Supreme Court
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Ruling Holding Paytm-Nightstay GST ITC Dispute Arbitrable
Case Title : NASR ULLAH KHAN VERSUS ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED & ORS.
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23694/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 245
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a District Judge's ruling holding that a dispute over One97 Communications Ltd's (Paytm) claim seeking refund of ₹99 lakh from Nightstay Travels Pvt Ltd and others under an Assignment Deed is arbitrable.
It dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Nightstay App founder and former Nightstay Travels Pvt Ltd director Nasr Ullah Khan challenging the March 13, 2026 judgment of the District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
The District Judge had set aside an arbitrator's order holding the dispute to be non-arbitrable and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while refusing to interfere with the District Judge's judgment, observed,
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed and the accompanying interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of."
Case Title : Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7233–7234 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 239
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that High Courts should exercise "extreme circumspection" before using their supervisory powers to interfere with ongoing arbitral proceedings.
It held that orders rejecting jurisdictional objections during arbitration are ordinarily challengeable only after the final arbitral award.
A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that the constitutional power of High Courts cannot be taken away. At the same time, it observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is intended to ensure the expeditious resolution of disputes through arbitration with minimal judicial interference.
"Orders passed by the Tribunal on an application under Section 16 of the Act are ordinarily amenable to challenge only under Section 34 of the Act upon the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and the passing of the final award. It is always safe for the High Courts that, before entertaining revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, while exercising powers under Section 16 of the Act, it should record a prima facie finding regarding the patent lack of inherent jurisdiction and that too after providing an opportunity of hearing to the rival party/parties.", the court held.
Case Title : A.K. Ghosh & Company and others versus Biman Bose and others
Case Number : SLP (C) Nos. 15817 & 15818 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 237
The Supreme Court on Monday held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit cannot file a written statement to a defendant's counterclaim beyond the mandatory outer limit of 120 days prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act.
It ruled that the statutory timeline applicable to defendants equally governs plaintiffs replying to counterclaims.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran ruled that the mandatory timeline under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to a plaintiff's written statement to a counterclaim in a commercial suit.
"Viewed thus, we answer the question posed in the affirmative. A plaintiff in a commercial suit, governed by the CC Act, is bound by the mandate of the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to a commercial suit, and must file a written statement to a counter-claim by a defendant therein, ordinarily within 30 days from the date of service of summons or receipt of the counter-claim, and in the event a plaintiff fails to file such a written statement within that time but offers sufficient cause for the delay, the Court may extend the time to do so, for reasons to be recorded in writing and upon payment of appropriate costs, but not beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons upon the plaintiff/receipt of the counter-claim by the plaintiff.", the top court ruled.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal's Practical Interpretation Of Contract In ₹67 Cr BHEL-TBEA Dispute
Case Title: TBEA Energy India Private Limited v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. TBEA Energy (India) Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 307/2022 and O.M.P. (COMM) 294/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 671
The Delhi High Court on 1 July held that an arbitral tribunal's practical and commercial interpretation of a contract does not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and partly upheld an arbitral award arising from a Rs. 67 crore transformer supply contract, modifying it only to grant statutory post-award interest.
Justice Subramonium Prasad partly allowed the petition filed by TBEA Energy India Private Limited and dismissed the petition filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), challenging different parts of an arbitral award concerning liquidated damages, an additional performance bank guarantee (APBG) and costs. He observed:
“There is a fine distinction between the interpretation of a contract and disregard of the terms of the Contract. It can be said that instead of giving a restrictive meaning to the terms of the contract, the Arbitrator took a practical and commercial approach.”
Case : Title Indiacan Education Private Limited v. Ministry of Rural Development & Ors.
Case Number: ARB.P. 605/2025 & I.A. 11842/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 670
On 2 July, the Delhi High Court referred the disputes arising out of the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) project between Indiacan Education Pvt. Ltd. and the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) and others to arbitration and appointed advocate Varun Chopra as the sole arbitrator.
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that in a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, courts must ordinarily leave the question of whether a non-signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding is a “veritable party” to the arbitration agreement to the arbitral tribunal when its determination requires appreciation of pleadings and evidence. The Bench held:
“Having regard to the limited scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, this Court considers it inappropriate to make a conclusive determination as to whether respondent nos. 1 and 3 are veritable parties to the arbitration agreement. The said issue necessarily entails an extensive appreciation of pleadings and evidentiary material. Accordingly, the final determination of whether respondent nos. 1 and 3 are amenable to the arbitral proceedings is best left to be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹130 Crore Arbitration Award Against South Eastern Railway
Case Title : South Eastern Railway v. Sara International Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM.) 62/2022 & I.A. 944/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 667
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award of more than ₹130 crore in favour of Sara International Pvt. Ltd. against South Eastern Railway.
It held that the Railways could not seek a fresh appreciation of evidence after repeatedly failing to cross-examine the company's witnesses or produce rebuttal evidence before the arbitral tribunal.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, "For the reasons best known to it, the petitioner elected not to avail any opportunity granted by the AT and has consciously refrained from actively participate in the proceedings. Even in the present petition, no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner for its conduct and/or approach."
Case Title : India International Convention and Exhibition Centre Limited v. Larsen & Toubro Limited
Case Number : ARB.A. (COMM.) 35/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 664
Interim monetary relief on disputed claims cannot be granted as a matter of course during arbitration proceedings and must be reserved for exceptional cases meeting a higher threshold, the Delhi High Court has held.
It set aside an arbitral tribunal's direction requiring India International Convention and Exhibition Centre Limited (IICECL) to release about ₹227 crore to Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that although arbitral tribunals have wide powers to grant interim protection, those powers cannot be routinely used to direct payment of contested monetary claims.
"Section 17(1)(ii)(e) of the A&C Act is undoubtedly couched in broad language and may, in certain respects, confer powers wider than those traditionally exercised under Order XXXIX of the CPC. However, the width of the provision cannot justify its routine invocation for directing payment of disputed monetary claims. Such power must be exercised sparingly and only upon strict satisfaction of the requirements governing interim relief.", the court held
Case Title : Chirag Jain v. Rahul Jain & Anr. and Chirag Jain v. Samayesh Khanna & Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 145/2026 and ARB.P. 146/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 661
The Delhi High Court has appointed Advocate Veena Ralli as sole arbitrator to adjudicate a share purchase dispute between stand-up comedian Chirag Jain, popularly known as Papa CJ, and the promoters of Delhi-based coffee startup Beanly Beverages.
The court held that whether the company, which did not sign the share purchase agreements, can nevertheless be treated as a party to the arbitration agreement is an issue that must be decided by the arbitral tribunal after examining the evidence.
Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that Rahul Jain and Samayesh Khanna, who executed the share purchase agreements with Jain, had already consented to the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The only issue before the court was Beanly Beverages' objection to being referred to arbitration as a non-signatory.
"However, the question whether a Company, acting through its controlling shareholders and Directors, who are themselves parties to the Arbitration Agreement, can be treated as a party thereto by virtue of the transaction structured and implemented through them, is an issue which would necessarily require a detailed examination of the facts and evidence. It is trite law that this question cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. ", the court ruled.
Delhi HC Holds Name Change Doesn't Nullify Arbitration Clause, Refers Newgen Dispute To Arbitration
Case Title : Newgen IT Technologies Ltd (earlier known as Vcare Infotech Solutions and Services Private Limited) v Newgen Software Technologies Ltd
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 112/2025 &CM APPL. 27327/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 656
On 1 July, the Delhi High Court referred a trademark infringement dispute between Newgen Software Technologies Ltd and Newgen IT Technologies Ltd, formerly known as Vcare Infotech Solutions and Services Pvt Ltd, to arbitration.
A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla set aside a Commercial Court order that had refused to refer the parties to arbitration, holding that a mere change in corporate name does not extinguish an arbitration clause in a subsisting agreement. The judges held:
“The mere change in the corporate name of one of the parties does not bring the contract between them to an end... if this were so, a party to a contract could, by merely changing its corporate name, stand excused of its liabilities under the contract.”
Case Title : BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. vs M/S BWL LTD.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 43/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 651
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld two arbitral awards directing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) to refund nearly ₹19.31 lakh and ₹44.95 lakh deducted from telecom equipment contractor BWL Ltd. towards price reduction.
The court held that the original contracts did not permit BSNL to unilaterally impose a price reduction while granting extensions of time.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that novation of a contract requires mutual agreement and consensus ad idem between the parties. Holding that the original contract could not be novated merely because BSNL unilaterally imposed conditions while granting extensions of time, the Court said:
"From a conspectus of the aforesaid, it is clear that the most crucial element for effecting a novation of a contract is mutual agreement between the parties, no such novation/alteration can be effected unless the parties to an agreement are at consesnsus ad idem. Thus, in the present matter, the original Contract would only have been novated when the parties would have mutually agreed to discharge the old contract and accept the new one. No unilateral novation by imposing any condition can possibly be done by any party to bind the other."
Case Title : Amadeus IT Group S.A. (Spain) v. Ebix Cash Limited & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (EFA) (COMM.) 2/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC DEL 652
The Delhi High Court has allowed enforcement of a €9.71 million International Chamber of Commerce arbitral award in favour of Spain-based travel technology company Amadeus IT Group S.A. against Ebix Cash Limited.
The court rejected Ebix Cash's objections that the underlying transaction violated Indian public policy and held the foreign award enforceable in India.
Justice Jasmeet Singh also rejected Ebix Cash's contention that the enforcement petition was filed beyond the limitation period.
The court held that the right to seek enforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not invariably arise on the date the award is made and must be determined on the facts of each case.
"The right to apply in case of a foreign Award as contemplated under Article 137 of the 1963 Act, would mean a fact/bundle of facts which would trigger the Award Holder to take steps for execution of its rights under the Award, and the same is not fixed. There is no straight jacket formula for accrual of right to apply and it will vary from case to case and in the present case it will be from date of communication of the Award.", the court observed.
Delhi High Court Enforces $454 Million Foreign Arbitral Awards In Favour Of Vedanta, Ravva Oil
Case Title ; Vedanta Limited & Anr. v. Government of India Through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Case Number : O.M.P. (EFA) (COMM.) 5/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 657
The Delhi High Court has enforced two foreign arbitral awards in favour of Vedanta Limited and Ravva Oil (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. in a long-running dispute over the sharing of profit petroleum from the Ravva Oil Field in Andhra Pradesh. It ruled that the Union government's objections amounted to an impermissible attempt to reopen the merits of the awards.
Justice Jasmeet Singh delivered the judgment. He held that the dispute arose from the interpretation of the parties' Production Sharing Contract (PSC) and did not justify refusing enforcement of the awards.
The court observed, "The parties share a contractual relationship and how the PTRR must be calculated in terms of the PSC, to my mind cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to alleged violation of public policy of India neither can the findings arrived by the AT in this regard be said to be against justice or morality."
Report Of Expert Board Constituted By Consent Cannot Be Executed As Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title : South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/s Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Limited
Case Number : EX.P. 23/2017 with EX.APPL.(OS) 203/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 727
The Delhi High Court has held that an expert board constituted through consent orders to determine service charges cannot be treated as an arbitral tribunal merely because the parties agreed to its constitution.
It ruled that the Board's report, which contained recommendations, could not be treated as an arbitral award, decree or any other executable instrument.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an execution petition filed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC), which sought to recover about ₹15.74 crore from Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Limited (DGSCL) on the basis of the Board's report.
The court held, "The Board was neither constituted as an adjudicatory forum nor vested with the authority to judicially determine disputes between the parties. Its role was confined to examining technical and financial aspects relating to service charges and furnishing its opinion in the form of a report. The Board, therefore, cannot be equated with an arbitral tribunal, nor can its report be treated as a binding adjudicatory determination capable of execution in the absence of any express agreement or legal provision conferring such status upon it."
No Fresh Notice Needed After Award Is Set Aside If Arbitration Was Already Invoked: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Cosmo Retail Solutions Private Limited v. Sumant Agarwal & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 293/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 716
The Delhi High Court on 16 July held that a party need not issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which marks commencement of arbitral proceedings) before seeking appointment of a new arbitrator after an arbitral award is set aside, if arbitration had already commenced through a valid notice.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the objection raised by Sumant Aggarwal and others and appointed Mr. Kapil Sankhla as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. He observed:
“Once the disputes stands commenced, there is no need to recommence the same dispute again just because the Award has been set aside. The purport of notice under Section 21 is to intimate one party that there are disputes between the parties and the matter has been referred to arbitration. Simultaneously, the purport of notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act is also to freeze the period of limitation. Once this mandate of Section 21 has been achieved, in the opinion of this Court, the requirement of a fresh notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act is not necessary merely because the award has been set aside.”
Case Title : Resilient Innovations Private Limited (BharatPe) v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 293/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 735
The Delhi High Court on Friday held that Unity Small Finance Bank could not place before its board a proposal to increase its authorised share capital and amend its Memorandum of Association without the prior written consent of BharatPe, which owns a 49% stake in the bank.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted interim relief to BharatPe (Resilient Innovations Private Limited), holding that the proposal fell within "Reserved Matters" under the parties' Shareholders' Agreement (SHA).
"If the SHA stipulates a particular procedure prescribed for amendment of the MoA/AoA or to the capital structure of the respondent no.1, the respondent ought to adhere strictly to that procedure or none at all," the court ruled.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Rejecting Spectrum Power's GST Refund Claim Against GAIL
Case Title : Spectrum Power Generation Limited v. GAIL India Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 64/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 733
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award rejecting Spectrum Power Generation Limited's claim for refund of GST reimbursed to GAIL (India) Limited under a Gas Sale Agreement, holding that the award suffered from patent illegality.
The court held that GAIL was required to independently establish that it had deposited GST and that the arbitral tribunal could not rely on disputed tax payment receipts without first deciding their admissibility.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed, "In the absence of the issue of admissibility having been decided by the tribunal, non cross-examination of RW-2 on the tax receipts produced shall not prove fatal to the case of the petitioner. The respondent has to stand on its own legs to prove the tax paid. In other words, production of the tax receipts without having been held to be admissible cannot form the basis for concluding that GST on the transmission of gas was deposited by the respondent."
Settled Disputes Cannot Be Revived Without Express Reservation Of Future Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. Atlanta Infra Assets Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM.) 161/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 731
The Delhi High Court on 23 July held that parties cannot reopen issues settled through a settlement agreement after acting upon the settlement without reserving any future claims, as such a course would undermine certainty, consistency and finality in disputes.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld an arbitral award granting Atlanta Infra Assets Limited a 53-day extension of the concession period for the Nagpur-Kondhali section of National Highway-6 in Maharashtra, including an additional 28 days for reduced toll collections during the COVID-19 pandemic. He observed:
“It cannot be gainsaid that parties to a lis cannot be permitted to re-open issues which have been determined by way of a Settlement Agreement lest it may lead to uncertainty, inconsistency, and lack of finality to disputes. The findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal in this context do not suffer from any perversity and are clearly plausible, and within its domain. In any case, findings of fact do not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Act.”
Case Title : M/s Vishal Infrastructure Ltd. & M/s OJSC Euro-Asian Construction Corporation Evrascon (JV) v. Chief Engineer (Const)-I, North Western Railway, Jaipur & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 240/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 717
The Delhi High Court has refused an interim plea under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking to restrain North Western Railway from invoking performance bank guarantees worth about ₹17.24 crore furnished under a ₹474.52 crore EPC contract for the redevelopment of Jodhpur Railway Station.
The court held that the contractor had failed to establish the limited grounds on which unconditional bank guarantees can be restrained.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the contractor had neither established fraud nor shown that the guarantees had been invoked outside the contract.
"Petitioner has not brought out any case of fraud or that the bank guarantee has been invoked by the Respondent outside the contract for which the guarantor is not liable. In view of the settled principle of law, injunction in the present case cannot be granted for the bank guarantees. If and when the matter is referred to arbitration and is placed before the DAB and if the DAB is not able to adjudicate the dispute, the matter will be referred to arbitration and it is open for the Petitioner to claim damages if bank guarantee has not been invoked.", it observed.
Delhi High Court Rules Section 43(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Save Void Arbitration Clause
Case Title : Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. M/s Rukma Decor and Construction Company
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 143/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 714
The Delhi High Court has recently held that a provision empowering courts to extend the contractual time for commencing arbitration in cases of undue hardship cannot, by itself, validate a contractual clause that is otherwise void under the law.
Referring to Section 43(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court observed,
"The provision does not validate or positively enact the enforceability of contractual time-bar clauses. It addresses only the limited question of whether a court may grant an extension of time in cases of undue hardship where the contractual time limit has expired. The precondition for the exercise of this power is that there exists a valid time-bar clause; Section 43(3) does not, by its own force, render otherwise void clauses valid. Whether a particular clause is void under Section 28 of the Contract Act-a question antecedent to and independent of Section 43(3) - falls to be determined by the Contract Act itself."
Case Title: Turner Morrison Ltd. v. Rani Parvati Devi & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 130/2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 713
The Delhi High Court on 16 July held that Courts cannot interfere under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act with an arbitral tribunal's plausible interpretation of a contract merely because another view is possible, while dismissing Turner Morrison Ltd.'s appeal against parts of an award.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan upheld the tribunal's interpretation of the Construction Agreement with the Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art and Culture (NIRLAC), including its findings on the recovery of construction costs, the commencement of interest liability and the rejection of Turner Morrison's claims for service and electricity charges, contractual penalty and compound interest. The judges held:
“Upon careful examination of the common award as well as the impugned judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly opined that the view taken by the learned Arbitrator is plausible and the same is based on a scrupulous examination of the relevant law as well as the contractual clauses, which cannot be interfered with in the present proceedings.”
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹662 Crore Toyo-L&T Award, Says Contract Interpretation Cannot Be Revisited
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Toyo Engineering Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 316/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 709
The Delhi High Court on 15 July upheld an arbitral award of around Rs. 662 crore in favour of the consortium of Toyo Engineering Corporation and Larsen & Toubro Limited, holding that an arbitral tribunal's plausible interpretation of contractual terms cannot be re-examined under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the petition filed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) challenging the award, holding that the arbitral tribunal had adopted a possible interpretation of the contract provisions relating to extension of time and price adjustment. He observed:
“The petitioner, by way of the present petition, in effect, seeks a reappreciation of evidence and an alternative interpretation of clauses the Contract, which is beyond the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Act.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award, Says Tribunal Cannot Revisit Merits After Passing Award
Case Title : Supreme Advertising Private Limited v. Genus Power Infrastructures Limited (and connected matter)
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 115/2016 & O.M.P. (COMM) 159/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 707
The Delhi High Court has held that once an arbitral award is passed, the arbitral tribunal becomes functus officio and cannot reopen the merits of its decision. Its powers thereafter are confined to correcting computational, clerical, typographical, or similar errors.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the ruling while dismissing cross-petitions filed by Supreme Advertising Private Limited and Genus Power Infrastructures Limited.
The court observed, "Once an award is rendered, the learned Tribunal becomes functus officio except to the limited extent preserved under the A&C Act. Section 33 of the A&C Act constitutes one such statutory exception and permits correction of computational, clerical, typographical and similar errors occurring in the award."
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Union Bank of India Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 137/2025 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 152/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 701
The Delhi High Court on 9 July held that a party cannot avoid contractual obligations arising from a Provisional Completion Certificate (PCC) after its issuance by subsequently keeping the certificate in abeyance.
A Division Bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar dismissed two appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against lender banks led by South Indian Bank Limited. It observed:
“The aforesaid conclusion of the learned Tribunal and the learned Single Judge is justified and cannot be said to be perverse in law. It is a plausible interpretation, which cannot be interfered with.”
Case Title: WAPCOS Limited v. Virgo Aqua
Case Number :FAO(OS) (COMM) 97/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 696
The Delhi High Court has held that a court hearing a challenge to an arbitral award under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ("MSME Act") is not barred from examining a credible, ex facie plea that the award is a nullity merely because the buyer has not deposited 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the Act.
Explaining why the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 could not prevent scrutiny of such an award, the court observed:
"The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 19 of the MSMED Act necessarily presupposes the existence of a valid award, which is capable of legal recognition as an award under law. Section 19 of the MSMED Act is intended to regulate challenges to valid awards rendered under the statutory framework of the MSMED Act. The provision cannot be construed as compelling a party to first comply with the pre-deposit requirement before it is permitted to contend that the very instrument sought to be enforced is non-est and devoid of legal existence. Where a credible and ex-facie case of nullity is made out on the perusal of the face of the record of the Facilitation Council, the Court under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Act of 1996 is not denuded of its jurisdiction to examine the issue of nullity of the award merely because the requirement of pre-deposit has not been fulfilled."
Case Title : NCC Limited v. Airport Authority of India
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 140/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 695
The Delhi High Court has recently held that interim relief under the Arbitration Act cannot be used to stay a debarment order where the authority's power to debar is derived from an independent statutory or administrative framework rather than the contract between the parties.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed NCC Limited's petition seeking a stay on an Airports Authority of India (AAI) order debarring it from participating in AAI's future tenders for two years.
The Court observed, “The mere fact that an administrative action is triggered by events occurring during the performance of a contract does not ipso facto transform the action into one arising under the contract. The determinative consideration is not the factual backdrop against which the power is exercised, but the legal source from which such power is derived. If the power to debar is not founded upon the contractual terms agreed between the parties, but emanates from an independent administrative or executive authority vested in the Respondent, the character of the action remains administrative, notwithstanding that the underlying allegations may relate to contractual performance.”
Fresh Copy Of Arbitral Award Cannot Restart Limitation To Challenge Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s ISC-YUG (JV) & Anr. (Connected Matters)
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 2/2025 and O.M.P. (COMM) 7/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 686
The Delhi High Court has dismissed two petitions filed by the Union of India challenging an arbitral award.
It held that a party cannot allow the statutory period for challenging an award to expire and later attempt to restart the limitation by obtaining another copy of the award.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the judgment.
The court observed, "A party, despite having knowledge of an Award and despite its authorised representative having received the signed copy, could indefinitely postpone limitation by simply applying for another copy months or years later. Such an interpretation would defeat the legislative object of ensuring finality and expedition in arbitral proceedings."
WhatsApp Acknowledgment Of Arbitral Award Shows Acceptance, Bars Delayed Challenge: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Vinay Mawandia v. Bimal Mawandia & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 87/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 684
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a challenge to an interim arbitral award after finding that the party seeking to set it aside had acknowledged receiving it on WhatsApp, participated in discussions on its implementation, and acted upon it before questioning the award only after execution proceedings were initiated.
The court held that the challenge to the interim arbitral award, raised more than two years after the petitioner admittedly acquired knowledge of it was barred by limitation.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the petitioner's conduct showed he had accepted and acted upon the award, and that his plea regarding non-delivery of a signed copy surfaced only after the award holders initiated execution proceedings.
"The material placed on record unmistakably demonstrates that immediately after the Award was uploaded in the WhatsApp group created for resolution of the disputes, the Petitioner acknowledged receipt thereof by responding 'Noted thanks'. Such acknowledgement was not a mere formal response but was followed by continuous discussions amongst the parties regarding the implementation of the Award.", the court noted.
Procedural Irregularity Without Prejudice Not Ground To Set Aside Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. v. Usha International Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM.) 118/2016 with O.M.P. (ENF.) (COMM.) 216/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 680
The Delhi High Court on 6 July held that a party challenging the constitution of an arbitral tribunal must establish actual prejudice caused by the alleged procedural irregularity, and that mere dissatisfaction with the appointment process cannot be a ground to set aside an arbitral award.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a petition filed by Shriram Pistons & Rings Limited challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of Usha International Limited. He observed:
“It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the alleged procedural deficiencies in the appointment process translated into any actual prejudice during the conduct of the arbitral proceedings. The Petitioner actively participated in the proceedings, filed detailed pleadings, examined witnesses, cross-examined the witnesses produced by the Respondent and fully contested the claims on merits. In the absence of any demonstrated prejudice, the challenge cannot succeed merely on speculative assertions concerning the process of appointment.”
Case Title : JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited v. Alstom Transport India Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM.) 124/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 679
The Delhi High Court has held that confidential material from a separate arbitration cannot be relied upon in another arbitral proceeding merely because the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules do not expressly prohibit its use.
It upheld an arbitral award in favour of Alstom Transport India Limited after finding that the arbitral tribunal was justified in refusing to admit such material.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, "A statutory mandate enacted by Parliament therefore cannot be diluted, displaced or overridden by institutional rules framed by an arbitral institution. Consequently, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in treating Section 42A of the A&C Act as controlling and binding irrespective of any interpretation sought to be placed upon the ICC Rules."
Delhi High Court Sets Aside HPCL Penalty For Undisclosed Fake LPG Connections, Upholds Award In Part
Case Title : D.V. Anand v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 139/2018 & CM APPL. 49092/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 678
The Delhi High Court on 1 July held that an arbitral tribunal cannot uphold a penalty for alleged fake LPG consumer connections without evidence establishing that the connections were fictitious or without disclosing their identities to the affected party. Such findings are patently illegal and liable to be set aside.
A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla partly allowed an appeal filed by LPG distributor D.V. Anand against an arbitral award that upheld a penalty imposed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL). The judges observed:
“The conclusion that the said connections were fake solely because the Appellant failed to establish their genuineness is, in our opinion, manifestly perverse and discloses a clear flaw in the decision-making process, since no reasonable person could have expected the Appellant to prove the genuineness of connections whose particulars had never been disclosed to it in the first place. What further compounds the perversity is that vital material on record, which clearly demonstrated that particulars of all 826 connections alleged to be fake were never within the knowledge of the Appellant, was completely ignored while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, thereby materially affecting the ultimate finding rendered by the learned Arbitrator.”
Section 9 Arbitration Act Not For Interim Recovery Based On Bill Certification: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s SLR Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. GAIL (India) Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 150/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 673
The Delhi High Court on 1 July held that certification or processing of bills does not, by itself, amount to crystallised liability warranting interim monetary directions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where disputes relating to deductions, delays and adjustments remain unresolved.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan dismissed SLR Construction Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the order refusing interim relief for release of Rs. 2.08 crore in relation to a pipeline terminal works contract awarded by GAIL (India) Ltd. It observed:
“Mere certification or processing of bills by the Project Management Consultant, or internal processing of invoices by GAIL, cannot by themselves be treated as conclusive determination of inter se contractual rights and liabilities so as to justify grant of payment directions under Section 9 of the A&C Act.”
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Abhishek Suresh Mehta & Ors. v. M/s Parth Developers & Ors.
Case Number : R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 145 of 2025 with connected petitions and applications.
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 84
The Gujarat High Court on Thursday held that once the statutory period for making an arbitral award expires, parties cannot rely on party autonomy or institutional arbitration rules to choose the court that will extend an arbitral tribunal's mandate.
It held that, beyond the period expressly permitted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, only the court recognised under the statute can extend the tribunal's mandate.
Justice Niral R. Mehta delivered the judgment while upholding a preliminary objection raised by a partnership firm in an arbitration arising from business transactions of the partnership firm and disputes among its partners.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applications and granted liberty to the parties to approach the competent court for extension of the arbitrator's mandate.
Case Title: Indore Sahkari Dugdh Sangh & Anr. v. Ashutosh Sharma, Director & Anr.
Case Number : R/First Appeal No. 4935 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 90
The Gujarat High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that the arbitrator unnecessarily hastened to close a party's right to lead evidence during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court held that such treatment violated the requirement under Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to treat the parties equally and give each side a full opportunity to present its case.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray set aside an award dated July 16, 2021, under which a contractor had been granted approximately ₹1.98 crore against Indore Sahkari Dugdh Sangh.
The Court found it particularly significant that the arbitrator had acknowledged that several months remained available for making the award, but still refused to accept notarised affidavits tendered one day after the respondents' evidence had been closed.
The bench observed, “What is not palatable to us is that, despite noting the fact that ample time was available for the award to be made and that the respondents had notarized affidavits which they were seeking to place on record in the proceedings, which were being conducted right in the midst of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the learned Arbitrator closed the right of the respondents and proceeded to deliver the award.”
Case Title: JWIL Infra Ltd. (Previously Known as JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd.) v. Aquafil-Wintech JV & Ors.
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 1309 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 106
The Gujarat High Court on 29 June held that a party cannot revive an issue through a fresh application after failing to raise an available contention at the appropriate stage, holding that such an attempt is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata, waiver and finality of litigation.
Justice Niral R. Mehta dismissed a petition filed by JWIL Infra Ltd. (formerly JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd.) under Article 227 of the Constitution and upheld the arbitral tribunal's order refusing to recall a witness for cross examination in its dispute with Aquafil Wintech JV. He observed:
“The doctrine of constructive res judicata is founded upon the principle that a party ought to raise, at the appropriate stage, every contention which it could and should have raised. If a litigant deliberately omits to raise an available contention and allows the adjudication to attain finality, such contention cannot ordinarily be permitted to be resurrected in subsequent proceedings arising out of the same cause.”
Case Title : Asean LNG Trading Co. Ltd. (now known as Petronas LNG Ltd.) v. Adani Energy Ltd.
Case Number : R/First Appeal No. 3694 of 2018 (with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2018)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)89
The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order refusing to enforce a foreign arbitral award that had directed Adani Energy Ltd. to pay USD 109.95 million to Asean LNG Trading Co. Ltd. (now Petronas LNG Ltd.) on the basis that Adani had triggered the 'Take or Pay' clause by failing to accept contracted LNG cargoes.
Under a 'Take or Pay' clause, a buyer must either accept and pay for the contracted quantity of goods or compensate the seller even if it does not take delivery, subject to the terms of the contract.
Holding that the arbitral tribunal had wrongly proceeded on the premise that a concluded contract had come into existence despite the parties never agreeing on essential commercial terms, the Court found that fastening 'Take or Pay' liability on Adani was contrary to the fundamental and substratal principles of Indian contract law.
Dismissing Petronas LNG's appeal against a single-judge bench order, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray held,
"With the above, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that none of the reasonings given by the enforcement Court for refusal would violate Explanation 2 of Section 48(2)(b) of the Act' 1996 and that the liability of Take or Pay triggered in the facts of the present case defies all logic."
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : A.R. ABDUL RAZAK vs ASHRITHA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD & ORS
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.318 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 95
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing a landowner to execute sale deeds for the remaining sites under a development agreement.
It held that the society's claim was not barred by limitation because the agreement did not prescribe a fixed date for execution of the remaining sale deeds, and limitation began only when performance was refused.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed an appeal by landowner A.R. Abdul Razak against an order upholding the arbitral award. The award directed execution of the remaining sale deeds at the agreed rate of ₹620 per sq. ft. and rejected his counterclaim.
"We find considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-society. Admittedly, the development agreement [Ex.P1] does not specify any fixed date for execution of the remaining sale deeds. Consequently, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 becomes applicable namely, limitation commences when the plaintiff has noticed that the performance is refused.", the court held.
Contractor Must Prove Loss Of Profit On Unexecuted Work; No Automatic Damages: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/S. N.N. CONSTRUCTIONS vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 100
The Karnataka High Court has held that a contractor claiming damages for loss of profit on unexecuted works is not barred from raising such a claim merely because the work remained unexecuted.
However, the contractor must prove that it actually suffered the loss. "If a contractor is prevented from executing the contract on account of reasons attributable to the employer, the contractor is not precluded from raising a claim for loss of profits for the unexecuted works," the court observed.
It added, "However, the contention that the contractor is not required to establish that it had suffered such loss is unmeritorious."
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed an appeal filed by N.N. Constructions. The appeal challenged an order refusing to set aside an arbitral award arising from a railway widening contract with South Western Railway.
Supreme Court Alone Can Decide Replacement Of Arbitrator It Appointed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Waterline Hotels Private Limited v. Singapore International Arbitration Centre & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 16178 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 128
The Karnataka High Court has held that once the Supreme Court appoints an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any issue arising later that affects the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, including the arbitrator's recusal, withdrawal or substitution, can be decided only by the Supreme Court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, "The appointment of the Arbitrator was not by the institutional mechanism of SIAC or from any consensual process between the parties but from a judicial order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Once the appointment of the Tribunal has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, any supervening event affecting the constitution of the Tribunal, including the recusal, withdrawal or substitution of the Arbitrator, necessarily falls within the domain of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that originally constituted the Tribunal."
Case Title : Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Shamalamma & Ors. connected with Smt. Shamalamma & Ors. v. M/s Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 137 of 2024 c/w Commercial Appeal No. 190 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 125
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an arbitral award cancelling a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) between Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. and a group of landowners for a residential apartment project in Bengaluru.
It held that the arbitral tribunal was justified in refusing specific performance after finding that both sides had failed to fulfil their contractual obligations.
A bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha observed that the tribunal had not decided the dispute merely on equitable considerations. Instead, it had reached its conclusion after finding that both parties were in breach of their obligations under the agreement.
"The observation of the Arbitral Tribunal that it was in the interest of justice and equity to cancel the JDA, in effect denying its specific performance, must be read in conjunction with the finding that both parties were in default of their obligations.", the court noted.
Case Title : NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs A.L. SUDERSHAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.176 OF 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 106
The Karnataka High Court has declined to entertain an objection by an erstwhile director of A.L. Sudershan Construction Co. Ltd. against a settlement with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) over an arbitral award
The court observed that the company was under liquidation and was duly represented by the Resolution Professional, and that any objection would have been raised at an appropriate time before the National Company Law Tribunal.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T made the observation while accepting a settlement between NHAI and the company under the Vivad Se Vishwas-III Scheme.
"In the above view of the matter, respondent No.5, who is an erstwhile Director of the Company, cannot have the right to oppose this application for settlement in view of the fact that the Company is in liquidation and respondent No.1 is duly represented by the Resolution Professional. Any objections would have been raised at an appropriate time by respondent No.5 before the National Company Law Tribunal and not before this Court, in these proceedings.", the court observed.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds Award Rejecting LPG Distributor's ₹40 Crore Claim Against Reliance Petro
Case Title : Zawar Sales Corporation vs Reliance Petro Marketing Limited
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 14180 OF 2021
Citation ; 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 364
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award rejecting most of an LPG distributor's nearly ₹40 crore damages claim against Reliance Petro Marketing Ltd. It held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the distribution agreements and the evidence on record warranted no interference.
Justice Kamal Khata held that the award dated March 25, 2021 was neither vitiated by patent illegality nor contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
"Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Impugned Award dated 25th March 2021 is a well-reasoned decision based on a plausible interpretation of the contract and a thorough appreciation of the evidence on record. The Petitioner has failed to establish any ground that would warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arb. Act. The award is not vitiated by patent illegality, nor is it in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law."
Case Title : Capalpha Trade Private Limited vs Dentsu Communications India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 183 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 365
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that criminal proceedings or allegations of serious offences, even those punishable with life imprisonment, do not by themselves make a dispute unsuitable for arbitration.
Before declining to hear such a dispute, an arbitral tribunal must explain how the allegations amount to "serious fraud" with wider public implication
Justice Gauri Godse allowed Capalpha Trade Pvt Ltd's appeal and set aside an arbitral tribunal's August 3, 2023 order. The tribunal had accepted Dentsu Communications India Pvt. Ltd.'s objection that allegations of fraud, collusion, conspiracy, forgery and fabrication involving third parties made the dispute non-arbitrable.
"Therefore, mere pendency of criminal proceedings or the alleged offences punishable with severe imprisonment, including life imprisonment, cannot itself be a ground for allowing the application under Section 16. It is necessary to record reasons as to how the allegations in the criminal complaint would amount to an allegation of serious fraud in the arbitral reference resulting in public implications," the court held.
Arbitral Proceedings U/S 9 Cannot Be Used To Reopen Redevelopment Developer Appointment: Bombay HC
Case Title : Vaswani Projects Private Limited vs Utsahi Maratha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.16351 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 371
The Bombay High Court on 3 July held that the validity of a housing society's decision appointing a developer for redevelopment cannot be reopened in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that such objections must be pursued through remedies available under law.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed a petition filed by Vaswani Projects Pvt Ltd., granted interim protection for redevelopment of the Utsahi Maratha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society at Bandra, Mumbai, and directed dissenting members to hand over possession for redevelopment. He observed:
“These facts are not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, at this stage, I do not find that the appointment of the petitioner as developer can be reopened in these proceedings. If any member had grievance about the appointment process or the resolutions passed by the Society, the law provides a remedy. Such issue cannot be gone into while deciding the present petition under Section 9.”
Case Title : Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Limited v. Zigma International
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 15734 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 368
The Bombay High Court has held that a party seeking interim protection before arbitration need not prove that the opposite side has dishonestly transferred or concealed its assets.
A strong possibility that the assets may diminish before an arbitral award is enforced is sufficient to justify protection.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, "The expression 'a strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice' does not mean that the applicant must prove that the respondent has dishonestly transferred or concealed its assets. At the same time, every apprehension expressed by the claimant cannot be accepted. What is required is that the surrounding facts should indicate that the respondent's assets are likely to become less in value or may not remain available by the time the arbitral award is to be enforced. If such circumstances are shown, the Court may exercise powers under Section 9 even before the assets are transferred. "
Arbitration Initiated by Liquidator Without Prior NCLT Approval Isn't Void: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tecpro Systems Limited (In Liquidation) v. Reliance Infrastructure Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 245 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 411
The Bombay High Court has recently held that while prior approval of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is mandatory before a liquidator initiates legal proceedings on behalf of a company in liquidation, commencing arbitration without such approval does not render the proceedings void.
Instead, such proceedings merely remain legally ineffective until the NCLT grants the requisite permission, from which date the arbitration notice becomes operative.
Delivering the ruling in an application filed by Tecpro Systems Limited (In Liquidation), Justice Arun R. Pedneker appointed former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Justice Nitin Jamdar, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and differences arising out of and in connection with the purchase order executed between the parties.
The court observed, "This Court is, therefore, of the view that while prior permission under Section 33(5) is mandatory, the absence of such prior permission before the initiation of the legal proceedings, does not render the proceedings void ab initio. Instead, the commencement of such proceedings remains ineffective until the date on which the required permission is granted by the Adjudicating Authority."
Case Title : Sarla Advantech Private Limited v. Anil Mehta & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 22020 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 407
The Bombay High Court has recently held that execution of a fresh employment agreement does not, by itself, extinguish an arbitration agreement contained in an earlier contract.
It observed that whether the earlier contract stood completely substituted depends on the parties' intention, which must be gathered from the overall transaction rather than from the later agreement alone.
Justice Amit Borkar delivered the ruling while partly allowing a petition filed by Sarla Advantech Private Limited against its former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Anil Mehta, and Percivon Technologies Private Limited.
Pending arbitration, the court restrained Mehta and Percivon Technologies from using or disclosing the company's confidential and proprietary information.
Holding that execution of a subsequent agreement is not conclusive by itself, the court observed,
"However, mere execution of a fresh document is not decisive. Law recognizes a distinction between execution of another agreement and complete substitution of the earlier contract. Every subsequent agreement does not wipe out all earlier contractual obligations. Whether complete substitution has taken place depends upon the intention of the parties gathered from the entire transaction."
Case Title : Sri Buddha–SVEC JV v. Western Coalfields Ltd.
Case Number: Misc. Civil Application (Arbn) No. 34 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 397
The Bombay High Court has recently held that where a commercial contract contains conflicting dispute resolution clauses, courts should lean in favour of arbitration if the agreement, read as a whole, reflects the parties' intention to resolve disputes through arbitration.
Justice M. W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench delivered the ruling while deciding an application filed by Sri Buddha–SVEC JV against Western Coalfields Ltd.
The court referred the parties to conciliation before Advocate Harish Thakur and directed that if the process failed, the dispute would stand referred to arbitration before Justice R.K. Deshpande (Retd.), subject to his consent and the disclosure required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Observing that conflicting drafting should not defeat an otherwise valid arbitration agreement, the court held, "It is worthwhile to mention that when there are conflicting and confusing clauses, the Court shall rule in favour of arbitration, not giving weightage to confusing clauses. The Court should ignore the clauses of the contract which may create confusion about existence of the agreement, since arbitration is aimed at removing bottlenecks or declogging the courts from a docket explosion. In such cases, the Court should rule to advance arbitration."
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Saraf v. Villayati Ram Mittal & Ors.
Case Number : Comm Arbitration Petition (L) No. 13434 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 398
The Bombay High Court has recently held that territorial jurisdiction cannot be determined solely by the location of partnership properties or the registered office of a partnership firm where the partnership deed containing an arbitration clause does not specify the arbitral seat.
Instead, the court held, the material facts constituting the foundation of the relief sought must determine jurisdiction.
Justice Amit Borkar delivered the ruling while deciding a petition filed by Vinod Kumar Saraf seeking interim protection against Villayati Ram Mittal and its partners in a partnership dispute.
The court observed, "The authorities discussed above establish that territorial jurisdiction cannot be determined either looking at the place where immovable properties are situated or merely by referring to the registered office of the partnership. Jurisdiction cannot be assumed solely because eviction proceedings are pending before a Court situated within a particular territory. What is required is identification of material facts which constitute the foundation of the relief sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act."
Case Title : Unistar Metals Private Limited v. GE Power Limited
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 15413 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 400
The Bombay High Court on 14 July held that a defective notice invoking arbitration does not invalidate the commencement of arbitral proceedings where the arbitration agreement has been invoked and the disputes between the parties are clearly identified.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker appointed former Bombay High Court Judge Justice Anuja Prabhudessai as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between Unistar Metals Private Limited and GE Power Limited under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He observed:
“There is no objection to the notice under Section 21 to the name of sole arbitrator on the ground that the agreement specifies arbitral tribunal should be of three arbitrators. Names of three arbitrators are not suggested by the Respondent. The dispute persists, and the notice under Section 21 has not resulted in the appointment of the arbitral tribunal. On the failure of constitution of the arbitral tribunal, this Court gets jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6). The purpose of notice under Section 21 is time-related and if the arbitral tribunal is not constituted as per the agreed procedure, this Court gets jurisdiction to appoint an 'Arbitral Tribunal' under Section 11(6).”
Bombay HC Holds Mumbai Was Arbitration Seat In Siemens' ₹7.38 Cr Loan Dispute, Appoints Arbitrator
Case Title : Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd vs Saroj Diagnostic Laboratory LLP
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 378
The Bombay High Court on 2 July, appointed Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur (Retd.), former Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a Rs. 7.38 crore loan facility extended by Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd to Saroj Diagnostic Laboratory LLP.
Justice Gautam A. Ankhad held that where an arbitration agreement specifies a place of arbitration and also grants jurisdiction to courts at that place, such provisions can indicate that the parties intended that place to be the juridical seat of arbitration. He held:
"In the present case, the Agreement specifically provides that the place of arbitration shall be Mumbai. Clause 16(d) expressly confers jurisdiction upon the Courts at Mumbai. There is no provision in the Agreement suggesting any different seat of arbitration. These provisions, read harmoniously, demonstrate the parties intention to treat Mumbai as the juridical seat of arbitration."
'Deemed Service' Cannot Cure Defect In Service Of Arbitration Notices: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Sedhram Nilkanth Muglikar And Anr. Versus M. R. Makhare Arbitrator Arbitral Authority And Ors.
Case Number : ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 382
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the legal presumption that arbitration notices have been served cannot be mechanically invoked where there is no proof that the notices actually reached the parties. Setting aside an arbitral award, the court observed:
Justice Arif S. Doctor also quashed an April 4, 2025 judgment of the District Judge, Pune. The District Judge had dismissed the borrowers' challenge to an arbitral award passed in favour of Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. in a loan recovery dispute.
"In my considered view, that conclusion is not borne out from the arbitral record. The very foundation for invoking deemed service is absent. Where the record itself reveals repeated failures of service, unexplained references to an unidentified “second address”, and no proof whatsoever of actual communication reaching the Appellants, the deeming provisions under Section 3 cannot be mechanically invoked to cure the defect.", the court ruled.
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Afcons Gunanusa Joint Venture
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20173 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 392
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a corporate guarantee cannot replace an unconditional bank guarantee agreed between commercial parties merely because a party is willing to furnish one, observing that the two provide different degrees of security.
Granting interim relief to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), Justice Amit Borkar directed Afcons Gunanusa Joint Venture to renew and continue unconditional bank guarantees worth USD 29.91 million, EUR 4.55 million and ₹22.09 crore, furnished towards ONGC's liquidated damages claim, until ONGC's challenge to an arbitral award is finally decided.
Rejecting Afcons' offer to replace the bank guarantees with a corporate guarantee, a bench of justice Amit Borkar observed:
"At the same time, it cannot be ignored that a corporate guarantee and an unconditional Bank Guarantee issued by a nationalised bank are not the same. Both stand on different footing and give different degree of security. Therefore, merely because the respondent is willing to furnish a corporate guarantee, it may not become substitute for the security agreed between the parties."
Case Title : The Packshot (India) Private Limited vs Trent Limited
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 10726 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 380
On 7 July, the Bombay High Court held that allegations of misuse of confidential information, proprietary business methods and protected employees cannot, at the interim stage, justify a blanket injunction against a party's business activities and require adjudication before the arbitral tribunal on the basis of evidence.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a Section 9 petition filed by The Packshot (India) Pvt Ltd and directed Trent Ltd, Tata's retail arm, to preserve records relating to its engagement with Yoshi Agency Pvt Ltd pending arbitration. However, the Bench declined Packshot's prayer for a blanket injunction restraining Trent from carrying on its business or using the disputed information. It observed:
"Pending commencement and conclusion of the arbitral proceedings, the Respondent shall preserve and maintain all documents, records and electronic data in its possession, custody or control relating to its engagement with Yoshi Agency Private Limited, including invoices, purchase orders, work orders, payment vouchers, ledger accounts, vendor onboarding records, internal approvals, statements of account, bank transaction records, emails, electronic communications and other documents which are relevant to the disputes raised in the present Petition."
Case Title : Hemant D. Shah HUF & Anr. v. Chittaranjan D. Shah HUF & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 184 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 372
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a non-signatory cannot be compelled to arbitrate merely because it is alleged to be claiming "through or under" a signatory to an arbitration agreement.
Emphasising that arbitration is founded on consent, the court observed, "Since consent forms the cornerstone of arbitration, a non-signatory cannot be forcibly made a 'party' to an arbitration agreement, as doing so would violate sacrosanct principles of privity of contract and party autonomy."
Justice Arun R. Pedneker delivered the judgment while partly allowing an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a family partnership dispute. The court referred the disputes between the original signatories to arbitration.
It, however, declined to refer Gayatri Sachin Shah and Sachin Trust, holding that they were not signatories to the 1985 partnership deed and did not fall within any recognised exception that could bind non-signatories to the arbitration agreement.
The court observed, "The person “claiming through or under” cannot be made a “party” to the arbitration agreement on its own terms, as it only stands in the shoes of original signatory party. The phrase “claiming through or under” has not been used either in Section 2(1)(h) or Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. This is so because those provisions are based on the concept of party autonomy and party independence, which requires the party to provide consent to submit their disputes to arbitration. On the contrary, a person claiming through or under a party to an arbitration agreement is merely standing in the shoes of original party to the extent that it is merely agitating the right of the original party to the arbitration agreement."
Case Title : Malaney Trading & Services LLP Versus Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 228 OF 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 373
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the availability of emergency or interim relief under the rules of a foreign arbitral institution does not, by itself, prevent Indian courts from granting interim protection in support of a foreign-seated arbitration.
It observed that merely choosing institutional rules that provide for emergency measures is not enough to exclude the court's jurisdiction.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan made the ruling while directing Turkish company Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S. to furnish additional security. The court ordered that the total amount secured before it should equal the Indian rupee equivalent of EUR 1.2 million in a dispute with Malaney Trading & Services LLP.
The court held, "In my opinion, for an implied ouster of Section from the foreign arbitration, the arbitration agreement must contain an ouster of Section 9. Ouster of jurisdiction must be express one were to take it to a standard of ouster by necessary implication, it wouldnot suffice to state that the rules of arbitration of the international arbitration institution contains a framework for interlocutory relief. Unless such rules provide for an ouster of any other means of interim relief, it would not be logical, or even commercially commonsensical to conclude that there is an ouster by necessary implication, merely by having agreed to arbitrate in an institute that also provides for emergency and interlocutory measures"
Case Title : N. Mehta Infra Realty LLP v. Deepa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20310 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 386
The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief pending arbitration by directing three occupants of a co-operative housing society to vacate their premises within two weeks.
The court held that, in the facts of the case, the disputes raised by them could not justify delaying a redevelopment project after 15 of the society's 17 members had already executed the redevelopment documents and the necessary municipal approvals had been obtained.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, “Delay by only a few members may not remain confined to their own premises. It may affect the rights and expectations of all remaining members and may also cause financial difficulties and uncertainty to the entire redevelopment project.”
Case Title : Jaycee Homes Private Limited v. Kurla Moon Rock Municipal Employee Cooperative Housing Society Limited
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 106 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 389
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Jaycee Homes Private Limited in its plea to restrain Kurla Moon Rock Municipal Employee Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. from appointing another developer and to appoint a Court Receiver over the society's property.
It held that obtaining municipal approvals under a registered development agreement, by itself, does not establish that a developer was ready and willing to perform its contractual obligations.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, "Except obtaining the municipal approvals, no material is pointed out to show that the petitioner was in a position to commence the work. Merely obtaining approvals may not establish that the petitioner remained ready and willing to perform its obligations under the agreement."
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹86.02 Lakh Award Against CDSL Says Depositories Cannot Avoid Liability
Case Title : Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 41571 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 385
The Bombay High Court on 2 July held that a depository cannot escape liability for loss caused to an investor due to negligence by its depository participant by claiming that the participant became the beneficial owner of the securities after transfer.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande upheld an arbitral award directing Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. (CDSL) to pay Rs. 86.02 lakh with 9% post award interest to investor Daksha Bhavsar. The judges observed:
“The liability under Section 16 of the Depositories Act to indemnify the beneficial owner is absolute, once a negligent act by Depository Participant is established and it is open for the Appellant as Depository to recover the said amount from the Participant as per its own bye-laws.”
Case Title : Antariksh Realtors Private Limited vs The Vidyavihar Palmview Coop. Housing Society Limited & Ors
Case Number : COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.19179 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 374
The Bombay High Court has held that the absence of a bank guarantee under the Maharashtra government's redevelopment guidelines, by itself, cannot invalidate a housing society redevelopment project or justify refusing interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Holding so, the court observed, "Once this Court has already held that furnishing of bank guarantee under the Government Resolution is recommendatory and not mandatory, mere absence of a bank guarantee cannot make the redevelopment process invalid."
Justice Amit Borkar passed the order on July 7 while allowing a petition filed by Antariksh Realtors Pvt Ltd seeking interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute concerned the redevelopment of Vidyavihar Palmview Co-operative Housing Society.
The court further observed, "Whether such security is sufficient or not is a matter which may arise between the Society and the developer. That issue cannot be a ground to refuse interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act."
Telangana High Court
Case Title : OWH SE i.L. v. United Company RUSAL International P.J.S.C. & Ors.
Case Number : EXEP No. 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 45
The Telangana High Court has recently dismissed an execution petition filed by German company OWH SE i.L. seeking enforcement of London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) awards against Russian aluminium producer United Company RUSAL International P.J.S.C. (RUSAL) and its subsidiaries. The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
The court stayed the operation of its judgment until June 2, 2026, to enable OWH to prefer an appeal.
While doing so, Justice T. Madhavi Devi held that Qatar-based AL Plus Holding LLC and Russia-based International Limited Liability Company Gershvin LLC, subsidiaries of RUSAL, could be impleaded in the execution proceedings.
The bench observed, "It is clear that third parties also can be made parties to the enforcement of Arbitral Awards provided it is proved that the funds/shares/assets have been transferred in order to avoid enforcement of the Arbitral Tribunal Awards. Thus, in order to verify whether R2 and R3 are alter egos of R1, it is necessary to pierce the corporate veil to find out whether the companies have been formed/created for diversion of the assets of R1 only or whether the assets of R1 have been diverted to R3 and in turn to R2 to evade the enforcement of arbitral proceedings has to be seen."
Case Title KPB Consumers vs. Swmabhan Commerce Private Limited
Case Number COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No.21 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 42
The Telangana High Court has recently held that an award-holder can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to seek interim protection until an arbitral award is actually enforced. The remedy remains available even after the award becomes enforceable.
A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar ruled that the expression "before it is enforced" in Section 9 refers to the completion of enforcement proceedings. It cannot be equated with the stage when an award merely becomes enforceable.
"Section 9(1) provides a straightforward answer by the words 'before it is enforced' as opposed to 'the award becomes enforceable' (absent in the provision). Hence, from a purely grammatical point of view, the word 'enforced' would mean completion or culmination of the enforcement proceedings. The finality attached to the word 'enforced' is unmistakable; there is no further recourse for enforcement of the Award. On the other hand, 'enforceable' would mean a process in continuum which is devoid either of finality or a conclusive enforcement of the arbitral Award.", the court held.
Kerala High Court
Court-Recorded Compromise In Arbitration Dispute Can Be Executed: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Invis Private Limited v. Ajith M.R and Ors
Case Number: OP(C) No. 2182 of 2024
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 142
The Kerala High court has held that a compromise recorded while disposing of proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is executable.
It observed that a party which voluntarily enters into a settlement, secures its benefits and invites the court to pass an order in terms of the compromise cannot later contend that the order is unenforceable.
Justice T.R. Ravi said, "After having arrived at a settlement and having invited the court to pass an order in terms of the settlement, it is not open to the petitioner to claim at a later point of time, that the said order cannot be enforced. The claim itself is preposterous particularly since the benefit of the said settlement has already been earned by the petitioner by having procured the compliance of the obligations of the 1st respondent."
Case Title : Karthik Exports & Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
Case Number : CRP No. 437 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 128
The Kerala High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal can decide a claim raised by one respondent against another under a tripartite agreement where the parties have agreed to refer all disputes arising out of the contract to arbitration.
The court ruled that although the claim had been labelled a "counterclaim", it was, in substance, an independent contractual claim between parties to the same agreement. It also noted that Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 makes it clear that arbitral tribunals are not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
As a result, the restriction under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC on counterclaims solely against a co-defendant could not apply in the present case.
Justice T.R. Ravi delivered the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by Karthik Exports and its managing partner, S. Vijayan. They had challenged a Commercial Court order declaring executable an arbitral award directing commission agent Krishna Kumar Agarwal to pay about ₹1.34 crore, along with 8% annual interest, to Preetha Vijayan, wife of S. Vijayan.
The court observed, “There can hence be no doubt that the parties had agreed to refer all disputes and differences arising out of the contract for arbitration. Claim of the 1st respondent against the 1st petitioner is one arising from the contract and hence is arbitrable. After having agreed before the High Court of Calcutta for reference to arbitration in an application in which all the parties to the contract were parties either as petitioner or respondents, it is not open to the petitioners to submit that the claim of the 1st respondent as against the 1st petitioner cannot be subject matter of the arbitration. Though it has been referred to as a counter claim, it is in effect a claim between the said parties.”
Case Title : Beautiful Properties Pvt Ltd v. The Airports Authority of India
Case Number: AR No. 215 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 118
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that mere exchange of letters or representations between parties cannot extend the limitation period for filing an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice S. Manu observed that once limitation begins to run, recurrent communications between parties cannot stop or stretch the statutory period.
“If a party waits indefinitely, without seeking reference by approaching the Court under S.11 of the Act, even after the 'breaking point', it cannot be permitted to justify the delay citing repeated communications with the opposite party,” it held.
The court made the observation while dismissing an arbitration request filed by Beautiful Properties Pvt. Ltd. against the Airports Authority of India (AAI) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
Case Title : Sreekala K.V. v. Project Director, National Highways Authority of India & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 26 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 129
The Kerala High Court has held that overlooking the provisions of the enabling statute while passing an arbitral award is an act in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
It said such a glaring contravention justifies interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, while upholding the setting aside of an arbitral award that had enhanced compensation for land acquired for the NH-47 bypass.
Justice S. Manu observed, "Above all, the arbitrator has not properly applied his mind in the matter of fixing of market value with reference to the various factors enumerated under Section 3G(7) of the National Highways Act. Failure in this regard is a patent illegality. Exercising the authority to pass an award, overlooking the provisions of the enabling statute, is definitely an act in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law. The said glaring contravention justifies interference in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act."
Case Title : Bharat Sursingh Asher and Ors v. Rupa Praveen Asher
Case Number : AR No. 292 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 123
The Kerala High Court has recently held that, for the purpose of arbitration requests filed under the Kerala High Court Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, a "duly certified copy" of a private arbitration agreement does not have to be certified by a public authority.
It held that the requirement is satisfied where the party files an affidavit certifying the copy as a true copy of the original, explains why the original has not been produced, and submits a copy attested to by the party or its counsel.
Justice S. Manu delivered the ruling while allowing an arbitration request filed by Bharat Sursingh Asher, Rajesh Girdhardas Asher and Hemangi B. Asher. They sought the appointment of arbitrators to resolve disputes relating to the partnership firm, Jairam and Sons.
"In such situations there cannot be any certification of a copy of the agreement by a public authority. Therefore, the expression 'duly certified copy thereof' employed in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Scheme, in the case of private agreements, can only mean copies duly attested by the parties to the agreement or their counsel.", the court held.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Against Tuticorin Port Trust Over Water Charges
Case Title : M/s. Tuticorin Port Trust (now M/s. V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust) v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board & Anr.
Case Number : O.S.A. No. 30 of 2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 195
The Madras High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award that held Tuticorin Port Trust (now V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust) liable to pay water charges under the "Other Beneficiaries" category from December 1, 2002. The dispute arose between the Port Trust and the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board).
A division bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that the award suffered from patent illegality. It found that the arbitrator failed to explain why the finding that 90% of the water supplied to the Port Trust was used for domestic purposes became irrelevant after the revised tariff classification came into force.
It observed, "The Award does not adequately explain why the finding regarding the domestic use of water was no longer relevant after the revised classification came into force."
Case Title : T.K. Kares v. The Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank Limited (REPCO Bank) & Ors.
Case Number : CRP No. 3608 of 2026 & CMP No. 15693 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 192
The Madras High Court has upheld execution proceedings initiated by a Sales Officer appointed by the Central Registrar to enforce an arbitral award passed under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, holding that where the Act itself provides the procedure for execution, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not govern the process.
Justice P.B. Balaji dismissed a civil revision petition filed by T.K. Kares, the judgment-debtor, who had challenged the execution proceedings initiated in favour of The Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank Limited (REPCO Bank).
The court observed, "Section 84(5) clearly opens with a rider that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would apply, only if not otherwise provided under this Act. When Section 94 clearly provides for the manner of execution of decisions or orders made under the Act, including Section 84, with the amendment coming into effect on 03.08.2023, I am unable to see any merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel fro the petitioner that only the provisions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would apply and not the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
Case Title : Vatchala Kanagasabapathy and Anr v. M/s Eros Theater Shantha Sundaram Mahal and Ors
Case Number : Arb. Appln No. 1688 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 186
The Madras High Court has held that a sole arbitrator can proceed to pronounce an arbitral award even if the respondents' counsel does not produce documents he had undertaken to file and later withdraws his vakalat, provided the matter has already been reserved for passing of the award.
The court held that no further orders were required in the application and closed it.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed, "This Court is of the view that, when the matter had been reserved for passing of the award and an undertaking had been given by the learned counsel for the respondents to produce certain documents, which had not been produced, there is no necessity to seek the consent of the respondent to pass the award and the learned Arbitrator can proceed to pass the award in accordance with law.”
Case Title : Nirmal Datacomm Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Redington (India) Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : OSA No. 16 of 2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 179
The Madras High Court has held that a party that knew of arbitral proceedings, sought adjournments, and then remained ex parte cannot raise a challenge to the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator for the first time in a Section 37 appeal after remaining silent for nearly ten years.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed an appeal by Nirmal Datacomm Private Limited and others against an arbitral award directing them to pay Redington (India) Limited over ₹6.44 crore with 18% interest.
Holding that the appellants' conduct amounted to waiver and acquiescence, the Court observed:
“In the present case, the appellants/respondents who had notice of the Arbitral proceedings, sought time to appear before the Arbitrator, but thereafter, deliberately failed to participate, and remained silent for nearly 10 years ordinarily cannot later challenged the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator for the first time in proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act, 1996. Further, under Section 4 of the A&C Act, 1996, the party who knows of a procedural irregularity but proceeds without timely objection is deemed to have waived the objection. Under Section 16 of the A&C Act, 1996, objections relating to the jurisdiction or constitution of the Tribunal should ordinarily be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal itself.”
Registered Mortgage Does Not Bar Arbitration In Simple Money Recovery Claims: Madras High Court
Case Title : Marsalin & Anr. v. M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited
Case Number : Arb. Appeal (MD) No. 59 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 174
The Madras High Court on 1 July held that a simple money recovery claim is arbitrable even if the underlying loan transaction is secured by a registered mortgage deed, provided the lender does not seek enforcement, foreclosure or sale of the mortgaged property.
Justice S. Sounthar dismissed an appeal filed by borrowers Marsalin and Mary Rani Subi, upheld an arbitral award directing them to pay Rs. 15,70,637 to Shriram City Union Finance Limited, and affirmed the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli's order refusing to set aside the award.
Drawing a distinction between a money recovery claim and enforcement of mortgage rights, the Bench observed:
“In cases, where the claim is filed seeking recovery of money, the mortgage deed entered between the parties can be relied on for the purpose of proving the loan transaction. Merely because, the mortgage deed entered between the parties were marked as evidence of loan transactions, the claim cannot be treated as the one for enforcement of mortgage. The award passed by the sole Arbitrator at the most can only be treated as award for money against the person of the appellant and it is not an award against the property.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Prem Lal Jain v Sujoy Kumar Dey and Others
Case Number : APO 220/2015 and APO 75/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 161
The Calcutta High Court recently held that the mere expeditious conclusion of arbitral proceedings, by itself, does not establish fraud vitiating an award. Fraud must be demonstrated through cogent attending circumstances and cannot be inferred from speed alone.
The bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi set aside an order passed by the executing court in an award arising from a sale dispute, holding that no case of fraud had been made out.
The court held, “Simplicitor on the ground that, the arbitration proceeding was disposed of expeditiously, without any other attending circumstances support fraud being perpetrated we are not in a position to return a finding, the award stood vitiated by fraud.”
Case Title : Omkar Tradecomm LLP & Ors. Vs. Mayank Agarwal & Ors.
Case Number : A.P.O. No. 41 of 2024 With AP/850/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 172
The Calcutta High Court has held that the requirement to institute commercial disputes before its Commercial Division applies not only to suits but also to applications involving the specified value.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi clarified that Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 governs not only commercial suits but also applications, including petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
It accordingly set aside the Single Judge's June 15, 2023 judgment after holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to receive and decide the Section 9 petitions. The Bench also dismissed the underlying Section 9 proceedings.
The Court observed, "Filing of the suits in Commercial Division is governed by Section 7 of the Act of 2015. Section 7 also governs the filing of applications relating to commercial dispute of a Specified Value. Section 7 of the Act of 2015, therefore, should not be dissected to mean that, so far as filing of suits are concerned, suits involving commercial dispute of a Specified Value must be filed in the Commercial Division while, an application under the Act of 1996 relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value can be filed either in the non-Commercial Division or in the Commercial Division."
Withdrawal Of Civil Suit Doesn't Extinguish Arbitration Agreement: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Lipika Ghosh v. Great Island Development Company and Others
Case Number : AP 79 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 174
The Calcutta High Court has held that withdrawal of an earlier civil suit without liberty to institute fresh proceedings does not extinguish the arbitration agreement or bar a subsequent petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for constitution of an arbitral tribunal.
In doing so, the Court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, which involved the unconditional withdrawal of an earlier Section 11 application.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held that the effect of withdrawing the civil suit may be raised as a defence against the maintainability of particular claims before the arbitral tribunal, but it cannot prevent the constitution of the tribunal itself.
The Court observed, “The present proceeding is not one for adjudication of claims but merely for constitution of the arbitral forum. The Court is therefore not required to determine whether a particular claim would ultimately be maintainable before the Tribunal. The withdrawal of the suit may furnish a defence before the Tribunal regarding the maintainability of any particular claim, but cannot extinguish the arbitration agreement itself. At this stage, this Court is merely called upon to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. It would, therefore, be premature for this Court to examine whether the claim which the petitioner intends to pursue before the Tribunal would be barred by principles of res judicata, or otherwise.”
Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Rejecting ₹205.70 Crore Claims Against KMRCL
Case Title : ITD-ITD CEM JOINT VENTURE Vs. KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : APOT/103/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 175
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by ITD-ITD CEM Joint Venture and upheld an arbitral award rejecting its claims of about ₹205.70 crore against Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (KMRCL).
It found no ground to interfere with the tribunal's conclusions or the earlier order refusing to set aside the award.
A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the May 8, 2026 judgment of the Single Judge.
It held, "We are of the view that the Learned Single Judge has correctly exercised parameters of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 in evaluating the challenge to the award. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order or the award."
Case Title : Steel Authority of India Limited (IISCO Steel Plant) v. Balaji Industrial Products Limited
Case Number : AO COM/21/2026 with AP No. 1097 of 2013 (Old No. APO/65/2024)
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 169
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Steel Authority of India Limited (IISCO Steel Plant) to pay more than ₹2.05 crore to Balaji Industrial Products Limited.
The court found no ground to interfere with the arbitrator's conclusion that SAIL had wrongfully terminated a contract for the supply of 60,000 metric tonnes of iron ore.
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the arbitrator's findings represented a plausible view of the evidence and disclosed no perversity or patent illegality.
Observing that the contract imposed reciprocal obligations on both parties, the court held,
"The contract between the parties had reciprocal obligations. Appellant had the obligations to provide 60,000 metric tonnes of materials to the respondent. Appellant had the responsibility of having 60,000 metric tonnes of materials ready for delivery and uplift within 90 days from the date of the first payment. The quantity of materials promised by the appellant as ready for delivery was not available for delivery in view of the situation prevailing at the concerned mines."
Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Neo Metaliks In Lam Coke Supply Contract Dispute
Case Title : Neo Metaliks Limited Vs. Orrisa Metaliks Private Limited
Case Number : AO-COM No. 11 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 168
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an arbitral award in favour of Orissa Metaliks Pvt Ltd, dismissing Neo Metaliks Ltd's appeal arising from a dispute over a Lam Coke supply contract. The court found no perversity or patent illegality in either the arbitral award or the earlier judgment refusing to set it aside.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the arbitral award and affirmed the Single Judge's judgment of January 6, 2025. The Court said that the award was reasoned, considered the parties' contentions, and could not be termed perverse.
"Likewise, the learned Single Judge dealt with the contentions raised before it in the impugned judgment and order dated January 6, 2025. Appellant did not establish the impugned judgment and order dated January 6, 2025 to be perverse. The appellant did not establish the award dated October 16, 2023 to suffer from any patent illegality.", the court ruled.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Individual Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed For MSME Disputes U/S 18 MSMED Act: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : M/s Tynor Orthotics Pvt. Ltd. v. Himachal Pradesh Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Ors. (connected with M/s Tynor Orthotics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Kunal Aluminium Company & Anr.)
Case Number : CWP No. 8278 of 2022 along with Arbitration Case No. 206 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 26
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 7 July held that a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council cannot refer disputes under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) to an individual arbitrator and must either decide the dispute itself or refer it to an arbitral institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services.
A Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua set aside the ex parte arbitral award passed against Tynor Orthotics Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the reference made by the Himachal Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, holding that the Council had exceeded its statutory powers by appointing an individual arbitrator. It observed:
“Firstly, it is to be noticed that the empanelment of an arbitrator by the State Government would not make such arbitrators fall within the definition of the word 'Institution' or 'centre' of arbitration' as assigned in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Even if empanelled by the State Government, the arbitrator so empanelled would remain an individual arbitrator.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Hitachi Energy India Limited v. M/s Sarda Energy and Minerals Limited & Anr. connected with Hitachi Energy India Limited v. ABB Limited & Anr.
Case Number : REVP No. 392 of 2025 and REVP No. 362 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 19
The Chhattisgarh High Court has restored multinational engineering company ABB Ltd. as a party to two pending arbitration appeals after Hitachi Energy India Ltd. challenged an earlier order substituting it in ABB's place.
The court held that ABB could not be discharged from the proceedings merely on its own assertion that liability in the pending appeals had transferred to Hitachi under a National Company Law Tribunal-approved Scheme of Arrangement.
Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi held that whether liabilities arising from the pending appeals had transferred to Hitachi remained a disputed question. The issue, the court observed, required adjudication after impleading and hearing the alleged successor entity.
"If ABB Ltd. seeks to contend that, by virtue of the Scheme of Arrangement approved by the NCLT, such liability has stood transferred to Hitachi Energy India Ltd. (formerly ABB Power Products and Systems India Ltd.), the said contention necessarily requires adjudication after impleading and hearing the alleged successor entity. Until such determination is made, ABB Ltd. cannot be discharged from the proceedings merely on its own assertion of transfer of liability." the court observed.
Case Title : M/s Gulab Chand Jain v. Municipal Corporation Raipur & Ors.
Case Number : WP227 No. 651 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 18
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 2 July held that a party cannot defeat adjudication of a commercial dispute on merits by raising a technical objection that it filed a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before a court without pecuniary jurisdiction.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed a writ petition filed by Gulab Chand Jain challenging the transfer of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur's challenge to an arbitral award directing it to pay Rs. 2.32 crore with 8% annual interest to the contractor, and upheld the transfer of the proceedings from the Court of the 9th Additional District Judge, Raipur to the Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur. He observed:
"The transfer did not confer jurisdiction where none existed; rather, it facilitated continuation of proceedings before the Court which alone possessed jurisdiction under the statutory notification. No adjudication on merits was undertaken by the transferor Court after noticing the pecuniary limitation. The learned 9th Additional District Judge, Raipur merely acted in aid of implementation of the statutory notification and the directions issued by the High Court."
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : MSP Infrastructures Limited v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 53 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 52
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that a party cannot reopen the issue of maintainability at the stage of appointment of an arbitrator after having challenged an earlier arbitral award and after a court permitted fresh arbitration if disputes persisted.
The ruling came while the court appointed a fresh arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute between MSP Infrastructures Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MPRDCL).
Justice Deepak Khot held that the question of maintainability had already been settled between the parties in earlier proceedings. The court appointed former Madhya Pradesh High Court judge Justice Ved Prakash Sharma as the sole arbitrator.
The court observed, "Once the non applicant has prosecuted section 34 application under the Act of 1996, wherein liberty has been granted to the applicant to further arbitrate if dispute persists between the parties, then, in such case, the non applicant cannot reopen the issue of maintainability at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator under the Act of 1996."
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand HC Directs JUIDCO To Pay Eagle Infra's Dues, Holds Guarantee Release Admits Completion
Case Title : M/s Eagle Infra India Limited v. Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1563 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 16
The Jharkhand High Court on 15 July held that a public authority cannot withhold admitted contractual dues after releasing a contractor's performance bank guarantee, as such release shows that the authority accepted the contractor's satisfactory completion of contractual obligations.
Justice Ananda Sen allowed Eagle Infra India Limited's writ petition and directed Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited (JUIDCO) to clear the contractor's pending dues under the Harmu River Rejuvenation Project with 10% annual interest. The Bench observed:
“Release of Bank Guarantee / Performance Guarantee in favour of the petitioner will lead to the only inevitable conclusion that the petitioner has completed all its obligations under the contract even the post execution to the full satisfaction of the respondent. This act of release of Bank Guarantee is an admission of the respondent by conduct in support of the fact of unblemished completion of the work to the satisfaction of the Respondent.”
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : Gurbachan Singh & Anr. v. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Ors. connected with National Highways Authority of India v. Gurbachan Singh & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal from Order No. 224 of 2023 and Appeal from Order No. 307 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 11
The Uttarakhand High Court on 19 June held that an arbitral tribunal cannot determine the market value of acquired land under Section 26(1)(b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, unless it follows the statutory methodology of considering registered sale deeds executed during the three years immediately preceding the proposed acquisition and identifies the transactions relied upon.
Justice Ravindra Maithani upheld the arbitral award granting landowners Gurbachan Singh and Harjinder Kaur compensation at Rs. 11,000 per square metre while deciding cross appeals filed by them and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). He held:
“It is evident that under issue no. 3, the AT did not follow the scheme of Section 26(1)(b) of the 2013 Act. Which sale deeds were considered? It is nowhere specified by the AT. What were the rates in those sale deeds? Sale deeds of preceding three years were to be taken into consideration, which has not been done.”
Rajasthan High Court
Order Requiring Deposit Of Entire Arbitral Award For Stay Not Appealable: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. Origo Commodities India Private Limited
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2450/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 30
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an order directing a party to deposit the entire arbitral award amount as a condition for staying enforcement of the award is not appealable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Holding that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, does not create an independent right of appeal, the bench observed, "As an upshot, we hold that an order passed under Section 36(3), whether granting stay unconditionally, conditionally, or refusing it, is not appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 confers no independent right of appeal against it."
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : NHAI v Rajib Boruah
Case Number: Arb.A./7/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 20
The Gauhati High Court recently observed that an order directing the release of a deposited award amount during the pendency of a Section 34 challenge cannot be appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench of Justice Robin Phukan held an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an interim order directing the release of the award amount to a landowner to be non-maintainable.
The court held, “The upshot of aforesaid discussion is that the appellant herein cannot typically challenge the order releasing the deposited amount directly under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the same is not one of the enumerated appealable orders.”