section 18(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, the impugned order, without adhering to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, commencing from a reference to arbitration and thereafter, calling upon the parties to file their claim and defence statements and further contemplating an enquiry/trial before passing an Award has admittedly not been done in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 self styled as an Award has no legs to stand and is liable to be set aside.”

Madras High Court Reduces Vedanta's Pre-Arbitration Interest From 14% To 9% In Masyc Projects Dispute

Case Title : Vedanta Limited v. Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : OSA No. 315 of 2019

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 226

The Madras High Court on 31 July partly allowed Vedanta Limited's appeal arising from its dispute over the design, manufacture, supply and commissioning of a conveyor system for a copper concentrate warehouse at Tuticorin, while substantially upholding the arbitral award in favour of Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd.

A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that interest awarded for the pre-arbitration and pendente lite periods must be commensurate with the prevailing rate of interest and economic conditions during the relevant period, and reduced the rate in the present case from 14% to 9% per annum. The judges held:

“The learned Single Judge considering the prime lending / base rate of the State Bank of India form 27.06.2009 to date of Award (8.3.2016) as a reasonable bench mark for a business commercial transaction revised the rate of interest from 24% per annum to 14% per annum during the pre reference period and the pendente lite period. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the interest must commensurate with the prevalent rate of interest for the relevant period. No reason was stated by the learned Single Judge that the interest rate at 14% reflects the prevailing economic conditions. Admittedly the legal notice was issued in the year 2009 and the pleadings were submitted in the year 2013 and the award was passed in the year 2016. Hence, we are of the view that the interest awarded by the learned Single Judge at 14% for the pre arbitration period and for the pendente lite period be reduced to 9% per annum.”

Tripura High Court

Employee Named Arbitrator Pre-2015 Ineligible If Arbitration Had Not Yet Commenced: Tripura High Court

Case Title : Sri Kashinath Bhattacharjee v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) & Anr.

Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 09 of 2026

Citation:  2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 6

On 10 August, the Tripura High Court held that an employee or officer named as an arbitrator in an agreement executed before 23 October 2015 becomes ineligible to act as arbitrator if arbitration had not commenced before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao allowed Kashinath Bhattacharjee's arbitration petition in a dispute under a Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) tender agreement and rejected BSNL's attempt to appoint its General Manager as the sole arbitrator, instead appointing retired Tripura Judicial Service officer Swapan Bhattacharjee as arbitrator. The Bench observed:

“A plain reading of this provision of law indicates that even in respect of an agreement entered into before 23.10.2015 (which provided that an employee or officer or one of the parties will be the Arbitrator), if no arbitrator had been appointed prior to 23.10.2015 in relation to a dispute between the parties to the arbitration agreement, then notwithstanding such prior agreement to the contrary, such officer or employee or one of the parties (who would fall under the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule), would be ineligible to be appointed as an Arbitrator after 23.10.2015.”

Chhattisgarh High Court

Officers Representing Union Of India Cannot Independently Challenge Award: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title : General Manager/South East Central Railway & Anr. v. ARSS SIP (JV) & Ors.

Case Number : ARBA No. 66 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 22

The Chhattisgarh High Court on 10 August held that officers or representatives appearing for the Union of India in arbitral proceedings cannot independently challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely because they represented the Union during the proceedings.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed an appeal filed by officers of the South East Central Railway, holding that where an arbitral award operates against the Union of India, only the Union can invoke Section 34 to seek its setting aside and its officers cannot exercise that right independently. The judges held:

“Representation of a party and being a party are two distinct concepts. An authorized officer, counsel, representative or functionary appearing on behalf of a party does not thereby become a separate party. The rights available under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 belong to the party contemplated by the Act of 1996 and cannot be independently exercised by the officer merely because he represented or acted for that party during the arbitral proceedings.”

Patna High Court

CPC Applies To Court Proceedings Arising From Arbitration Unless Excluded: Patna High Court

Case Title :  The Bihar State Warehousing Corporation & Anr. v. M/s Pushpheera Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number :  Commercial Appeal No. 15 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 21

The Patna High Court on 6 August held that while the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not bind arbitral tribunals, it applies to court proceedings arising from an arbitral award unless expressly excluded.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya set aside a Commercial Court order dismissing the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation's challenge to a Rs. 5.99 crore arbitral award after it cured a Rs. 245 court fee deficit 62 days beyond the statutory outer limit. The judges held:

“Section 19 of the Act of 1996 only provides that the arbitral tribunal shall not be bound of CPC. It only excludes the applicability of CPC before the arbitral tribunal and not the proceedings before the court arising out of the arbitral award.”

Telangana High Court

No Intra-Court Appeal Against Arbitration Execution Orders Not Otherwise Appealable: Telangana High Court

Case Title : Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited v. Tecnimont S.P.A. and Others

Case Number:   Original Side Appeal Nos. 2 of 2025 and 1 of 2026

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 61

The Telangana High Court has held that two orders passed in execution proceedings relating to an international commercial arbitration award could not be challenged through a Letters Patent appeal as they were not appealable under the statutory provisions governing such appeals.

The Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed:

“The Act, 1996, is a self-contained code which governs all matters pertaining to arbitration, including the right to file appeals. It is trite law that a self-contained code is a special enactment. Such special enactment prevails over general enactments.”

Telangana High Court Allows Retired Partner To Invoke Arbitration Clause In Reconstitution Of Partnership Deed

Case Title : Kambhampati Venkata Rama Krishna Rao v. M/s Amarkrishna Constructions and Developers

Case Number : Arbitration Application No. 196 of 2025

Citation :  2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 58

The Telangana High Court has held that a retired partner could invoke an arbitration clause in a Reconstitution of a partnership deed (retirement deed) because the clause covered disputes between the parties and did not limit arbitration to existing partners.

Referring to Article 12 of the deed, Justice K. Lakshman ruled, “The arbitration clause clearly specifies that the disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to arbitration. It is nowhere stated that disputes between existing partners can only be referred to arbitration. The Applicant was a party to the said agreement, therefore, the questions as to the Applicant's right to invoke arbitration or locus standi do not arise.,”

The ruling came on an arbitration application filed by Kambhampati Venkata Rama Krishna Rao against Amarkrishna Constructions and Developers. The court appointed retired District and Sessions Judge D. Ravindra Sharma as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

Gauhati High Court

MSME Supplier's Interest Claim Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Principal Dues Are Paid: Gauhati High Court

Case Title : SRK Metals and Plastics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors.

Case Number:   WP(C)/8288/2019

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 26

The Gauhati High Court has recently ruled that an MSME supplier's claim for statutory interest on delayed payments cannot be disregarded merely because the principal contractual amount has subsequently been paid.

Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “Section 17 of the MSMED Act expressly makes the buyer liable to pay the amount due together with interest thereon as provided under Section 16. Therefore, subject to verification of the relevant dates of acceptance/deemed acceptance and the period of delay, the petitioner's claim for statutory interest cannot be disregarded merely because the principal contractual amount has subsequently been paid.”

The order came on a writ petition filed by SRK Metals and Plastics (Pvt.) Ltd. The company had approached the High Court after its contractual bills were not cleared.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Writ Against Highways Act Arbitration Award Not Entertainable When Statutory Remedy Available: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India Project Implementation Unit v. Kandukuri Rama & Others

Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 799 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 49

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that a party challenging an arbitral award under the National Highways Act, 1956 cannot ordinarily bypass the statutory remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The party cannot directly approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution

“The N.H. Act and the Act, 1996 are complete code. The statute provides the remedy under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to challenge the award of the arbitrator on specified grounds and any party aggrieved from the decision under Section 34 has the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 37 of the Act. So, ordinarily a challenge to an award shall be made in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 on the statutorily recognized grounds. Challenge to the award directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without taking recourse to Section 34 of the Act, 1996, in the absence of any well recognized exceptions being attracted, must ordinarily fail on the ground of statutory alternative remedy. ” a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed.

Jharkhand High Court 

Jharkhand High Court Rejects State's Challenge To Delhi As Arbitral Seat After 2.5 Years

Case Title : Road Construction Department v. Ramky Infrastructure Limited

Case Number : W.P.(C) No.4806 of 2026

Citation:  2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 17

The Jharkhand High Court on 20 August, dismissed the Jharkhand Road Construction Department's challenge to an Arbitral Tribunal's decision fixing Delhi as the seat of arbitration in its dispute with Ramky Infrastructure Limited.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen held that the Department's continued participation in the proceedings without a timely objection amounted to waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He explained:

“The 'seat of arbitration' is the juridical home of arbitration. The seat of arbitration is an anchor and determines the procedural law and the Courts that will exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration…This seat of arbitration cannot be changed or varied. It remains constant and static, because a procedural law governing the arbitration and the supervisory jurisdiction of Courts over the arbitration proceeding cannot be allowed to change in the midst of an arbitration proceeding.”

Rajasthan High Court 

Though Mandatory, 75% Pre-Deposit To Challenge MSME Award Need Not Accompany Plea: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title : Superintending Engineer (MM), Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd.,

Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5190/2024

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 32

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has held that while a 75% pre-deposit under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) is mandatory for challenging an arbitral award, courts can grant reasonable time to make the deposit instead of insisting that it accompany the challenge at the time of filing.

The court said the statutory requirement must be met before a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is heard on merits, and, in appropriate cases, the deposit may also be made in instalments.

A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar set aside a Commercial court order dismissing an objection petition filed by Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) against an arbitral award in favour of Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd.

“We accordingly hold that while the requirement of pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSME Act is mandatory and must be complied with before the Section 34 application is entertained on merits, the provision does not require the deposit to accompany the application at the time of its presentation, and the Court is empowered to grant reasonable time and, in an appropriate case of demonstrated hardship, to permit instalments for making the deposit.”, the court ruled.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes ₹198.04 Cr. Award Against JDA, Says Arbitrator Rewrote Concession Agreement

Case Title :Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. v. Rohan Rajdeep Rajasthan Infra Project Limited

Case Number :  D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1560/2025v

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 37

The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August set aside an arbitral award granting Rs. 198.04 crore to Rohan Rajdeep Rajasthan Infra Project Limited against the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and the Rajasthan Government in connection with the Ghat Ki Guni BOT tunnel project.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Taneja allowed JDA and the State's appeal and held that an arbitrator cannot shift contractual risks allocated to a developer or award compensation without identifying a corresponding contractual breach. The judges observfed:

“Once the parties had consciously allocated the risk of investigation, survey and design to the concessionaire under the aforesaid clauses, the learned Sole Arbitrator could not have invoked the mandate of Section 28(3) of the Act of 1996 and thus, fastened the financial consequences of redesign upon JDA without first locating a contractual stipulation displacing burden of that allocation. The award identifies no such stipulation, and the effective transfer of the design risk from the respondent to the appellants runs counter to the express terms of the Concession Agreement.”